May 18th
- MP
conFri 9:15 am | Ontario, ThornhillMr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Ssince January 1, 2006, Parks Canada has not sold, subdivided, leased, or in any other way alienated or dealt with its holdings of real property on the east side of Little Lake in Peterborough, Ontario.
With regard to (b), Parks Canada is not considering doing so.
With regard to (c), Ssince the answer to (a) is no, this is not applicable.
With regard to (d), Parks Canada has not communicated with any federal or provincial parliamentarians regarding Government of Canada holdings of real property on the east side of Little Lake in Peterborough, Ontario.
- MP
conFri 9:05 am | Quebec, BeauceMr. Speaker, what has the Bloc Québécois done for the regions of Quebec over the past few years? Absolutely nothing. We, on the contrary, are working with all the regions—the regions of Ontario, Quebec and particularly western Canada—to make our country more prosperous.
We have confidence in our entrepreneurs. They are the ones who create wealth and employment in Canada. We must support them. That is what we are doing with our budgetary measures, which have been very well received by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and small businesses across Canada.
- MPconFri 9:00 am | Quebec, Beauce
Mr. Speaker, all Canadians know that we have a plan to ensure that Canada becomes more prosperous and even more free: the economic action plan that we tabled recently.
Unlike the NDP members opposite, we are not trying to pit one region of Canada against another. We are working with all Canadians to ensure that there are jobs available for everyone.
We are doing this while—it is important to point out—managing the deficit and ensuring that we return to a balanced budget as soon as possible so that we can continue to decrease taxes for Canadian workers.
- MP
conFri 9:00 am | Alberta, Calgary—Nose HillMr. Speaker, we are pleased with independent reports indicating that the elections appear to have been free and fair, and with no reports of violence. I especially note that 30% of the newly elected Algerian parliament are women.
Canada is also very encouraged by the recent political reforms that have taken place in Algeria. We support the new government as it continues on this positive path. Canada's foreign policy is based on supporting and promoting across the globe the principles of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
- MP
conFri 8:45 am | Nova Scotia, Central NovaThat is not true, Mr. Speaker. Once again and as always, this hon. member is providing inaccurate information.
We are in fact relocating professionals to Petawawa, in order to have them closer to those members of the military who will need that support. We have had to do so because of retirements and because individuals have transferred to new jobs. This is common turnaround within the Canadian Forces.
We are moving forward to hire more mental health professionals. We, in fact, have a goal of doubling the number. We are moving rapidly in that direction and will continue to support those soldiers, their families and our veterans when they need those services.
- MPconFri 8:40 am | Nova Scotia, Central Nova
Mr. Speaker, we will not speculate. What I would suggest is that the member take a look at the recommendations that will be coming out when the secretariat has a chance to bring all of these departments together to look at this important procurement project.
I would also suggest and encourage him to support this important replacement of the CF-18. This is a very major investment for our country. It is great for the aerospace industry. It will ensure that we have the ability to participate in Norad and NATO missions in the future. That is why we are pursuing this important replacement project, as we are on a number of fronts when it comes to our military.
- MP
conFri 7:55 am | Alberta, Edmonton—Sherwood ParkMr. Speaker, I look back and see that the apology has been made by the Prime Minister on behalf of the government. It was made with very much respect and in front of thousands of people. Many people I speak to are very proud of the fact that their government has apologized. He is the first Prime Minister to do so.
It is time to move on. It is time to educate others about what happened in that incident. We have provided funding for a museum, for online projects, for books and for a monument.
I can only think that the NDP is bringing this up now as a political ploy. It is unfortunate that it would bring such an emotional issue up as a matter of politics.
The apology has been made, with respect, in front of thousands of people.
- MPconFri 7:50 am | Alberta, Edmonton—Sherwood Park
Mr. Speaker, I find it a little rich for a Liberal member to stand and ask for an apology. First, the apology has already been made, with a great deal of respect, in front of thousands of people. It is a little rich for the Liberal Party to even talk about this when for the 13 years it was government it had an opportunity, over two prime ministers, to make this apology, and it chose not to.
It was this government and this Prime Minister who, very respectfully, in front of thousands of people, officially apologized for the Komagata Maru incident. I am proud of the fact that I am part of the first government to apologize for this incident.
- MPconFri 7:35 am | Alberta, Edmonton—Sherwood Park
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Prime Minister's apology on behalf of the Government of Canada for the Komagata Maru incident of 1914.
[Member spoke in Punjabi]
May 17th
- MP
conMay 17, 2012 1:15 pm | Alberta, Calgary SoutheastMr. Speaker, that counts as one of the least helpful, misinformed and frankly arrogant speeches I have heard out of dozens offered in this place over the course of two Parliaments on the issue of asylum reform.
When I say arrogance I mean, for example, that the member speaks about ignoring the witnesses because she only seems to give any plausibility to the witnesses of the ideological left who agree with her position. She gives no credence whatsoever to the many witnesses who testified in favour of this bill and its many provisions.
There are two things I find most disturbing, though, about that speech.
The first is her hyperbolic and demagogic rhetoric suggesting that this bill represents a killing of our tradition of refugee protection. Will she not recognize that the government is actually increasing by 20% the number of resettled refugees we accept, so we would be the largest recipient of resettled refugees per capita in the world? Does she characterize that as killing our tradition? Will she not recognize that these reforms would create for the first time ever a full fact-based appeal, which has never before existed in our system, which would benefit the vast majority of failed asylum claimants? Does she think that is killing our tradition of refugee protection?
The second is this. What does she propose to do to stop human smugglers from targeting Canada? She has not said a single word that would be a constructive idea to deter people from committing to pay $40,000 to $50,000 a year to a bunch of gangsters to come to Canada illegally and dangerously. Is her idea to do nothing?
- MPconMay 17, 2012 12:45 pm | Alberta, Calgary Southeast
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for participating in the debate. I think she is misinformed in a number of respects, one of which is the suggestion that Roma asylum claimants are not being fairly considered by our refugee system. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Under the current system and the system proposed by Bill C-38, claimants from whatever country of origin, ethnicity or cultural or racial background will all have the same access to the same fair and independent quasi-judicial process on the merits of their claim before an independent decision-maker of the quasi-judicial IRB in a manner that is consistent with natural justice and due process and that exceeds the requirements of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the 1951 refugee convention.
The member raises the notion that somehow there is a negative prejudice associated with asylum claims from European Roma. I have certainly done nothing to suggest such a negative prejudice. However, what I have done is comment on the objective mathematical fact that since we granted visa exemptions for several European countries in 2007 and 2008, some 95% of the European asylum claimants have not shown up for their own refugee hearing at the IRB and have abandoned or withdrawn their own claims. Of the tiny fraction that went to adjudication, only a tiny fraction of those were deemed to actually be well-founded asylum claims.
Is the member not concerned to see such a large wave of demonstrably unfounded asylum claimants in our system, not based on my opinion but on the actions of the claimants themselves?
- MPconMay 17, 2012 12:35 pm | Alberta, Calgary Southeast
Mr. Speaker, I think the opposition misses the entire point.
The whole point is that parents should not be packing children onto a rusty boat that has been commandeered by a bunch of criminals to drag them across the Pacific Ocean at extreme risk in a smuggling operation, when we know that smuggling operations result in the death of thousands of people around the world every year.
The whole point is to send a message to such clients that they should not sign on the dotted line with the smuggling syndicate. If they want to come to Canada, they should make an application for immigration and come like everyone else. They should not come illegally. They should not come through the dangerous profiteering of a smuggling syndicate.
That is exactly the message that this bill seeks to send. I hope it is received for precisely that reason. If people are in a region of the world where they need refugee protection, they should go within their region to seek protection from the UN or another country. They should not pass through three transit countries and then bypass forty others in order to come to Canada in the most dangerous and illegal way possible.
Yes, this is designed to crack down on the clients of human smuggling, and that is the point of the bill. We have not heard a single alternative from the opposition about how to effectively do that.
- MPconMay 17, 2012 12:30 pm | Alberta, Calgary Southeast
Mr. Speaker, I have to point out that the official opposition, which on immigration matters is led by the member opposite, has proposed to delete every section of the bill, demonstrating, I submit, that it does not even pretend to take seriously the problems of human smuggling and the large numbers of fake asylum claims that are massively burdening our system, which must be addressed.
Canadians expect Parliament to act to deter human smugglers from targeting this country and treating it like a doormat. The single most important provision in the bill to deter human smugglers is the five-year bar on permanent residency for smuggled migrants who get a positive protection decision at the IRB.
I beg the member to understand the rationale. There is a black market for human smugglers. As long as people are willing to pay a certain price, there will be smugglers willing to bring them to Canada through this dangerous means of smuggling. We must change the business model. We must change the economics of the smuggling syndicates.
The only way we can effectively do that is to convey to potential smuggling clients that they will not be able to bring to Canada several members of their family who will help them to pay off their debt to the smuggling syndicate. That is why we proposed a five-year bar, so that those potential clients will not commit to paying $45,000 or $50,000 to these large and sophisticated syndicates.
This is the only and most effective provision to really seriously suppress the market for the clients of smuggling syndicates wanting to come to Canada.
- MPconMay 17, 2012 12:20 pm | Alberta, Calgary Southeast
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to continue the debate on Bill C-31, the Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act.
Canada and the government are proud of our tradition of being a country of openness to newcomers and a place of protection for refugees. Indeed, since the government came into office in 2006 we have maintained the highest sustained levels of immigration in Canadian history, admitting on average over 250,000 new permanent residents each year, and maintaining the world's strongest tradition of refugee protection.
We are increasing by some 20% the number of resettled refugees that we accept, increasing the integration support that they receive, so that Canada will receive the highest per capita number of resettled refugees in the world. Of course, we also have a generous refugee asylum determination system to ensure that foreigners who come to Canada who have a well-founded fear of persecution are not returned to face danger.
However, this bill is a necessary part of our efforts to protect the openness and generosity of our immigration and refugee protection systems against those who would seek to abuse Canada's generosity, more specifically, through commercial and dangerous human smuggling operations, fake asylum claims, large numbers of which are in our asylum system, and other efforts to subvert the integrity of our immigration system and the consistent application of its fair rules.
I would like to commend the members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on their diligent work and their many hours of hearings on Bill C-31. They heard from dozens of witnesses and diligently considered amendments to the bill.
The members who were in the House in the previous Parliament will remember that we passed Bill C-11, which set out a balanced refugee system. They will also remember that, at that time, the government and the opposition agreed to make certain amendments to the bill to ensure that it was balanced or, in other words, to make sure that the system was quick, effective and fair. At that time, we were happy with the results of that legislative effort.
However, since June 2010, there has been a huge increase in bogus refugee claims in Canada, particularly by EU nationals.
Indeed, last year, we received close to 6,000 refugee claims from EU nationals, which is more than the number of claims we receive from Africa or Asia. Almost none of these European refugee claimants attend their hearings before the Immigration and Refugee Board, and according to our fair and legal system, almost none of them are legitimate refugees.
That is one of the reasons why we need to strengthen the integrity of our system to really discourage bogus refugee claimants from coming to Canada and abusing our country's generosity. Processing these fake claims costs Canadian taxpayers approximately $50,000. These are the objectives of Bill C-31.
Further to the statements made by members of Parliament, including opposition members, and by some witnesses who appeared before the parliamentary committee, the government considered any reasonable amendments to create a better bill that meets its objectives of combatting human smuggling more effectively, preventing bogus refugee claims and strengthening the security of our system.
Let me review briefly some of the amendments that were adopted at committee.
First, one such amendment relates to clause 19. Clause 19 provides for the automatic loss of permanent resident status if an individual loses protected person status as a result of cessation.
Cessation means that the Immigration and Refugee Board, I emphasize the IRB, not the minister, can take away someone's refugee status if it is proven that the person no longer needs protection. It has always been in IRPA, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, since it became law in 2002.
Since we introduced Bill C-31, we have heard concerns that an improvement of the conditions in someone's country of origin could result in the automatic loss of an individual's permanent resident status by a decision of the IRB, regardless of how long they have been a permanent resident in Canada.
Some have worried that Canada was moving toward a conditional permanent residence situation for refugees, which I should point out is not unusual in other democratic countries. The United Kingdom and Germany, for example, do not grant immediate permanent residency for protected people. However, this was never the intention of the bill.
To clarify our intentions, we moved an amendment at committee that one automatic cessation ground be removed from clause 19. The cessation ground we are removing reads as follows:
the reasons for which the person sought refugee status have ceased to exist.
The effect of this amendment is that cessation for these reasons, such as a change in country conditions, would not result in automatic loss of permanent residency. This would ensure that permanent resident status is lost automatically only when the cessation decision of the IRB is the result of the individual's own actions.
For example, if people come to Canada, make an asylum claim that is accepted by the IRB, but shortly after receiving such status, they return to live in the country of origin, which they allegedly fled due to fear of persecution, we would reserve the right under IRPA to go before the IRB to say that it appears they never needed our protection because they have immediately re-availed themselves of their country of origin. Therefore we could commence proceedings of the IRB to seek an order to cease their protected person status and revoke their permanent residency, but that would only be if they have done something to demonstrate essentially that they defrauded our asylum system.
The government also moved an amendment that relates to pre-removal risk assessments, also known as PRRAs. When failed refugee claimants are given removal orders from Canada, they can under certain conditions apply for a PRRA, which would trigger a review to make certain that the failed claimants are not being removed into situations where they might face a risk of persecution, torture, cruel and unusual punishment or loss of life.
In its original form, Bill C-31 called for a one-year ban for failed refugee claimants, including those from countries that generally do not produce refugees, which I might add, is a phrase used by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.
This measure was intended to simplify the refugee system, eliminate duplication and expedite the removal of failed refugee claimants. The government proposed an amendment that extended this ban to three years for failed refugee claimants from countries that generally do not produce refugees.
The extension of the bar for these claimants is aimed at addressing existing process vulnerabilities that lead to misuse by those who are not in need of protection. It would facilitate the removals of those individuals not in need of Canada's protection, without the requirement to conduct a redundant second risk assessment.
Since the extension of the bar on PRRA would apply only to failed claimants from countries known to not normally produce refugees and generally considered safe, which countries, by the way, based on our proposed guidelines, would see at least three-quarters of asylum claims being rejected, abandoned or withdrawn, there is already a minimal likelihood of returning someone to a situation of risk.
It should also be noted that each eligible claimant would have received a hearing on the merits of his or her case before an independent decision-maker at the quasi-judicial IRB, which decision-maker would have rejected the claim and found no risk in returning the claimant.
In addition, the legislation would provide the minister with the ability to exempt someone from the bar on PRRA, either the one-year bar for most failed claimants or the three-year bar on PRRA for failed claimants from designated countries. That is to say, for example, that if there were to be a major event, say, a coup d'état or civil war in a country, the minister could exempt failed claimants from that country from the PRRA bar, allowing them to in fact apply for and receive a second risk assessment. It is also important to note that this amendment does not preclude a failed refugee claimant from continuing to seek leave to the Federal Court for judicial review of a negative decision of the refugee protection division of the IRB.
Some of the measures in Bill C-31 that received the most feedback from parliamentarians and members of the public were those that concerned the mandatory detention of foreign nationals who arrive in Canada as part of a designated irregular arrival, which effectively would be a large-scale human smuggling voyage. These measures, of course, were part of the section of the bill designed to deal with human smuggling.
This amendment would allow for a detention review by the immigration division of the IRB on the detention of a smuggled migrant in a designated arrival initially at 14 days prior to the detention and then subsequently at 6 months, rather than the 12 months that had originally been proposed in the bill.
I would like to once again thank all the members for their important work in committee. I am eager for all the amendments to be accepted here in the House.
- MPconMay 17, 2012 12:05 pm | Quebec, Beauce
First, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy with the work by my colleague from Yukon. He works very hard for his people and the economy there.
With his announcement today and the leadership of the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and our government, Canadians will be able to travel freely from the United States to Canada in an American rental car without any administrative hurdles.
That is good for the Yukon and good for Canada.
- MP
conMay 17, 2012 12:00 pm | British Columbia, Port Moody—Westwood—Port CoquitlamMr. Speaker, there is a reason why for 19 years the constituents of the member for Cariboo—Prince George have trusted him to represent their interests in the House of Commons. It is because he understands something about the west that the Leader of the Opposition does not, which is that western Canada's economy is indeed contributing to all of Canada's economy. The energy industry in Alberta, the forest industry in British Columbia and the mining sector all across western Canada is employing Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
It is not about the west versus everybody else, like the Leader of the Opposition plays it as. Developing our natural resources, uniting Canadians, creating wealth and creating jobs is good for British Columbia and good for all Canadians. That is what we understand. That is what the NDP apparently never will.
- MP
conMay 17, 2012 12:00 pm | Ontario, Niagara FallsMr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been very clear. We are not reopening the debate.
- MPconMay 17, 2012 11:55 am | British Columbia, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam
Mr. Speaker, frankly, the museum can make its own decisions about its programming. It is up to the museum's representatives to make this type of decision independently.
As I said, museums operate at arm's-length. This is its decision to make. It is also its responsibility to reflect the public's views on this. I know this has stirred a great deal of controversy. The future of this exhibit is up to the museum.
As I said, I believe in the independence of museums and I believe in sex education, but these things have to be handled with care, and I encourage the museum to do so.
- MPconMay 17, 2012 11:55 am | Ontario, Niagara Falls
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been very clear. This government will not reopen this debate.
- MPconMay 17, 2012 11:55 am | Alberta, Calgary Southeast
Mr. Speaker, when this government came to office in 2006, after 13 years of Liberal neglect and incompetence with respect to our immigration system, we inherited 840,000 people waiting in the Liberal immigration backlog for decisions for up to seven or eight years. That member belonged to the government that allowed seven and eight year wait times to develop.
Thanks to the action we have taken, consistently opposed by the Liberal Party, we have managed to cut the skilled worker backlog in half. Now we are going to a just-in-time immigration system that will accept newcomers within months rather than years. We are cleaning up the Liberals' mess.
- MPconMay 17, 2012 11:50 am | British Columbia, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam
Mr. Speaker, I believe in the independence of our museums and I also believe in sex education. The director of the museum asked me to view the exhibit. Unlike the member opposite, I have actually seen the exhibit and I respect the independence of the museum. However, I was asked for my opinion and, in my opinion, it is not appropriate for young children to be exposed to sexually explicit material without the consent of their parents. I made that view known to the museum.
The museum can make its own decisions about its own direction and its own exhibits. I made my view known and it is up to the museum to decide now where it goes.
- MP
conMay 17, 2012 11:45 am | Alberta, Edmonton—Spruce GroveMr. Speaker, the RCMP was asked by the Clerk of the Privy Council to look into a possible unauthorized disclosure of confidential information, which is done from time to time.
- MPconMay 17, 2012 11:45 am | Alberta, Edmonton—Sherwood Park
Mr. Speaker, our government is delivering on its commitment to phase out the $30 million per year taxpayer subsidy of political parties. Today I am happy to report that this year taxpayers will save $8 million as a result of our government's actions.
Unfortunately, it is not surprising that the big tax, big government NDP voted to keep this easy subsidy. This disrespect for taxpayers' money is typical of the NDP.
Political parties should do their own fundraising and not live off taxpayer-funded handouts.
- MP
conMay 17, 2012 11:40 am | Ontario, Ottawa West—NepeanMr. Speaker, I will tell the member opposite and all Canadians what the policy of this government is. It is to stand up for Canada, to stand up for Canadian interests and to stand up for Canadian values. We will do that each and every day.
I want to tell all members of the House how proud I am and how proud this government is of the Minister of Health for the absolutely outstanding job she has done for all Canadians as Minister of Health and, particularly, her approach to bringing the views of Inuit people to cabinet. She has done a phenomenal jobs and we are tremendously proud of her.
- MP
conMay 17, 2012 11:40 am | Territories (yk, nt, nu), NunavutMr. Speaker, I will talk about the UN rapporteur. He is so ill-informed that he has no idea what our government is doing to invest in nutrition north programs promoting a number of health program initiatives throughout the country.
The Liberals like to talk about food security but, at the same time, like the UN rapporteur, are trying to shut down the seal hunt, which is important to aboriginal people.
The member and the Liberal Senate bill basically state that they are of the same colour.
- MPconMay 17, 2012 11:35 am | Territories (yk, nt, nu), Nunavut
Mr. Speaker, yesterday what surprised me was the UN rapporteur's lack of understanding and knowledge about the aboriginal people, Inuit and their dependence on hunting wildlife for food security in Canada's Arctic.
What this amounts to is an academic study of aboriginal people in Canada's Arctic without ever setting foot on our grounds, walking in our footsteps and understanding some of the limitations as well as the incredible opportunities we have as aboriginal people in this country.
- MPconMay 17, 2012 11:25 am | British Columbia, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam
Mr. Speaker, our policies on employment insurance have been clear before the House. We believe that Canadians are entitled to employment insurance when and where they need it, and that Canadians who have paid into the system have an entitlement to those rights. We also want to make sure the Canadian economy continues to grow and goes in the right direction. The changes the leader of the Liberal Party is looking for and has sought are in fact in the budget implementation act.
We tabled our budget in the House almost two months ago. We have had a lot of debate on this. We are pleased to see our budget progressing through the House of Commons, and we look forward to a continuation of the debate, not only on EI but on how we can ensure the Canadian economy will serve all Canadians in all regions.
- MPconMay 17, 2012 11:20 am | British Columbia, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam
Mr. Speaker, that is not at all what happened, and the Leader of the Opposition is not going to change the subject.
The fact is, the Leader of the Opposition is attacking western Canada when it comes to our national resources. The Premier of Alberta, the Premier of Saskatchewan and thePremier of British Columbia are calling out the Leader of the Opposition for his unwarranted attack on western Canada, on our energy industry and on the thousands of jobs it is creating across Western Canada.
He should be ashamed of himself for attacking the west, dividing this country, and not even having visited the places he is attacking. It is unconscionable for someone who wants to be the prime minister of the country to be so utterly irresponsible.
- MPconMay 17, 2012 11:15 am | British Columbia, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam
Mr. Speaker, that is not at all what happened. The government has an obligation to protect sensitive information, and the Clerk of the Privy Council took appropriate action.
Since the Leader of the Opposition raised the question of “national embarrassments”, I am wondering when the Leader of the Opposition will apologize to western Canadians for suggesting that the strength of the western Canadian economy is a “disease” on Canada. He even admitted yesterday that he had not even been to the oil sands in western Canada.
He attacks western Canada, he attacks our energy industry, he attacks all of the west and the great work that is being done by western Canadians to contribute to Canada's national unity. He should be ashamed of himself.
- MP
conMay 17, 2012 7:10 am | Ontario, Parry Sound—MuskokaMr. Speaker, the Treasury Board Secretariat cannot produce these statistics by riding.
May 16th
- MPconMay 16, 2012 1:15 pm | Alberta, Calgary Southeast
Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago the member for Winnipeg North characterized as heartless and cruel the efforts to finally move toward a fast immigration system which will allow us to admit qualified applicants for immigration within a matter of months rather than years, ensuring they have better employment prospects and get higher incomes, better linking newcomers to our labour market.
Would the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands not agree with me that if anything was cruel, it was the former Liberal government's incompetent mismanagement of our immigration system, which left to this government in 2006 a backlog of nearly one million people waiting for up to eight years to immigrate to Canada? Would he not agree with me that was an example of terrible neglect of the immigration system on the part of the previous Liberal government?
- MP
conMay 16, 2012 12:10 pm | Alberta, MacleodMr. Speaker, every policy that we have put forward in the last three budgets to promote jobs and growth in this economy, the member and his colleagues, in fact all members on the other side of the House, have voted against.
We have EI in place as a tool to help those people who have lost their jobs.
It certainly does not help when initiatives, such as the EI hiring tax credit for businesses in this country, are put forward and the opposition votes against them. That is unacceptable.
- MPconMay 16, 2012 12:10 pm | Territories (yk, nt, nu), Nunavut
Mr. Speaker, the answer to the issue of the National Aboriginal Health Organization is very simple. The three elected aboriginal leaders wrote to me and asked me to wind down that organization. I accepted their recommendation and we are working on that.
Our government commits $30 million a year on aboriginal health research available to all Canadians.
The member is well aware that we recently released the mental health strategy for Canada. We will be following through on implementation.
- MPconMay 16, 2012 12:05 pm | Ontario, Thornhill
Mr. Speaker, I provided an answer to this question when it was raised by the Bloc Québécois more than a week ago. That answer is we appreciate that these valuable artifacts should be on display, where possible, in museums appropriate for their exhibition. In the short term, there is no location. They will be stored. They will remain in Quebec. We are looking at a number of opportunities for those artifacts to be displayed again in museums in appropriate locations in Quebec.
- MPconMay 16, 2012 12:05 pm | Alberta, Edmonton—Sherwood Park
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we know where Canadians stand. Canadians support term limits for senators and Senate elections. That is why we introduced the Senate reform act.
Frankly, it is not surprising to hear the opposition members say anything to justify dragging their feet on Senate reform and supporting the status quo in the Senate. They know they are wrong on that side of the issue and that is why they are afraid to vote on it. We call on the opposition members to stop hiding behind their empty rhetoric and bring the Senate reform act to a vote. We want Canadians to have a say in the Senate. Why do they not?
- MPconMay 16, 2012 12:00 pm | Ontario, Parry Sound—Muskoka
Mr. Speaker, I am heartened that the member is following me so assiduously on Twitter. I always like to have new followers.
Let me reiterate that on this side of the chamber we are following the normal course and normal rules of parliamentary procedure in terms of our quarterly reports, our estimates and all the other ways that we are accountable to this chamber and thence to the people of Canada. We will do so with respect to the budget as well.
- MPconMay 16, 2012 11:55 am | Territories (yk, nt, nu), Nunavut
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency is supporting a host of economic development organizations throughout the north to be more efficient and reflective of the real needs of northerners over the long term. Canadian taxpayers' dollars will benefit youth by implementing sound business models in the north that will make a better use of technology and whatnot.
The territorial governments asked for increased borrowing limits; that member voted against that idea. The territorial governments asked for a highway between Inuvik and Tuk; that member voted against it. The territorial governments asked for devolution; that member voted against it.
- MP
conMay 16, 2012 11:50 am | Quebec, Mégantic—L'ÉrableMr. Speaker, we are fully committed to the RADARSAT project. It is an important project, but we want to deliver it in the most cost-effective way. That is what we will do.
I would like to remind the member that for the first time we have launched a review of space and aerospace because we want to remain the leaders in this sector.
This is real action, not just talk.
- MPconMay 16, 2012 11:50 am | Territories (yk, nt, nu), Nunavut
Mr. Speaker, I met with the individual this morning and I found him to be an ill-informed, patronizing academic studying aboriginal people, the Inuit and Canada's Arctic from afar.
I took the opportunity to educate him about Canada's north and the aboriginal people who depend on the wildlife that they hunt every day for food security.
- MPconMay 16, 2012 11:45 am | Alberta, Macleod
Mr. Speaker, employees and employers across this country contribute to unemployment insurance. It is there when people lose their jobs.
All Canadians expect to be temporarily unemployed. That is what EI is for. We also expect people to seek a job that is within their skill set. That is only fair and reasonable. We are also only asking those Canadians to seek that within reasonable distance of their own homes.
- MP
conMay 16, 2012 11:40 am | British Columbia, RichmondMr. Speaker, there will be no reductions to seniors' pensions.
The opposition parties are missing the point. This is not about savings. Our changes will put old age security on a sustainable path so it will be there when Canadians need it. Changes made will be gradual, beginning in 2023 and coming into full effect in 2029.
We are also providing Canadians with the option to defer OAS and collect later at a higher rate, if they wish.
- MPconMay 16, 2012 11:40 am | Ontario, Thornhill
Mr. Speaker, again the hon. Leader of the Opposition shows his fixation with carbon taxation, which is something this government has repeatedly said it will not impose on Canadians. We will not attack jobs. We will not threaten investment or our recovering economy.
With regard to the cost of inaction on climate change, those costs would run into many billions of dollars.
I would ask my colleague to familiarize himself with the Environment Canada website.
- MPconMay 16, 2012 11:35 am | Ontario, Thornhill
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about who is throwing whom under buses.
My colleague travels abroad to lobby against Canadian jobs and responsible resource development. Her leader dismisses responsible resource development as a disease, playing one region of the country against another. Now he is saying that Ontario's forest industry is responsible and afflicted with this same disease.
I would think that the official opposition should get its own house in order and organize its incoherent policy stances before it criticizes this government.
- MPconMay 16, 2012 11:35 am | Alberta, Macleod
Mr. Speaker, as I have been saying, there are available jobs out there, but we will ensure that Canadians will not be expected to take jobs that are not within their skill set.
One other thing we need to exemplify is that no job seeker will be asked to relocate.
The important part of these changes is to—
- MPconMay 16, 2012 11:30 am | Alberta, Macleod
Mr. Speaker, the only changes that we are seeing are the changes in attitude in the House of Commons.
We on this side of the House do not think that Canadians working are, and I quote the leader of the NDP, “a colossal waste”. We think Canadians are proud to work, and they should be. We are making sure that they have opportunities to work.
It is a sustainable program that we put in place. We on this side of the House are proud of Canadians when they go out and find a job. There are unfortunately too many people still searching. We are helping them.
May 15th
- MPconMay 15, 2012 10:15 pm | Ontario, Thornhill
First, Mr. Chair, the term that I used was a figure of speech. I could have used greenwashing. I could have used whitewashing and, as I have said in this House, I could have used shell game or three card monte, which is also an offence under the Canadian Criminal Code. However, these are only offences if criminal proceeds are involved.
It is a figure of speech. I am delighted that it caught the attention of those charities that may have been compromising their status. I am glad if it has caught the attention of the opposition and I am glad it has caught the attention of the Canadian public. I would hope that those charitable organization, which do have the benefit of charitable status, will conform with CRA regulation.
With regard to my early Christmas present, our government, since coming to power in 2006, had stated quite clearly that the Kyoto protocol was one of the largest single mistakes made by the previous Liberal government with any thought or consideration or due diligence. It was my honour to represent Canada, both at the Durban conference in December and upon the--
- MPconMay 15, 2012 10:10 pm | Ontario, Thornhill
Mr. Chair, again, and I will try to be very clear for my colleague's benefit, the media protocol is public.
Journalists of one sort or another, whether scientific journalists or general news journalists, contact the department when they see an item, a paper or a statement that they would like to address. The communications department of Environment Canada, as in other government departments and in most private sector companies, processes the request. In 99% of the cases it enables the interview to take place.
With regard to the two incidents referenced by my friend, the circumstances simply did not work out to enable those interviews at that specific time.
- MPconMay 15, 2012 10:05 pm | Ontario, Thornhill
Mr. Chair, first, to correct my colleague, of those 1,050 instances, the vast majority were very small and were contained by local or provincial agencies.
With regard to the legislation before us and the possible development of major projects, in budget 2012 we provided $35.7 million, for example, over two years to further strengthen Canada's tanker regime, again depending upon projects and tanker routes as they would be approved.
With regard to major pipeline projects, there has been provision for far greater inspection and oversight of any new completed project.
- MPconMay 15, 2012 10:00 pm | Ontario, Thornhill
Mr. Chair, I can give my colleague an approximate number. The total number of events, spills or releases of pollutants was approximately 1,500.
Here is the exact number. In 2010-11, there were 1,050 pollution incidents to which Environment Canada provided technical support. Of these events, though, Environment Canada personnel attended only approximately 10%.
I remind my colleague that Environment Canada staffers are not first responders. They very seldom attend unless there is a compelling reason, either in the magnitude of the event or in the scientific complexity, that requires their on-location presence.
- MPconMay 15, 2012 9:45 pm | Ontario, Thornhill
Mr. Chair, yes I could.
My colleague is quite right, schedule 2 does allow the government to add to the environmental effects which are listed in section 5. Only effects within federal jurisdiction are relevant. The law could evolve and at some point in the future we might have other areas that would constitute federal jurisdiction.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 ... 58 Next »
