Ted Hsu

[Business of Supply, April 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my riding of Kingston and the Islands borders New York State. I would like to know how this increase in prices for consumers in Kingston and the Islands will affect their tendency to cross the border to shop in New York.

[Hydroelectric Project, March 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity today to speak to Motion No. 412 on the federal loan guarantee for the Lower Churchill hydroelectric project. The intent of this motion is to express support for using the federal government's sovereign credit rating to lower the financing costs for regionally significant natural resource development projects. In this particular case, it is addressing the financing of the Lower Churchill hydroelectric projects in Labrador and in the maritime provinces.

Last fall, the federal government and the Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia governments reached agreement on the terms and conditions for this federal loan guarantee. The first thing I would like to say is that given that this agreement has been reached, I am not so sure it is so important for the House to be considering this motion. It feels a little too much like a pat on the back for the government of the day. In my opinion, it is a lost opportunity to make good use of the time in the House not only for the good of northern Ontario but for all of Canada.

I am a little surprised that if the government wished to discuss this issue, no Conservative members from Atlantic Canada sponsored this motion. A member from northern Ontario had to use a precious northern Ontario spot for private members' business to address an Atlantic Canada issue. Nevertheless, the motion is what it is.

Let me say that we in the Liberal Party support the principle of federal loan guarantees for regional resource development projects, assuming that due consideration has been given to the concerns of aboriginal peoples, environmental concerns, and the economic impact and viability of the projects. Therefore, we will be supporting this motion.

The Liberal Party is in favour of loan guarantees for such projects and other provincial resource development projects. That is why we support the motion. I feel the need to emphasize, however, that the Conservative government needs to let the other provinces and territories know whether or not it intends to extend similar guarantees for their large-scale clean energy projects and whether or not it intends to establish a national framework to that end.

There are other possible projects in the region, in fact, for which we might consider loan guarantees, such as bringing power from Quebec into Atlantic Canada or bringing power to Prince Edward Island, where electricity rates are very high. These are the other sorts of natural resource projects, which are important in a regional sense, that we should be thinking about in the future for federal loan guarantees. I would hope the government would consider setting up a framework, something bigger than just a loan guarantee for one project, such as the one we are considering today.

While we support the motion because we support its intent, we do not agree with some of the premises of the motion. We wish to point out that the reality of the situation is not as sunny as the motion would have Canadians believe. I believe that the less spin we have, especially here in Ottawa, and the more reality, the better it is for Canada.

I would like to expand on that point. We agree that electricity generation from these hydroelectric projects will displace the old oil-burning Holyrood thermal generating station. We understand that jobs will be created in the construction of this project and that a stable electricity supply will be available for industry and for export.

However, the reality is not as sunny as the motion implies, because for one, electricity rates will go up. Ratepayers in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia will be on the hook for the cost of these projects and for possible cost overruns. The federal government is not on the hook for cost overruns; ratepayers are. Yes, jobs will be created by the project, but there will also be a drag on the economy from higher electricity costs. The picture is only partly sunny.

The Labrador Inuit and the Labrador Métis feel that they have been left out and were not properly consulted. They feel left out of the benefits of the project. The Innu nations support the project and have signed agreements. Again, the situation is really only partly sunny.

To reiterate, it is important to bring out the complexities of any issue so that we talk more about reality in the House and less about spin. Environmental groups have launched a court challenge over the Lower Churchill project. Large-scale hydroelectric generation involves flooding, and that means damage to a watershed and damage to habitat. The Red Wine caribou herd is affected. There is also potential mercury poisoning from the release of naturally occurring mercury when flooding occurs.

Hydroelectric resources, if developed sustainably, environmentally, economically and socially, can be a great resource. In this case, it would be to the benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Liberals support the federal loan guarantee for the Lower Churchill falls hydroelectric project. Liberals support the principle of loan guarantees, assuming that due consideration has been given to the concerns of aboriginal peoples, to environmental concerns and to the overall economic impact and viability of the project.

However, large projects can affect entire regions, as this one does. We know that benefits can be uneven. There is some controversy. Not everybody is in agreement. We have to acknowledge that, even as we express our support for the loan guarantee. Provinces can have disputes.

Canada, with its great geographic diversity, could benefit from the government thinking a lot larger than just one project. Canada would benefit if its federal and provincial governments thought about a pan-Canadian energy strategy. This set of hydroelectric projects really illustrates how a lot of different provinces—Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Quebec and so on—are affected by a single project. In this sense, it is too bad this motion addresses only the Lower Churchill hydroelectric project.

We support the motion, but this is an opportunity we could have taken to discuss a much grander vision to link the energy and economic futures of the different provinces and the diverse regions of Canada as we work together toward a shared future of prosperity and sustainability. I would ask that the government think about this and perhaps have a bigger and longer-term vision for the country's economic future and the future of using its natural resources for the most benefit for all of its people, provinces and diverse regions.

I wish to conclude simply by saying that I support the motion. I hope that it will lead to a much larger discussion.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the remarks by my colleague, it is dishonest for the government to claim credit for the decrease in Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. The biggest credit for change in greenhouse gas emissions must go to the recession that started in 2008-09, which has decreased manufacturing across the country. Credit should go to provincial governments, such as the Government of Ontario and the Government of Alberta. The member's own province of Alberta has put a price on the emissions of fossil carbon. Credit has to go to municipal governments. The member's own city, Calgary, has taken many actions for which it could commend itself. Therefore, the economics of natural gas versus coal have changed.

The member must, to be honest, admit that the government cannot claim credit for the decrease in greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.

[The Budget, March 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, to follow up on the line of questioning from the previous questioner, it seems there is something artificial in the budget balancing here.

We have shovel-ready projects across the country for needed infrastructure. Yet, the funding for infrastructure has been loaded into the back. It would be decreased in the next couple of years and then it would increase quite a lot in the future. It seems artificial because it seems it is there so the budget can be balanced by 2015 and the government can go into an election saying, “We balanced the budget. Then, we have all this infrastructure spending. Then, we have all these tax credits going away. Then we have something that has not even been included, which are the promises in the last election campaign for further program spending that would depend upon the budget being balanced”.

I do not even know if the budget will actually be balanced because once it is balanced the government has promised to spend a whole bunch more. It is all very artificial, and it is all timed around the next election.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague to comment on that.

[The Budget, March 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about all the advantages of the 2013 budget. It promised a lot of things.

If the budget is so good, could he please explain why the government needs to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising to tell everyone that it is doing good things?

In fact, the advertising does not even explain any details of why the government is spending what it is spending. It is simply just to put some good feelings in Canadians. If the government thinks the budget is so great, why does it think it is so great to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on these kinds of feel-good advertisements?

[The Budget, March 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I was surprised to hear my hon. colleague from the government side say in his question that we can create jobs by lowering taxes. The question is, where does the money come from for research and training?

Where does the money come from to set up a regulatory system and to set up the infrastructure that our economy depends on? What about a legal system or regulations for communication? All of these things are needed by an economy and they all come from common benefits for which it is very appropriate that the government pays.

I would like to invite my colleague on the opposition side to further respond to the claim that the only way we can create jobs is by lowering taxes.

[The Budget, March 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but respond to the accusations made by my hon. colleague that my party is a party of reckless spending. It is unbelievable that she would say that.

My hon. colleague talked about cutting taxes so that money can circulate in the economy. I know that the finance minister is concerned about the large amount of cash that Canadian corporations and, indeed, corporations around the world are holding. They are holding that cash because they are afraid of the global economic risks that would bear upon any investment of that cash.

However, there is a tax credit that actually encourages companies to put that cash to use and take risks and invest, and that is the scientific research and experimental development tax, which was cut last year. I think the budget is a missed opportunity to restore these tax credits. I admit that it is a form of spending, but it is a way of encouraging corporations with a lot of cash on their books to take some risks, invest in research and development and invest in job creation.

[The Budget, March 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Alberta. She is perhaps the best MP from Alberta that we currently have. I will not dispute that. Why should I?

It is disappointing that the government did not choose the opportunity presented by the budget to restore funding for the Experimental Lakes Area. I want to commend my colleague for mentioning that.

I would like to read an email that I received from a Conservative, no less, which says “The ELA facility is world-renowned and scientifically irreplaceable. It is worth saving. When did we as Conservatives stop trying to do the right thing?”

I find it amazing. I know there is support from all across the country for what is an extremely good use of money, something that provides a good return on investment, which I am sure the Conservatives will understand.

I am wondering if my colleague could comment on the poor decision to not restore funding for the ELA.

[The Budget, March 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, for a couple of years now, I have been hearing from constituents about how it is difficult to get apprenticeships. I have also heard about the long-term projections that show us we need young people to consider entering the skilled trades.

I wonder why the emphasis the government placed on apprenticeships in this years' budget could not have been put into previous year's budgets. Why has the government waited so long to put out a budget that has an emphasis on apprenticeships?

The reason why I ask this is it seems we are paying the price now. I was talking to somebody from Windsor who was saying that the automobile industry was going gangbusters now and that there were auto parts suppliers in Windsor that did not have enough people to do the work that they could be doing. This is because of a lack of people in the skilled trades.

[Petitions, March 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I just found out today about this petition that I received from my constituents. It is rather appropriate since around this time of year people are giving to the “share Lent” campaign and that money goes to the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace.

The petition from people in Kingston asks the government to reverse its CIDA funding cuts to the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace. Funding for the organization used to fund development assistance in 40 countries. Now it is down to seven countries and only one of them is in Africa. Therefore, the petitioners ask, in the spirit of global solidarity, for the government to grant the full funding of $49.2 million over five years to the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace.