38th PARLIAMENT,
1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 120
CONTENTS
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
|
 |
Routine Proceedings
|
|
|
Government Response to Petitions |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Sale of Medals Prohibition Act |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act |
|
|
Hon. R. John Efford (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)
|
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness |
|
|
Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Mark Warawa |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Mark Warawa |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
(Division 127) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
Immigration |
|
|
Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Canada Post |
|
|
Mr. Bradley Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC) |
|
|
Civil Marriage Act |
|
|
Ms. France Bonsant (Compton—Stanstead, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC) |
|
|
Taxation |
|
|
Mr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC) |
|
|
Great Lakes Water Diversion |
|
|
Mr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC) |
|
|
Diabetes |
|
|
Mr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC) |
|
|
Canada Post |
|
|
Mr. Dave Batters (Palliser, CPC) |
|
|
Immigration |
|
|
Hon. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.) |
|
|
International Aid |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Water Quality |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Questions on the Order Paper |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Questions Passed as Orders for Return |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc |
|
|
Request for Emergency Debate |
|
|
Devils Lake Diversion Project |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
|
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
|
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Jeremy Harrison |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Paddy Torsney |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Jeff Watson |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jeff Watson |
|
|
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—Richmond East, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Bradley Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. John Cummins |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Scheer |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Keith Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
|
|
Mr. Bradley Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Keith Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bradley Trost |
|
|
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, CPC) |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Rick Casson |
|
|
Mr. Wajid Khan (Mississauga—Streetsville, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Rick Casson |
|
|
Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Judi Longfield (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and Housing, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Colin Carrie |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
|
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
|
|
The 1918 Anti-Greek Riot in Toronto |
|
|
Hon. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.) |
|
|
National Aboriginal Day |
|
|
Mr. Jeremy Harrison (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, CPC) |
|
|
Canadian Forces Naval Sword |
|
|
Hon. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.) |
|
|
Carmel Paquin |
|
|
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, BQ) |
|
|
Volunteer Firefighters |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.) |
|
|
Health Care Provider |
|
|
Mr. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC) |
|
|
National Aboriginal Day |
|
|
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.) |
|
|
Gisèle and Jean-Charles Burelle |
|
|
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, BQ) |
|
|
Anne-Marie Alonzo |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.) |
|
|
Members of Parliament Staff |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) |
|
|
Infrastructure |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.) |
|
|
National Aboriginal Day |
|
|
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) |
|
|
Public Service |
|
|
Mr. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC) |
|
|
National Aboriginal Day |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Cleary (Louis-Saint-Laurent, BQ) |
|
|
Human Rights |
|
|
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC) |
|
|
Etobicoke—Lakeshore |
|
|
Hon. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.) |
|
|
Oral Question Period
|
|
|
Citizenship and Immigration |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, CPC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Gasoline Prices |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
International Cooperation |
|
|
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Citizenship and Immigration |
|
|
Mr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Natural Resources |
|
|
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Broadcasting |
|
|
Mr. Maka Kotto (Saint-Lambert, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Maka Kotto (Saint-Lambert, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women, Lib.) |
|
|
Technology Partnerships Canada |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Alberta Flood |
|
|
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Immigration |
|
|
Ms. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ) |
|
|
L'hon. Joseph Volpe (ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Foreign Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Aboriginal Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Roger Valley (Kenora, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Minister of State (Northern Development), Lib.) |
|
|
China |
|
|
Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Aileen Carroll (Minister of International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
Information Commissioner |
|
|
Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.) |
|
|
Veterans Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Reproductive Technologies |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Vietnam |
|
|
Hon. David Kilgour (Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, Ind.) |
|
|
Hon. Aileen Carroll (Minister of International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
Points of Order |
|
|
Government Motion No. 17 |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Tabling of Documents |
|
|
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Question of Privilege raised by member for Ahuntsic |
|
|
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy), Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Request for Emergency Debate |
|
|
Speaker's Ruling |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Richard Harris |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Richard Harris |
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria |
|
|
Mr. Jim Gouk (British Columbia Southern Interior, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria |
|
|
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bob Mills |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Bradley Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough |
|
|
Hon. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Canada—U.S.), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Marlene Jennings |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Marlene Jennings |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn |
|
|
Mr. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Navdeep Bains |
|
|
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Navdeep Bains |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
|
Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.) |
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Message from the Senate |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
|
|
Symbol for the House of Commons |
|
|
Ms. Bev Oda (Durham, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich |
|
|
Hon. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Hedy Fry |
|
|
Hon. Keith Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Hon. Keith Martin |
|
|
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Keith Martin |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Hon. Keith Martin |
|
|
Mr. Jeremy Harrison (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, CPC) |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Jeremy Harrison |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Jeremy Harrison |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
(Division 128) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Rob Nicholson |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
|
|
Hon. David Kilgour |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien |
|
|
(Division 129) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Rob Nicholson |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
|
|
Hon. David Kilgour |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien |
|
|
(Division 130) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Rob Nicholson |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
|
|
Hon. David Kilgour |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien |
|
|
(Division 131) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
(Division 132) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
(Division 133) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
(Division 134) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Points of Order |
|
|
Government Motion No. 17--Speaker's Ruling |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Emergency Debate
|
|
|
Devils Lake Diversion Project |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Reg Alcock |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Reg Alcock |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. James Bezan |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Dan McTeague |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
|
Mrs. Joy Smith |
|
|
Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) |
|
|
Mrs. Joy Smith |
|
|
Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Bezan |
|
|
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. James Bezan |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Stéphane Dion |
|
|
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Stéphane Dion |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde |
|
|
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde |
|
|
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Blaikie |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Blaikie |
|
|
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Reg Alcock |
|
|
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Jean (Fort McMurray—Athabasca, CPC) |
|
|
Ms. Anita Neville |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Anita Neville |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
|
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
|
Mr. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Steven Fletcher |
|
|
Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Steven Fletcher |
|
|
Hon. Bryon Wilfert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Bryon Wilfert |
|
|
Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Bryon Wilfert |
|
|
Hon. Dan McTeague (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Dan McTeague |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
(1000)
[Translation]
Government Response to Petitions
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to a petition.
* * *
(1005)
[English]
Sale of Medals Prohibition Act
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-415, An Act to prohibit the sale of Canadian military and police medals.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from British Columbia for seconding the bill. As we all know, we get very concerned when we see the medals that have been worn by our proud veterans, our service personnel and the RCMP, for example, being sold at a flea market or on the Internet or anything of that nature.
This enactment would prohibit the sale of any medals given by the Government of Canada to our brave soldiers, our veterans and RCMP officers throughout the country. In our heart of hearts we believe that these medals are not currency. They are very valuable and they should not be sold or bartered in any way, shape or form.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act
Hon. R. John Efford (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) moved that Bill S-36, An Act to amend the Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act, be read the first time.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)
* * *
Committees of the House
Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I move that the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, presented to the House on Wednesday, April 13, be concurred in.
It is an honour to rise in this House to speak to this motion. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
This is a very important motion. I want to share a little of its history. Nine mayors came to the justice committee and shared with us a very important concern of theirs: that nine RCMP detachments were going to be closing in Quebec. Commissioner Zaccardelli also came and spoke to us. We heard from him that there was a plan and we heard the rationale. The rationale was to close these detachments and redeploy these RCMP members to work in a central location to attack organized crime.
The nine mayors who came to the committee were very concerned that the presence of the RCMP was being removed from their communities, with the officers going to a central location. What does this do to these communities? When we remove the police presence, we are giving a message to organized crime members that they can do whatever they want. The nine mayors were very concerned about this.
I have a bit of a background in dealing with the RCMP. Before becoming a member of this House, I was a loss prevention officer. One of the things we dealt with in regard to the RCMP was the importance of the presence of the RCMP. If people do not see a police presence, the message is very clear that they can do whatever they want.
A vast majority of citizens are law-abiding, tax-paying, hard-working Canadian citizens, but there is a small percentage of people in Canada, in our world, who are not law-abiding. That is why we need a police presence. Just the presence of the police acts as a deterrent.
An example of that can be found in traffic issues. People who never see a police officer tend to drive a lot faster. When police officers are present, people slow down. We have all seen that on the freeway. We have seen how people slow down a police officer is there.
All kinds of studies have been done in which a police decoy is put out there. Even if it is a fake car, even an old decommissioned RCMP vehicle or municipal police vehicle, traffic slows down. The presence of the police is very important.
It was important enough for the mayors of these nine communities in Quebec to come to Ottawa and ask us to please stop this because the decision to close these detachments, coming right from the top at the RCMP, was going to be disastrous for these communities. Why? What were some of the reasons?
Not only was the lack of a police presence seen as a problem, marijuana grow ops are a problem right across this country. If RCMP detachments are removed, who is going to be dealing with them? If this happens, we are saying that organized crime can do whatever it wants.
An hon. member: We're telling them where to go.
Mr. Mark Warawa: We are telling criminals that these are the communities where there is no more police presence and these are good areas where they can open up these grow ops. If we do not have a police presence, we are telling criminals they can have their legal weapons, that they can do whatever they want to do.
The nine mayors came to committee and asked us to please stop the closure before it was too late, saying that if the police were removed their communities were going to be in trouble.
In December 2004 the committee presented its fourth report. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee adopted the following motion on December 9, 2004:
|
That the Committee recommend to the government that the RCMP keep open the nine detachments in Quebec whose closing was an issue in our hearings and that it maintain a return to them, a critical mass of officers per detachment. |
Some of the detachments had only one officer. That is not adequate. We want to have the minimum number of officers that would provide the critical mass.
(1010)
After the fourth report, we again had Commissioner Zaccardelli speak to the committee. The committee was told that it had already happened and that how dare the committee question it. We also heard the government say that how dare the committee question the RCMP.
Every member of the House is proud of and has great respect for the RCMP. It does an incredible job. The question we had concerned the logic in closing down these detachments. These detachments are not on the border but they are part of the patrol that guards the Canadian border.
We have heard a concern that we are not adequately protecting the Canadian borders. We are a sovereign country and the government has a responsibility to protect Canadians and our border. We have heard that thousands of people every year blow across the border without stopping. These people are not bringing milk across the border or crossing the border to buy cheese. These people are smuggling people, guns and drugs and the government is not doing anything.
Who is patrolling our borders? The RCMP is being pulled out of Ontario and Quebec and now it is going after Manitoba. It has to stop. It should have stopped before.
We have an epidemic within our country where police resources are being removed. We have a growing population and a growing crime problem. To remove RCMP members and police forces, who have limited numbers and limited resources, from the streets and put them in an office somewhere does not work. We need to protect Canadians and our borders.
An hon. member: It is our duty.
Mr. Mark Warawa: It is our duty and we do need members at the border.
Customs and immigration officers are responsible for our border crossings but between the border crossings it is the responsibility of the RCMP. We do not have enough resources at our border crossings when we see people are blowing across the borders. Statistics from the United States border services show that thousands of people are sneaking in between these crossings. Whose responsibility is that? As I said, it is the RCMP's responsibility to ensure that is being dealt with.
When we remove these officers, close these detachments and send them all to the city to work on their laptops, that is not good management of a valuable resource.
We then have the sixth report, which states:
|
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), your Committee has considered the matter of the closure of nine (9) Royal Canadian Mounted Police detachments in Quebec. |
|
Your Committee draws to the attention of the House the fact that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Senior Management of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have not taken into account the opinion expressed by the Committee in its Fourth Report but rather have continued the process of closing nine RCMP detachments in Quebec. |
|
Your Committee recommends that the Minister and the RCMP put a stop to this personnel redeployment plan and reopen the detachments concerned. |
This justice committee report about these detachment closures had total unanimity among committee members. We are very concerned about this and it is unanimous, other than in the government. The government for some reason has a plan to close the RCMP detachments and to remove RCMP members from our borders and our freeways. It is remove, remove.
(1015)
We need an RCMP presence and whatever the hidden plan of the government is, it needs to be exposed. I think Canadians want this dealt with right now. The plan that the government has needs to be exposed and it needs to be stopped.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, we are looking at the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. This is a matter of much interest to parliamentarians and, indeed, to all Canadians and it is one of the reasons that it was debated in this place on, I believe, May 3. The members may want to look at the debate.
I want to just make a couple of points before I put the question to the member. The issue is that the resources in Quebec with regard to the RCMP were, as a consequence of this reorganization, not even reduced by one officer. They were reorganizing to improve the efficiency of the RCMP.
As well, the RCMP, under the RCMP Act, has the authority to manage our national police service and to direct the resources where they are most needed. Subsection 5(1) of the RCMP Act clearly states:
|
--the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who, under the direction of the Minister, has the control and management of the Force and all matters connected therewith. |
The motion really goes straight to the heart of the responsibility and lines of authority with regard to the RCMP and, in fact, undermines the legislative foundation of our national police service.
Having full knowledge of the debate that was held in this place on May 3 and understanding that this was a reorganization for efficiency, is the member suggesting somehow that the reorganization was not the proper thing to do in that it was transparent and open and that it was the decision of the RCMP, not the Government of Canada?
(1020)
Mr. Mark Warawa: Madam Speaker, the member's question is a good one because that is exactly what we heard at the committee. The rationale was to improve efficiency. We heard that it was more efficient to remove the RCMP from the border.
It did not compute and I do not think it computed with any member of the committee other than the Liberal members of the committee. They said that it was safer for those communities and more efficient to take the RCMP out of those communities and off the borders. We would rely on the Americans to protect our Canadian border.
Canadians do not believe that and not one member of that committee believed that rationale. There is some plan going on here that defies logic.
It is hogwash when we hear the government say that it is more efficient to remove the RCMP members. What is more efficient is to have them where the issues are, where the marijuana grow ops are happening and where crime is happening. These things need a police presence and to remove them makes no sense.
In talking about the lines of authority, the message is very clear. The committee members have no confidence with the decision made by the government. I hope it understood that message. We have zero confidence in the decision that the government has made in regard to removing RCMP officers.
Mr. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC): Madam Speaker, the Liberal member claims that it is about efficiency and the delivery of service. Where is the efficiency in continually pumping tens of millions of dollars into a useless gun registry that does nothing to solve crime and which Canadians across the country have rejected as a means to deal with any sort of crime and then looking at other ways to save money? The Liberals then turn to front line police officers at our borders to find those savings.
Could the member speak to the hypocrisy of funding a useless registry and then cutting back on front line officers to prevent crime?
Mr. Mark Warawa: Madam Speaker, my colleague's question is right on the mark. Canadians do want to know why we are wasting their tax dollars. They want their tax dollars to be used wisely and that does not mean on programs like the $2 billion gun registry boondoggle.
People involved in organized crime do not register their firearms. People who smuggle drugs back and forth across the border and who have marijuana grow ops with booby traps that endanger our fire departments and our police officers do not register their firearms.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, CPC): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from British Columbia for sharing his time with me.
I understand the justice report is about the closure of a number of RCMP detachments. It is important that we look beyond the specific detachments mentioned in the report. For the last 10 or 12 years, the problem with RCMP detachments has been a problem. I live in the small community of Sidney, British Columbia which has a local RCMP detachment staffed by 25 officers.
As far back as I can remember this detachment has been chronically understaffed for a number of reasons. Typically the staffing is short by about 25%. Quite often when it sends out a platoon, two officers will be left with one officer out patrolling in a car. For a variety reasons, from maternity leave to staffing shortages to transfers, the detachment is unable to refill positions.
Why has our national police force been put in this position when it comes to replacing members? Sometimes a detachment will wait a long time to fill positions, as we see in the report. A number of small detachments across the country are being shut down completely.
In the early days of the Liberal government, it all but closed the RCMP training depot in Regina because it was not doing its job. We ended up with a serious situation. For years we had very small number of classes, if any, to train new police officers. Therefore, the backlog was enormous. The shortage of hundreds of police officers created difficulties for RCMP detachments across the country.
What was the government's response? Many reports say that the government chose not put front line police officers on the streets so it could save around $2 billion. The Liberals made a very definitive decision to remove front line police officers because there was not enough training to fill the vacancies. Instead they spent billions of dollars on a gun registry. No one in Canada believes people should be walking around the streets with guns.
Prior to this infamous gun registry, on which the government spent billions of dollars, people were not allowed to carry handguns. If they wanted to move them from their home to a shoot or a range, they had to go to their local police for a permit. In effect we had a form of a registry for handguns with the local police. However, the government, in its wisdom, decided it would spend billions of dollars. How could we possibly spend $2 billion on a database, on a gun registry?
One only has to look at the sponsorship program. It does not take a lot of imagination to see where the money has gone. I am sure we will find out in the years ahead, once we see more audits and information come forward, that a great deal of the money probably went to people who were very good supporters of the Liberal Party of Canada. I have no one doubt in my mind that we will see contracts given to high donors to the Liberal Party. It is kind of the normal way of doing business.
(1025)
Also, we have been put in a more difficult situation in the last three or four years since September 11, 2001.
Canada Customs is in places to deal with ferry traffic going to the U.S. When people go into the U.S., they are pre-cleared. However, U.S. immigration officials refuse to operate inside Canada unless they have an armed police officer with them. This border crossing is right across from the street where I used to live. The Anacortes ferry terminal had one or two sailings a day, four hours a day. An RCMP officer from the detachment in Sidney had to be with the U.S. Immigration Service.
I note the Senate committee has come forward and said that our Canadian customs people need one of two things. They either need armed police officers with them as they are secure our border or they need to be armed. It is ironic that the government will not give Canadian customs officials sidearms or at least an armed police officer, but it will do it for American immigration officials who work inside Canada. That is unbelievable. That is how it is today.
U.S. immigration workers working at the Anacortes ferry terminal in Sidney or downtown in the inner harbour in Victoria where people go on the Coho to the U.S get Canadian police officers because they will not work unless they are in the presence of an armed officer for security reasons. We do not even do that for our own customs officers.
Where are the government's priorities? The RCMP is chronically underfunded. The government decided to put billions of dollars into a gun registry, which by all accounts is not providing an ounce of benefit other than to some people who may be good Liberals and who are who sending in contracts to the national firearms registry and, lo and behold, getting millions of dollars. How could the government possibly spend $2 billion on a database. I would love to have that contract. It is absolutely amazing.
The government cut back training at the RCMP depot in Regina to a bare minimum. This detachment has been chronically understaffed. This is happening in detachments across the country. Sometimes detachments have to wait six months or more to get a replacement for an officer who has been transferred somewhere else. Watch duty officers at these RCMP detachments have to deal with this problem when they scheduling officers. They have to find a way to cut the number of police officers on a platoon because they do not have the bodies.
In my community, the RCMP detachment was pretty much chronically understaffed by about 25%. It was a very serious problem. The remaining officers had to fill regular shift schedules. Officers also had to be sent over to the ferry terminals because U.S. immigration officers would not work unless they had an armed officer with them. We do not do that for our own customs officers.
This is about priorities. The government needs to focus on its priorities. We have spent a large portion of this spring session on Bill C-38, the same sex marriage bill. Again, it is a matter of priorities. Why are we not focusing on jobs, the economy, getting taxes down, looking at our health care system? The government's priority is focused on getting Bill C-38 through the House.
(1030)
We have very different priorities on this side of the House. We want to bring forward legislation that will have a meaningful impact to Canadians right across this country. It is about priorities. It is time the government had a look at what it has done for the last 12 years. Anyone could come to the conclusion that the Liberals have their priorities all wrong.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I indicated that the House debated this matter on May 3. The point was made at the time that under the RCMP Act, the RCMP had the authority to manage the national police service and direct resources where they were most needed under section 5(1). Although it is in conjunction with the minister, the minister has no purview with regard to the day to day operations. It is more in terms of strategic policy.
I also wanted to point out that the commissioner appeared before the committee. The commissioner explained to the parliamentarians that the detachments should be closed. He gave reasons why. The commissioner told the committee that to keep those detachments there and not redeploy would make Quebec less safe, contrary to what the members have been saying. The commissioner also explained that the need for the officers was elsewhere because of the growing priorities in Quebec, particularly with regard to terrorism and organized crime.
Let me reiterate that not one RCMP officer was taken away. It was a redeployment of resources.
Finally, I would also point out that in the last four to five years the budget for the RCMP has been increased from $2 billion to $3 billion. This is a very significant increase in the resources available to our police officers.
Why does the member not believe Mr. Zaccardelli, the head of the RCMP, when he says that closing this would make Quebec less safe?
(1035)
Mr. Gary Lunn: Madam Speaker, whether I believe Mr. Zaccardelli or not, the member should talk with the people in the local detachments. Look at their shift patterns. See if they have 100% staffing. Walk into most RCMP detachments and see if all the positions are filled. I think he will find a lot of vacancies. Of course there is redeployment as they shuffle people around.
Even more so, the member opposite talked about the strategic decisions for doing this. Let us talk about the strategy of the Liberal government. How does it justify another $50 million in this year's estimates for the gun registry? Where are the priorities?
Does the government not think that perhaps the money might be better spent by putting front line officers on the street? Does the government think our RCMP detachments are 100% staffed. Does the government think the detachments are getting increases in their budgets? We are skeptical on this side because we see promises after promises from the Liberal government broken one after the other, right from the mouth of the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister came to my riding during the election last year. He looked some of my constituents right in the eye and promised to help them. He promised he would fix a problem for JDS Uniphase employees and their taxation problem. Now he is saying too bad. The Liberals' word is worth nothing. It is absolutely meaningless.
The member should come out to my riding and talk with some of my constituents. He should talk with some of the JDS Uniphase employees. Whether it is justice matters or taxation matters, the government will do anything and say anything to get a vote. When it comes time to deliver, its word is worth absolutely nothing.
The record speaks for itself. There are billions of dollars spent on a useless gun registry. We shake our heads in disbelief at what the Prime Minister's priorities have been in the last year. Canadians are disillusioned.
The only response from the government to the opposition is to come at the opposition with unfounded allegations and attacks. It is time for this Parliament to bring forward legislation that will have a meaningful difference to every Canadian in every corner of the country.
We have to allow young Canadians, who are graduating from universities and high schools, to fulfill their dreams and aspirations. Businesses should not to be hamstrung by a taxation policy that will not allow them to grow and flourish.
When I graduated from high school in 1975, I was making the same amount of money per hour as the kids are who are getting out of school today. There is something wrong.
The policies of the government have hamstrung the country. The Liberals have been in power for the last 13 years. Their policies are driving this country's economy into the ground. Let us start refocusing our priorities. Let us start watching where we spend the money instead of spending it on their Liberal friends.
(1040)
[Translation]
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is an interesting discussion. Nonetheless, as was the case in the past, we believe Canadians want this Parliament to address important legislation such as the government's budget bill.
[English]
That is why I move:
|
That the debate do now adjourn. |
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine): The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine): In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine): Call in the members.
* * *
(1125)
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
|
(Division No. 127)
|
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson (Victoria)
André
Angus
Asselin
Bachand
Bagnell
Bains
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bell
Bellavance
Bennett
Bergeron
Bevilacqua
Bigras
Blaikie
Blais
Blondin-Andrew
Boire
Boivin
Bonsant
Boshcoff
Bouchard
Boudria
Boulianne
Bourgeois
Bradshaw
Brison
Broadbent
Brunelle
Bulte
Byrne
Cannis
Cardin
Carr
Carrier
Carroll
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Christopherson
Clavet
Cleary
Coderre
Comartin
Comuzzi
Côté
Cotler
Crête
Crowder
Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley)
Cullen (Etobicoke North)
Cuzner
D'Amours
Davies
Demers
Deschamps
Desjarlais
Desrochers
DeVillers
Dhalla
Dion
Dosanjh
Drouin
Dryden
Duceppe
Easter
Efford
Emerson
Eyking
Faille
Folco
Fontana
Frulla
Gagnon (Québec)
Gagnon (Saint-Maurice—Champlain)
Gagnon (Jonquière—Alma)
Gallaway
Gaudet
Gauthier
Godbout
Godin
Graham
Guay
Guimond
Holland
Hubbard
Ianno
Jennings
Julian
Kadis
Karetak-Lindell
Karygiannis
Khan
Kotto
Laframboise
Lalonde
Lapierre (Lévis—Bellechasse)
Lastewka
Lavallée
Layton
LeBlanc
Lemay
Lessard
Lévesque
Longfield
Loubier
MacAulay
Macklin
Malhi
Maloney
Marceau
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca)
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Martin (Sault Ste. Marie)
Masse
Matthews
McCallum
McDonough
McGuinty
McGuire
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
McLellan
McTeague
Ménard (Hochelaga)
Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Myers
Neville
Owen
Pacetti
Paquette
Paradis
Patry
Perron
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Chatham-Kent—Essex)
Plamondon
Poirier-Rivard
Powers
Proulx
Ratansi
Redman
Regan
Rodriguez
Rota
Roy
Russell
Sauvageau
Savage
Savoy
Scarpaleggia
Siksay
Silva
Simard (Beauport—Limoilou)
Simard (Saint Boniface)
Simms
Smith (Pontiac)
St-Hilaire
St. Amand
St. Denis
Steckle
Stoffer
Stronach
Szabo
Telegdi
Temelkovski
Thibault (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques)
Thibault (West Nova)
Tonks
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Valley
Vincent
Volpe
Wappel
Wasylycia-Leis
Wilfert
Wrzesnewskyj
Zed
Total: -- 191
|
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Allison
Ambrose
Batters
Benoit
Bezan
Breitkreuz
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Carrie
Casey
Casson
Cummins
Day
Devolin
Doyle
Duncan
Epp
Finley
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Gallant
Goldring
Goodyear
Gouk
Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells)
Guergis
Hanger
Harper
Harris
Hearn
Hiebert
Hill
Hinton
Jaffer
Jean
Johnston
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lauzon
Lukiwski
Lunn
Lunney
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Mark
Menzies
Merrifield
Miller
Mills
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Nicholson
O'Connor
Obhrai
Oda
Pallister
Penson
Poilievre
Prentice
Preston
Rajotte
Reid
Reynolds
Richardson
Ritz
Scheer
Schellenberger
Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country)
Skelton
Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul)
Solberg
Sorenson
Strahl
Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest)
Thompson (Wild Rose)
Tilson
Toews
Trost
Tweed
Van Loan
Vellacott
Warawa
Watson
Williams
Yelich
Total: -- 88
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine): I declare the motion carried.
[English]
I wish to inform the House that there are 2 hours and 25 minutes remaining for debate on the motion for concurrence of the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. Accordingly, the debate on the motion will be rescheduled for another sitting.
* * *
Petitions
Immigration
Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am honoured to table today petitions signed by over 15,000 Canadians from all over the country who call on the government to ensure that American war resistors who have conscientious objections to serving in the United States armed forces in the illegal war in Iraq be allowed sanctuary in Canada as refugees or through some other provision.
These petitioners strongly urge the government to maintain its commitment to opposing the illegal war in Iraq by refusing to return these conscientious objectors to the U.S. where they can face incarceration, persecution or possibly the death penalty.
* * *
(1130)
Canada Post
Mr. Bradley Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC): Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of my constituents, in particular from the town of Quill Lake. They are very concerned that the government may go back on its word and begin rural post office closures.
The petition states that the undersigned citizens of Canada draw the attention of the House to post office closures. They call upon Parliament to keep the Quill Lake post office open and retain the moratorium on post office closures. It is my pleasure to present this petition signed by the majority of the great people of Quill Lake.
* * *
[Translation]
Civil Marriage Act
Ms. France Bonsant (Compton—Stanstead, BQ): Madam Speaker, on behalf of myself and my constituents I am tabling a petition on Bill C-38.
[English]
Mr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC): Madam Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present to the House today.
The first set of petitions all speak in opposition to Bill C-38. They pray that Parliament pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
* * *
Taxation
Mr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC): Madam Speaker, my second petition has 60 signatures. It is from a number of seniors in my riding calling on Parliament to change the Income Tax Act. They want it changed to allow spouses to pay taxes as if the total family income were earned equally.
* * *
Great Lakes Water Diversion
Mr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC): Madam Speaker, my third petition consists of 45 signatures. It deals with opposition to the Great Lakes water diversion. The petitioners ask that all the people of Canada condemn the annex 2001 agreement between the eight northern states and Ontario and Quebec to stop water diversions and protect the Great Lakes.
* * *
Health
Mr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC): Madam Speaker, my fourth petition asks that Canadians b e provided with greater access to non-drug preventive and medicinal options. The petitioners support Bill C-420, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act.
* * *
Diabetes
Mr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC): Madam Speaker, the final petition I have the great honour to present is on behalf of the health critic, the member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia. It calls on the government to secure federal funding targeted specifically to juvenile type 1 diabetes research and to provide $25 million a year for the next five years.
* * *
Canada Post
Mr. Dave Batters (Palliser, CPC): Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise today pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present two petitions on behalf of a number of citizens who live in my riding of Palliser, most of whom are from Avonlea and Cardross, Saskatchewan.
The petitioners wish to call to the attention of Parliament that the Liberal government imposed a moratorium on post office closures in 1994 and yet a number of rural post offices have been closed. Canada Post considers rural post offices to be a heavy burden on its bottom line and is reviewing rural post offices in communities the size of Avonlea and Cardross for closure.
The closure of rural post offices threatens the continued viability of many rural communities. The petitioners call upon the government to keep its moratorium promise and keep the Avonlea and Cardross post offices open.
* * *
Immigration
Hon. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present.
The first calls on the government to recognize the last group of Vietnamese boat people as refugees under the country of asylum class and allow the resettlement of some 500 individuals on humanitarian and compassionate grounds during the 2005-06 fiscal year. These signatories are from across Canada.
The second petition asks Parliament to increase the quotas for parental sponsorship admissions and reduce time for sponsorship applications.
* * *
(1135)
International Aid
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Madam Speaker, I take pleasure in tabling more petitions on behalf of Canadians urging the government to move decisively toward an international aid target of 0.7% of GDP and triple its contribution to the global fund to fight HIV-AIDS, TB and malaria.
It seems like a particularly appropriate day on which to do this when the Minister responsible for CIDA, before the foreign affairs committee, has just made it clear that either the government does not have a plan for moving toward 0.7% or if it does, it is not telling Canadians or our global partners.
* * *
Water Quality
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC): Madam Speaker, these petitioners state that the International Joint Commission, which administers the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes water quality agreement, recommended in 1992 that Canada and the United States develop a timetable to sunset the use of chlorine in the Great Lakes watershed. Forcing campgrounds, restaurants, trailer parks and rural churches to chlorinate their drinking water, which will cost thousands of dollars that they do not have, violates this federal chlorinated substances action plan and international agreement.
Since there is no scientific evidence that the basis of the chlorinated water effluence being added to the list of toxic substances is being paid attention to, the petitioners call upon Parliament to instruct the federal environment minister to impose a moratorium on the expanded use of water chlorination in small, rural applications until other alternatives have been studied.
* * *
National Defence
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Madam Speaker, I already tabled one petition. I want to table two additional petitions, different from each other but on the same subject. They deal with missile defence and weapons in space.
The petitioners are calling upon Canada to: first, maintain the multilateral approach to security and reaffirm this country's support for non-proliferation arms control and disarmament; second, reject any and all plans for weapons of war in space, including any plans for missile defence; and third, seek Canada's withdrawal from any discussion of or participation in missile defence and the weaponization of space.
This is reflecting the fact that Canadians are very worried about whether the government will drag us into missile defence through the talks that seem to be ongoing as there is no acknowledgement by the government with respect to future participation through Goose Bay.
* * *
Questions on the Order Paper
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 150 and 152.
[Text]
Question No. 150--Mr. Garry Breitkreuz:
With respect to the implementation of sections 35, 37 and 40 of the Firearms Act by the Canada Border Services Agency: (a) how many person years have been allocated to this activity for the fiscal year 2004-05; (b) how many person years will be allocated for each of the next five fiscal years; (c) what is the total amount that has been spent for the fiscal year 2004-05; (d) what is the total amount that will be allocated for each of the next five fiscal years; (e) what activities does the implementation of these sections entail; and (f) what are the potential risks to public safety and national security resulting from the diversion of human and financial resources from activities such as the pursuit of smugglers, terrorists, illegal immigrants, illegal guns, drugs, explosives, and other contraband?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
With respect to the implementation of sections 35, 37 and 40 of the Firearms Act by the Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA, only section 35 is in force and administered by the CBSA at this time. Consequently, in response to
(a), 28.71 person years have been allocated to section 35 activities for the fiscal year 2004-05.
In response to (b), approximately 26 person years will be allocated for section 35 activities in the fiscal year 2005-06. This amount will remain the same for each of the next four fiscal years if there is no change in responsibilities. If sections 37 and 40 of the Firearms Act come into force during that time, additional resources would be required from the Canada Firearms Centre, CAFC, on a cost recovery basis. The amount is to be negotiated.
In response to (c), $1,837,381 has been spent on section 35 activities in the fiscal year 2004-05.
In response to (d), $1,700,000 will be allocated for section 35 activities in the fiscal year 2005-06. This amount will remain the same for each of the next four fiscal years if there is no change in responsibilities. If sections 37 and 40 of the Firearms Act come into force during that time, additional resources would be required from the CAFC on a cost recovery basis. The amount is to be negotiated.
In response to (e), under section 35 of the Firearms Act, the CBSA processes firearms declared by unlicensed non-residents. This entails determining the class of firearm being imported, including its import requirements; confirming the authorization to transport, if required; ensuring that the importer and firearm information matches that on the non-resident firearm declaration form, Form CAFC 909; collection of a confirmation fee, which is subsequently transmitted to the CAFC; holding the firearm for a period of time if not all legal requirements have been met; and processing the export or destruction of the firearm if ultimately the importer is not entitled to import it to Canada. Amendments to section 35 not yet in force would also require the CBSA to process those non-resident importers who have received a report from the Registrar of Firearms in advance of the importation, which for those importers takes the place of the non-resident firearm declaration.
Under section 37 of the Firearms Act, the CBSA will not need to perform any activities, as it will not be required to process unlicensed non-residents exporting their firearms.
Under section 40 of the Firearms Act, the CBSA will process licensed individuals importing firearms. This entails determining the class of firearm being imported, including its import requirements; confirming the authorization to import; confirming the authorization to transport, if required; if the firearm is not registered, ensuring that the importer and firearm information matches that on the authorization to import, which is subsequently transmitted to the CAFC; informing the registrar of the impending importation; holding the firearm for a period of time if not all legal requirements have been met; and processing the export or destruction of the firearm if ultimately the importer is not entitled to import it to Canada.
In response to (f), the overwhelming majority of all resources used by the CBSA to implement sections 35, 37 and 40 of the Firearms Act are provided by the CAFC on a cost recovery basis. Consequently, any diversion of CBSA resources as a result of administering those sections on behalf of the CAFC is negligible.
Question No. 152--Mr. Bill Casey:
With regard to those fatal and serious automobile accidents in Canada between 1995 and 2005, where alcohol or “driving under the influence” was a factor in these accidents: (a) how many conditional releases have been granted by the government to individuals who have caused serious or fatal automobile accidents while driving under the influence of alcohol, (i) by province, (ii) by age demographic, (iii) by gender, and (iv) by year; (b) is the Department of Justice considering, or will it consider reducing the legal alcohol content of blood from 0.8% to 0.5% so that there can be a further reduction of the fatality rates in Canada; and (c) is the Department of Justice considering the impounding of vehicles from those individuals found to be driving under the influence of alcohol?
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
In response to (a), before 1997, Parliament did not make available to sentencing courts the possibility of a conditional sentence of imprisonment. They first begin to appear in the statistics from the Adult Criminal Court Survey of the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics in the year 1998-99. Between 1998-99 and 2003-04 there were 38 conditional sentences given in cases of impaired driving causing death and 350 conditional sentences given in cases of impaired driving causing bodily harm.
(i) By province: B.C. death 7, bodily harm 35; Alberta death 7, bodily harm 57; Saskatchewan death 4, bodily harm 22; Ontario death 19, bodily harm 165; Quebec death 0, bodily harm 0; New Brunswick death 1, bodily harm 11; P.E.I. death 0, bodily harm 0; Nova Scotia death 0, bodily harm 5; Newfoundland and Labrador death 0, bodily harm 29; Yukon death 0, bodily harm 4; and Northwest Territories death 0, bodily harm 0.
(ii) By age of person conditionally sentenced: 18 to 24: death 13, bodily harm 110; 25 to 34: death 10, bodily harm 102; 35 to 44: death 6, bodily harm 78; 45 to 54: death 6, bodily harm 38; 55 plus: death 2, bodily harm 17; age unknown: death 1, bodily harm 5.
(iii) By gender: male: death 33, bodily harm 287; female: death 3, bodily harm 18; sex unknown: death 2, bodily harm 0.
(iv) By year:
1998-99—death 3, bodily harm 22
1999-2000—death 3, bodily harm 42
2000-01—death 5, bodily harm 38
2001-02—death 4, bodily harm 80
2002-03—death 12, bodily harm 78
2003-04—death 11, bodily harm 90
Justice Canada Research Section, with the cooperation of the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, was able to provide the above information. The raw data exists with the Adult Criminal Court Survey but a special run was required to obtain the data on conditional sentences for impaired driving serious cases. Statistical data for the year 2004-05 is not yet available. Up to 2000-01, the survey covered about 80% of the national caseload. Not included were: B.C., New Brunswick, Manitoba and Nunavut. Starting from 2001-02, the survey covers about 90% of the national caseload. Still not included are Manitoba and Nunavut. Also, data for Quebec represent 80% of the Quebec caseload and data for B.C .represent 95% of the BC caseload.
In response to (b), in January 2005 the Department of Justice sponsored a roundtable of key stakeholders to consider the issue of lowering the legal limit to 50 milligrams per cent of alcohol. There was agreement that this level represents an increased risk of crash. However, that risk is significantly lower than the risk at the current Criminal Code legal limit, which is 80 milligrams per cent. There was disagreement on the instrument that should be used to address the collision risk at the 50 milligrams per cent level with some advocating the use of Criminal Code provisions and others advocating the use of provincial traffic laws.
The Minister of Justice indicated in a meeting with representatives of Mothers Against Drunk Driving held on May 2, 2005 that he had not taken a fixed view on the question of lowering the Criminal Code legal limit from “exceeds 80 milligrams of alcohol” to “exceeds 50 milligrams of alcohol”. He is willing to consider the views of those on both sides of this question. It is noted that all provinces, except Quebec, using their constitutional authority for licensing and highway safety, already have short provincial driving license suspensions imposed at the roadside, typically for those who exceed a provincially established limit of 50 milligrams. There is divided opinion on whether lowering the Criminal Code legal limit would reduce significantly alcohol involved fatality rates. There is concern from law enforcement and prosecutors that resources could be thinly stretched if a new cohort of drinking drivers, 51 to 80 milligrams of alcohol, is addressed by the Criminal Code. Others believe that resources required for criminal law enforcement against a new cohort of cases in the 51 to 80 milligrams range would be offset to some degree by some persons in the group of drinking drivers who otherwise would have been “in excess of 80” lowering their consumption as a result of a new legal limit and others who would have been in the 50 to 81 range also lowering their consumption.
In response to (c), The Criminal Code in section 490.1(1) already permits a court to order forfeiture of property used in an indictable offence. This section has been used in an impaired driving case in New Brunswick, R. v. Waite (2004) N.B.J. No. 455; NBPC 29. For impaired driving causing death and impaired driving causing bodily harm, the prosecution must proceed by indictment. For impaired driving, for driving “in excess of 80 milligrams of alcohol”, and for refusing to provide breath samples, the prosecution may proceed either by indictment or by summary conviction. There is no present plan to expand the forfeiture provision to include cases where the prosecution has chosen to proceed by summary conviction procedure. Nor is there any present plan to introduce amendments that would force police, as a Criminal Code measure, to impound the vehicle of a suspected impaired driver. Some provinces have chosen to use their constitutional head of legislative authority for “property and civil rights within the province” to enact vehicle impoundment legislation.
* * *
[English]
Questions Passed as Orders for Return
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, if Question No. 140 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.
The Acting Speaker, (Hon. Jean Augustine): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 140--Mr. Martin (Sault Ste. Marie):
With respect to the Federal Economic Development Initiative in Northern Ontario (FedNor): (a) what was the global budget of FedNor and its programs from 1993 up to and including the present day; (b) how much of FedNor’s economic development funding and other funding it administers went to projects and initiatives in Northern Ontario from 1993 up to and including the present day; (c) how does FedNor define the boundaries of Northern Ontario and has this definition changed since 1993; (d) how many jobs were directly created in Northern Ontario, as well as other regions, by FedNor programs and other programs it administers from 1993 up to and including the present day; and (e) what is the complete list (by location) of all full-time employees and equivalents working for FedNor?
(Return tabled)
[English]
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions by allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Request for Emergency Debate
Devils Lake Diversion Project
[S. O. 52]
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine): The Speaker has received a request for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul. I invite the hon. member to state her request.
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): Madam Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 52, I seek leave to move a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing North Dakota's intention to proceed with the Devils Lake diversion.
The member for Selkirk—Interlake, the whole Manitoba caucus, and the people of Manitoba are very concerned about this issue. It is feared that this diversion will have significant adverse environmental ramifications for water in Lake Winnipeg, which is already compromised with troubles of its own, the Red River and the Hudson's Bay watershed.
The Canadian government has claimed that an agreement has been reached which would delay the opening of the diversion. In fact, the real reason for the delay is because of wet weather and the high water levels of the Red River.
Madam Speaker, I know you will take this under advisement and I look forward to your reply.
(1140)
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine): I thank the hon. member. The Speaker has asked me to convey to you that this request will be taken under advisement. He will return to the House later today to render his decision.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments
The House resumed from June 20 consideration of Bill C-48, An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to take part in the debate that really boils down to what could only be described as a prop up NDP add-on budget to the Minister of Finance's original plans which included none of the back of the napkin spending spree that is outlined in this particular document.
The legislation was not dreamed up in the staid boardrooms of the finance department. It was cooked up in a hotel room between the Prime Minister and the leader of the NDP, high on his own new found power as a king maker.
In contrast, my colleague, the member of Parliament for Medicine Hat, has presented Canadians with an eloquently outlined and hopeful vision of how the Conservative Party would move Canada's finances forward. It would include a competitive and productive effort to bring Canada forward, striving for national potential with an invigorated, motivated youth who would have a place to work and participate in the economy, and having programs that were compassionate, forward looking and focussed on prosperity. As my colleague from Medicine Hat has said many times, a prosperous nation is a country that can generate wealth that can then be a generous nation.
We want to provide citizens with a better quality of life and Canadians should look to their government to be able to help them in that regard, to find a job anywhere in the country, and find a job in their home town should they stay and be with their families. What is more fundamental than being with your loved ones?
We want every young Canadian to have the ability to go to university without graduating with a huge debt that is the equivalent of a mortgage. We should be the most educated and most forward looking intellectual country in the world. We have the capacity to achieve that goal.
We want Canadians to be able to start a business if they want, to prosper in their communities, and to participate fully in the economy. Canadians want to succeed and Conservatives want to help them do just that because success should be celebrated. Holding Canadians back is what is happening under the current regime. It is holding Canadians back because of repressive and regressive tax structures. There are punishing payroll taxes. Having the basic personal exemption raised would remove many Canadians from the tax rolls altogether.
We want people to have quality health care. We want Canadians to have the assurances that they will be comfortable and taken care of in their retirement. Nobody is more responsible for the abysmal failure of our health care system than the current Prime Minister. In his capacity as finance minister, he presided over the country's finances for over 10 years, was responsible for brutal cuts that drastically led to the deterioration of health care in Canada.
Canadians want to have the ability to work within this current process. They want to work under the Canada Health Act but they clearly need to move in a direction of innovation. There clearly has to be greater input from the health care providers, the provinces and from those on the front lines of health care delivery.
We want to ensure that the tax structure is fair. Tax relief is very much about improving competition, improving the job market, and improving the ability of companies to employ thousands of Canadians. That was a priority because it appeared in the first budget, but this add-on budget very much neglects that element of the economy. We have too many hardworking, overtaxed Canadians who again are being held back.
Bill C-48 is but one page. It contains three clauses. It would spend $4.6 billion without any plan or detail. It would be an abysmal and irresponsible free-for-all spending orgy, like the sponsorship program, the long gun registry, and like the irresponsible and unaccountable spending in the HRDC department.
Bill C-48 is not a firm commitment. It will not even take effect for a year and a half if, I am quick to add, there is a surplus. It is a pie in the sky throne speech promissory note that will not take effect for at least a year and a half. The NDP clearly tried to exact as much as it possibly could from the government in its negotiations to prop it up. The NDP budget is something that will promote irresponsible spending without a plan.
(1145)
Conservatives are behind the goals presented in the bill. We are behind better education, cleaning up our environment and ensuring adequate housing. We support helping poor nations as part of our commitment to the betterment of the global village. In terms of foreign aid as a percentage of our GDP, that is part of our platform for the coming election.
Let us not forget that it was a Conservative prime minister who was recently voted the greenest prime minister ever in the history of Canada by the Sierra Club and Elizabeth May.
As I said before, what we are opposed to is spending without a plan. This is what led to the problems we have seen in many of the programs that have gone out of control. We oppose raising expectations of individuals who assume naturally that a government would not make these commitments without having a concrete plan behind it.
Bill C-48 is a case in point. It is costly, insubstantial and it is a throwaway commitment that likely will never be met. The promises contained in the bill will only happen if there is a surplus.
Like the mythical story of Jack and the Magic Beans, I think the NDP is left with nothing more than a handful of beans, anything but a concrete commitment in terms of budgetary items.
Is there any possibility that the surplus will not be there and not be adequate to cover these expenditures? Well, time will tell. We are living in volatile times and the economy can take downturns, as we have seen, God forbid. We know the Liberals cannot resist this type of spending though. It burns holes in their pockets.
Since 1999-2000, program spending has gone from $109.6 billion to $158.1 billion, an increase of 44.3%. In contrast, the growth in our economy has been 31.6%, a compound annual growth rate of 5.6%. The economy is not keeping pace with the government's spending practices.
I spoke earlier about the tax implications. Trade is also a big implication. The dollar and the debt to GDP ratio and the interest on our debt that remains so high. The Liberals are dealing away their problems. They are throwing money at problems hoping they will go away. That is the case with health care, with law and order and with our military. This type of approach is not in the best interests of Canadians. It is not in keeping with fiscal management. It is not in keeping with accountability in this place.
The Conservative Party has a responsibility to rigorously examine these spending practices, and that is what we are doing. Despite the massive funding that is committed in Bill C-48, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness told my colleague from Yorkton—Melville that in 2004 the Canada Firearms Centre lost track of at least 46,000 licensed gun owners. This could have drastic consequences for police officers responding to a call where they believe no gun is present.
This is the type of inefficiency and waste in these types of programs that have ballooned in its spending and they do not work in the best interests of Canadians and take money away from other priority areas where it would have a more profound impact. It is about priorities.
With respect to national unity, let us take the sponsorship program where someone paid commissions to Liberal friendly ad agencies to promote unity. It was done through such means as putting up flags and banners but the money was then funnelled back to the Liberal Party through the sponsorship program. Well, as the former prime minister said, what is a few million when it comes to saving the country? How delusional and disingenuous.
This network of kickbacks, of money laundering and now the cover-up leaves Canadians with a very sordid image of government spending. However it is the Liberal Party. It is not Quebec and it is not all bureaucrats. It is the systemic corruption that runs through the Liberal Party that spawned the sponsorship scandal. It was a taxpayer funded program that was going for partisan purposes, mainly in the province of Quebec.
Let us just imagine the taxpayer funded lawyers working for the Department of Justice arguing that the current and former prime ministers should be completely exonerated of all responsibility for this disastrous program that is under criminal investigation. What happened to the mantra of “let Mr. Justice Gomery do his work?” That of course is a thing of the past when it comes to the partisan interests forwarded by our current Prime Minister. How disingenuous.
Clause 2 of Bill C-48 also deals with money for public transit and an energy retrofit program for low income housing. It talks about enhancing access to post-secondary education to benefit, among others, aboriginal Canadians. It talks about affordable housing and increased foreign aid. Those are all laudable goals, but again, no plan and many of them fall within provincial jurisdiction.
(1150)
Where is the accountability? How will we ensure that the expenditures of this money are actually committed to? The lack of a plan, the expected results and the lack of details of delivery characterize the minority government. It is similar to the institutional day care plan that was promised by the government without any details. It does not fit the diversity of the country.
Bill C-48 would authorize the establishment of an absolutely out of control type of spending that the Conservative Party cannot support, which is why moved amendments that would have improved the process. Canadians deserve better than blank cheques. In its desperate attempts to cling to power, the government appears willing to do just about anything. Canadians need a blueprint for the future, and that is what the Conservative Party would provide.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC): Madam Speaker, I want to ask the very distinguished member for Central Nova a couple of questions about agriculture and what impact Bill C-48 would have on it.
There is not a word about agriculture in Bill C-48. It has not been mentioned at a time when farmers are hurting the most. In the province of Nova Scotia, in which the member and I share ridings, farmers are the part of our society who are hurting the most and facing the most challenges. Some of them are faced with losing their farms, losing their incomes, losing their profession and losing their homes, and yet there is not a word in Bill C-48 about agriculture.
To make it worse, it has been announced that the Nappan Experimental Farm in my area, which farmers depend on for science and research on our unique soils and terrain, et cetera, will be closed. We have also learned that the government is planning to close the experimental farm in Kentville.
I wonder if the member could speak a bit to that and tell us what he thinks should be in Bill C-48 to help farmers and to help agriculture.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Madam Speaker, my colleague has worked very hard on this particular issue and, as usual, his diligence has paid off in that much of his digging has uncovered the government's secret plan to close many of these experimental research farms which do, as he said, provide vital research and vital information to farmers who are combating many challenging times in terms of plague and viruses affecting animals. We have seen the effects that can result from terrible afflictions, such as BSE, and the impact they have on the entire agriculture sector. However it goes beyond that. All resource sectors were ignored in this particular add on budget on the part of the NDP and the Liberals.
Agriculture, a vital sector of our economy that provides food and that provides so much in terms of employment, lifestyle and a basic way of life for Canadians, has been completely ignored in the priorities set out in Bill C-48.
In regard to the member's question, the government and the minister from the area have been completely disingenuous in suggesting that closing the experimental farm in Kentville was just an off the cuff suggestion from the department. This was a concrete plan to withdraw funding and to eventually close the research station in Kentville, just as my colleague has seen in his own riding with the Nappan Experimental Farm. Commitments were made, then commitments were withdrawn and that facility is slated to close. That is very disingenuous to Canadians and the agriculture sector that relies heavily on that facility for the important research that it needs.
It is like withdrawing money from education or health care. Agriculture is a stable part of the economy of Nova Scotia as it is throughout the country. However the government seems to be blind in its misspent priorities and its complete adherence to the one priority, which is to cling to power at all costs. The Liberals will make whatever deal they have to make with the NDP or others to cling to power at all costs in order to preserve a hold over the partisanship that allows them to make appointments and control the industries and the ministries.
The government is out of step with Canadians, out of step in its priorities and is certainly letting Canadians down, particularly in our area when it withdraws funding from important research centres like the one my colleague has mentioned.
(1155)
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC): Madam Speaker, let us recall that Bill C-48 comes at the expense of tax relief for corporations such as Ford, Chrysler and General Motors.
In my community of Windsor, Ontario, in the first quarter of 2005 we are down 6,000 jobs and unemployment is up to 9.4%. Many of these jobs were in the auto parts sector that supply our major OEMs, such as Ford, General Motors and DaimlerChrysler. The tax relief for these corporations is very important to preserve jobs here in Canada, high paying jobs that support a quality of life through charitable giving and tax dollars.
Would my hon. colleague comment on why the NDP is abandoning auto workers at this particular time by getting rid of corporate tax cuts that would have helped Ford, Chrysler and General Motors stay in Canada?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Madam Speaker, it seems inconceivable to me that the NDP would be advocating such an approach because, as he said, of the importance of the jobs and the importance to the community for individuals who are working in unions and, in particular, in the auto sector. They need that company to thrive and prosper. If the company does well, then the employees do well. It seems very much out of step with reality.
What is most difficult to comprehend is that the Minister of Finance himself was so clearly committed to this in the original budget and then he swallowed himself whole. Ralph the wonder invisible dog swallowed himself whole and committed to letting the NDP set the stage for the budget which did away with the tax cuts that would have helped the auto industry, my colleague's constituents included, and instead abandoned all principle to cling to power. That is what it was about.
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in debate on Bill C-48 to talk about the Conservative Party of Canada and about me as a Conservative member of Parliament and a new member of Parliament, and how we are here to build a better Canada. I have a tangible investment in future generations. I have four kids. My oldest turned eight only three days ago.
We are interested in building a better Canada with an improved quality of life within a better fiscal arrangement, not with boondoggle mismanagement the way things have been done for 12 years on that side of the House, and not with sponsorship scandals where hard-earned tax dollars are skimmed to fund Liberal Party election campaigns in Quebec. Neither do we want deals on the back of a napkin, those sorts of poor fiscal arrangements.
What we are looking for in the Conservative Party of Canada is lowering taxes to increase freedom for families so they can pursue priorities in their lives, so they can put their kids into soccer classes, so they can do the things they want to enjoy life. We stand for paying off the debt--
An hon. member: What about housing? What about education? You're talking about soccer practice?
Mr. Jeff Watson: There is incivility on that side of the House. That is quite the hypocrisy coming from the New Democrats.
We want to pay off debt so we can relieve generations to come of crippling bills. The New Democrats want to send a major $500 billion bill to my children and my children's children rather than paying off the national debt.
We want an arrangement whereby we have real jobs here in Canada, not overseas in China. We in the Conservative Party of Canada are fighting for auto workers, for family farmers and for others who deserve to work here in Canada.
Bill C-48 is a wolf in sheep's clothing. The New Democrats are peddling paradise while they are flouting the open and transparent budgetary processes of the House. They are peddling paradise using deceptive reasoning.
I want to probe a couple of the arguments that the NDP has been putting forth in favour of Bill C-48. The first is that the New Democrats are simply taking the tax cuts for corporations like Ford, General Motors and Chrysler and reallocating them to other areas, to what they call their priorities. This is not actually true. This is not a simple reallocation within the same fiscal year.
Bill C-43 offers corporate tax relief. It is a guaranteed budget expenditure, so it is accounted for in a particular year's fiscal arrangement. Bill C-48, the NDP's budget wish list, is a conditional expenditure that triggers only beyond a $2 billion surplus. It does so no sooner than 18 months from now.
A national crisis could emerge. There would go the surplus and the NDP's Bill C-48. We could have downturns in the economy, which could eat up that fiscal room. We could have further provincial demands that need to be satisfied.
Corporations like General Motors, Chrysler and Ford need guaranteed relief to keep jobs here in Canada. They need to know that a guaranteed expenditure is coming to help them so they can plan to stay here and keep jobs in Canada. The NDP is promising, with smoke and mirrors, something that may not even come true.
The NDP will argue that there is plenty of fiscal room and says not to worry about it. The NDP also wants a child care system that would cost $10 billion a year more than the Liberals are currently funding in Bill C-43. That will mean a disappearance of any fiscal room and more. That will necessitate increased taxes, and there may be program cuts from health care and education in order to reallocate money to this national day care.
Or there may be deficit spending. We had plenty of that in Ontario. We remember Bob Rae. We certainly remember the $11 billion deficits that were run in the province. We remember Rae days, on which people could not visit their doctor because the doctor's office was closed that day. Why? There was no money for the doctor to get paid that day. That is what we remember about New Democratic fiscal prudence, or what they like to call fiscal prudence.
This means that maybe child care is on the mantel, to be chopped off. Maybe child care will not be pursued. Where are the dollars going to come from? Will they go to fund Bill C-48? Will they go to fund national day care? They cannot do both with the same fiscal surplus.
(1200)
Let us look back in time. We have had $90 billion in unplanned surpluses since 1997. The actual surpluses were astoundingly higher, but the Liberal government made an art of end of the year, empty the cupboard, politically driven spending sprees to shrink surpluses so Canadians would not be so alarmed by their size.
I see a train wreck coming for the New Democrats, who actually think they may get something with Bill C-48. They are not likely going to see a dime go to funding their priorities when their Liberal cousins empty the cupboard by year's end. They have been duped. Either that or they are trying to dupe Canadians into believing that something will be there. They know it will not be. The NDP has been keeping the Liberals afloat and the NDP gets nothing. That is a raw deal and those members do not even see it coming.
Let us talk about corporate tax cuts for a moment. The NDP has been claiming that corporate tax cuts simply benefit the rich while claiming that New Democrats are helping regular Canadians.
First, the Conservative Party believes in tax relief, not simply tax cuts. Canadian families,along with corporations having trouble competing because of the high dollar and other reasons, need relief now, and not just a simple one time tax cut. They need sustained relief in taxation. Real people struggle every week to make ends meet. They deserve tax relief.
Second, tax relief for corporations actually benefits Canadians in the workforce. I am Parliament's first auto worker. Let us talk about auto workers for a moment. Having our dollar going up in Canada is hurting our exports. Canadian auto companies' productivity is being hurt. Their ability to compete globally from here in Ontario is being hurt.
Massive layoffs have begun in the United States. We have seen layoffs in my community of Windsor and in the communities in the riding of Essex. We have seen them across Ontario. This is happening not just with Ford, Chrysler and General Motors, but with our parts makers and parts suppliers and our tool, mould and die sector, which has had a 38% attrition rate in Essex county in the last decade under the Liberal watch. Those jobs have gone to foreign labour markets such as China and the United States.
Buzz Hargrove, a friend of the New Democrats, the one who actually helped them cut this backroom deal, says that these layoffs are coming to Canada soon with the trickle-down from the 25,000 layoffs that GM has announced in the United States. The NDP wants to get rid of tax relief for Ford, General Motors and DaimlerChrysler right at a time when they are losing the ability to keep auto workers employed here in Ontario. Those are Canadian families at risk of losing their jobs right at a time when that party, which says it likes to fight for auto workers, is getting rid of that tax relief.
Every auto job supports six other jobs. Five hundred thousand regular Canadians lose their jobs when auto jobs head to cheaper foreign labour markets like China or to lower tax jurisdictions such as Georgia, Alabama or South Carolina.
No, tax relief benefits real Canadians on main streets, not just in urban centres but in rural towns, villages and hamlets. The NDP just does not get it. It is no wonder that the first auto worker in Parliament elected by regular Canadians is a Conservative from Essex and is not from the NDP, the CCF, the Liberals or anybody else.
(1205)
Mr. Jeremy Harrison: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a very important speech that the hon. member is giving. I do not believe that we have a quorum. I ask for a quorum call.
And the count having been taken:
The Deputy Speaker: I believe there is quorum.
On another point of order, the hon. parliamentary secretary.
Hon. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite keeps talking about being the first auto worker elected to Parliament. Of course the first auto worker who was elected to this House was Janko Peric, who was the member for Cambridge and a Liberal member. I think the member should get the record straight on that.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary. I do not think that is a point of order, but maybe something can be raised in questions or comments or in debate.
Mr. Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, let me just end my remarks with the NDP logic and what it looks like. That logic says to get rid of tax relief for auto companies, to hurt the quality of life for Canadians by passing Bill C-48, and to hope there is enough money left over after Liberal year end spending sprees to try to replace the quality of life the NDP hurt in the first place.
It is no wonder that the NDP has never formed a government in Canada. It is not likely to do so. We all remember Bob Rae. Canadians will come to their senses, too, when it comes time for the next election.
To sum up, Bill C-48 is a bad deal cut on the back of a napkin. That is not sound fiscal management. It defies the budgetary processes of the House for thorough prebudget hearings and everything else. A couple of people met in a hotel room to prop up a government; this is how they do fiscal management here in Canada. It is a bad deal. I look forward to voting against it.
(1210)
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened to some of this and it was a little hard to take, particularly on the factual side.
The hon. member is talking about the state of the Canadian economy. I have been around here a few years. I remember Conservative years. I remember the economy having an unemployment rate that was larger than the Prime Minister's shoe size, only by a fraction. I remember the period of time when the interest rates were about the same size.
I remember that not in one single budget in eight years--and I will not say that they did not balance because Conservatives never can balance a budget and we all know that--could they live with their own forecasts of the deficit they said they were going to have. Those are the years we remember.
Now we have 6.8% unemployment. We have booming sectors of the Canadian economy. We have jobs being created right across the nation. We have an excellent budget, the seventh consecutive balanced budget. We have a budget that has been improved on by this bill and I will be the first to admit that.
An hon. member: Eighth.
Hon. Don Boudria: Eighth? I am sorry. It is the eighth consecutive balanced budget. I was underestimating how good we are.
We have this budget bill, Bill C-48, which will assist those who are less well off in our society.
The hon. member across has said, in a kind of Hobbesian state of nature way of looking at things, to just reduce taxes and let people fend for themselves, presumably where life will be brutish and short, as Thomas Hobbes used to say, and that will fix everything.
I do not agree with that way of looking at it and I do not believe Canadians do either. We are here for the greater good as well as ourselves individually.
An hon. member: Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher.
Hon. Don Boudria: I know that Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher. I have quoted him extensively in the past.
The hon. member across will know that what he was saying about the state of the human mind when people do not look out for the greater good can happen. I happen to think that there is room in our society to make things better by pooling the resources of this society for the greater good.
I believe that this is the right way of looking at things. We have examples in some provincial jurisdictions, in Quebec for instance, with the day care system. I think that has been a good experience in that province. We are now enabling other provinces to do the same thing. What is wrong with that?
Mr. Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, I may be young at 34 but I remember the red book in 1993 and the election campaign that year. The Liberals came to power. Nobody was talking about tax relief, paying down the debt, or any of those types of things. In fact, the red book was a recipe for handing over one's chequebook. There was more and more spending.
But surprise, there was a protest party out west, one of the legacy parties of this Conservative Party. It elected a surprising number of members of Parliament. They came to Ottawa and pushed for things such as eliminating the deficit, zero in three, I think it was back then. There were some surprising ideas that interestingly enough were not in the red book.
Where did the current conditions for today's economy come from? They did not come from ideas from that bench. They came from the official opposition. They came from the Conservative Party's fighting to put the fiscal house in order.
Bill C-48 on the other hand, to get back to the debate at hand, is a recipe for returning to deficits. Combine this with some of the Liberals' other $26 billion in spending promises since the Prime Minister showed up on national television to beg for his political life. They have a $10 billion per year unfunded liability for a national day care system. Put this all together and it is a recipe for higher taxes, program cuts or borrowing the money to pay for them. That is fiscal irresponsibility.
The Liberals have allowed the NDP in because the government needed to be propped up. This is the way the Liberals do it. It is a recipe for deficit spending. It is irresponsible and I look forward to opposing it.
(1215)
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—Richmond East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this morning we are here discussing important policy issues in Bill C-48. Our party has been sharply critical of this bill. As we have seen in the past, the Liberals' approach to spending without a plan is a recipe for disaster. I think that goes without saying. It goes without saying when we manage our households and it goes without saying when managing the economy of the country. It is widely accepted that the only reason the Liberals agreed to this bill was to save their political skin. There has been much made of that in the last day or so and I am sure there will be much made of it in the days to come.
All that being said, I want to use my time this morning to lay out a larger concern. I will be more specific in my concern in dealing with the Liberal approach to the economy. I want to talk in particular about the government's approach to managing the fishery. This is an important budget item. It is one which I think if the government was going to make an addition to its budget, it is an issue that the Liberals should have addressed.
I want to talk about the government's failure to include in its budget adequate resources to deal with the fishery on the Fraser River. The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has done a couple of excellent reports on this issue in the last couple of years. It has given the government good advice which has been ignored. The committee has spoken of the problems that are being faced with the harvest on the Fraser River this year, in particular the restrictions that will be put on the harvest of Fraser River sockeye because of concerns for the sockeye coming into Cultus Lake.
The 2005 sockeye fishery on the Fraser River should be a boon to the economy of British Columbia. There are about 12 million sockeye expected to return to the river, compared to about five million that came back last year. The harvest should have been substantial.
In fact, if we look back at the harvest rates on this particular run in the 1990s, there was a commercial harvest of around eight million fish on the Fraser River. This year the projection is a harvest of only 1.4 million sockeye. This is only a modest increase over the 1.3 million harvested last year, with a return of less than half the size.
The question is why. Again, it is government inaction on a very important issue. The government has a constitutional obligation to protect wild fish and their habitat. It should be an integral part of the government's budget, yet in this particular instance the government is ignoring the problems.
Cultus Lake sockeye have a very serious problem when it comes to survival. There is no question about that. The survival of these fish is not one that stems from overharvesting by the commercial or sports fishermen, or in fact by native fishermen. The problem comes from the lake itself and problems within the lake.
For example, there is a problem with northern pikeminnows in that lake. In an October 2004 document that I received under access to information, the department makes it very clear when it talks about predator removal. The department says:
|
Adult northern pikeminnows are abundant in Cultus Lake and are predators of salmon fry. The removal of adult pikeminnows from Cultus Lake has been conducted on two separate occasions in the past. An evaluation of this previous work indicates that the removal of predators can increase survival of sockeye fry. |
(1220)
We know that survival of these fish can occur if we deal with the predator problem. The question is why are we not? Improvement is significant. It is estimated that there are about 40,000 northern pikeminnows in the lake that eat the sockeye fry. It is estimated that each sockeye that returns to Cultus Lake lays about 3,500 eggs. After the eggs hatch the following spring, the fish will spend a year in the lake. That is the time that the northern pike do great damage to the Cultus run.
It is suggested that if we reduce the pikeminnow population by 80%, it would give a jump start on the Cultus Lake sockeye run because the smolts from the 350 to 500 fish that do return would have a far greater chance of survival. There are about 425 sockeye with 3,500 eggs each. If the survival rate was increased by only 1%, it would mean an additional 14,875 sockeye would survive. That is exponentially larger than the 80 fish or so that the department hopes to get back to the lake by almost shutting down the sockeye fishery in the Fraser River this year.
Shutting that fishery down is going to mean a loss to the economy of British Columbia up to probably $75 million. The question is, why is the government not taking some action? Why are there not budget considerations given to removing these predators from the lake?
The fishing industry has proposed that it would go into the lake and seine these northern pike. It has been done before, as was mentioned in the government document that I quoted from. It has been done before very effectively. The only reason it was not continued was that the government balked at spending $15,000 in wages for the fishermen who were doing it. For $15,000 in wages it said it was not going to continue the program and yet the cost to the British Columbia economy is in the tens of millions of dollars.
That is the kind of planning that the government undertakes. That is why I think we should all be concerned about it. There are other problems on the lake as well. There is an Asian milfoil problem. The government, again in the October 2004 document that I received under access to information, talked about it:
|
Habitat restoration work involves the removal of Eurasian Watermilfoil (a common yarrow plant that provides habitat for sockeye predators) in Cultus Lake. Milfoil removal has been conducted in the past, mainly as a control for “exotic weeds”. Milfoil is an invasive species and its removal would have a dual benefit: expose juvenile pikeminnows to predation by adult pikeminnows and to clear milfoil from prime salmon spawning habitat. |
Again, there is a program that the government should be undertaking to save these fish. As well, Cultus Lake is a very busy lake. It is within an hour and a half or two hour drive of downtown Vancouver. With a population of a couple of million, an awful lot of those folks will spend a good part of a day or days in the summer enjoying Cultus Lake. There is heavy recreational boater use. There are summer vacation homes and permanent residences. Each of these factors adds to the level of pollutants in the lake and makes it more difficult for the fish to survive.
When we talk about the budget and the additions that the government put in Bill C-48, it is all very well and good. Some of the additions are meant to help people who are not in a position to help themselves, and yet that is exactly what I am talking about. The expenditure of a few dollars would be of great help to the fishermen in British Columbia.
There is one last item that I want to mention about the management of the fishery. It has to do with the snow crab quota for fishermen in eastern Nova Scotia.
(1225)
I talked last night with Josephine Kennedy, a snow crab representative. She told me that the government was to cut the quota for snow crab by about 60%, from 16,000 pounds. This will have a huge impact on the economy. All of this without any consultation.
Whether it is budget implementation or whether it is management of the fishery, these are things on which the government falls down. The minister refused to talk to those folks about the issue. The government has refused to have an appropriate discussion with fishermen on Cultus Lake. All of that is hurtful.
I hope that the government will take some action to address these issues.
Mr. Bradley Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my hon. friend's comments, particularly with respect to the fishery. One of the things I enjoy about the House of Commons is the fact that we gather here from all parts of Canada to learn and to study together.
I am trying to think which province is farther away from the ocean, but I believe my province of Saskatchewan is the most removed. It was an education for me to listen to the member, especially when he talked about predatory fish in Cultus Lake. I did not totally understand where this fish came from or all the details about it.
I hope the hon. member can enlighten a prairie boy, someone who is more used to beef than to fish, on the predator fish. From where does it come? Is it naturally occurring or is it part of some government transfer program? Perhaps all members could listen and learn something from his expertise.
Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Speaker, my friend's question is important. From where did these predator fish in Cultus Lake come? Cultus Lake is one of several lakes in the area that flow into the Fraser River. This pike minnow does not exist in Harrison Lake, which I believe Mr. Speaker is in your riding, or in Pitt Lake. From where did the fish come. Did someone dump an aquarium? Was it part of some provincial or federal transfer program to enhance sport fishing? No one really knows. Those kinds of answers are necessary.
The minister made an announcement a few day ago. When he makes announcements about British Columbia fisheries, he does not go to British Columbia to do it. He does it here at a press conference in Ottawa. It saves the taxpayers travel money, but more important, the minister does not have to stare down the people who are most concerned about this, the people who have an interest in fisheries in British Columbia. He does this by way of teleconference from Ottawa.
In the recent teleconference he talked about spending $5.2 million to strengthen enforcement, implement new catch monitoring programs and to improve scientific research. The type of research being done is probably more politically motivated than it is motivated by a real desire to understand the environment in which these fish operate and live. Particularly in the issue of Cultus Lake, I am unaware of any money being directed to that fishery. The department is remiss in conducting base level research on a variety of issues whether it be the pike minnow in Cultus Lake or the effects of high water temperatures on returning sockeye. The base level research really is not done.
I was talking the other day with a fellow who was doing some research for the Sierra Club. I pointed out to him the problem that was experienced from the set net fishing in the Fraser Canyon. This is an ongoing problem. It is a problem that is recognized throughout the fishing community. I have had conversations with members of the Native Brotherhood, which is the oldest commercial fishing organization for native people in British Columbia. I think it is about 75 years old. I have talked with the Chilcotin Indians just west of Williams Lake in the central and coastal areas of British Columbia. They are concerned about the set nets in the Fraser Canyon.
The fish, which are navigating through the canyon, are under huge stress, not just from the fast flowing water but at from high temperatures as well. However, they manage to navigate through the canyon by hugging the canyon walls and scooting from back eddy to back eddy. The government allows a set net fishery in that canyon which adds to the stress of these fish. Some research has been done by other folks, independent of government, who demonstrated how hard that was on the fish, but no one is doing anything about it. Government is not doing the kind of research that is necessary to protect our fisheries resource.
I do not see it in this budget. It is important for the government get on track and start to address some of its core responsibilities. One of those is the protection of wild fish and their habitat.
(1230)
Mr. Andrew Scheer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I heard my hon. colleague speak before and I think we should have more members in the House to hear him give his speech. I do not think we have quorum right now.
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: We have quorum. Resuming debate the hon. member for Prince Albert.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to look at this with a chronological approach. Back in Saskatchewan, I observed the goings on in Ontario in the early 1990s with the Bob Rae government. From my recollection of that government and what I read about it, there was massive unemployment during that period. By the time he left office, a million people were on welfare, more people than in the entire province of Saskatchewan. Taxes were very high and fiscal imbalances were really out of whack, something unbelievable in Ontario.
I remember seeing a sign in Buffalo. The Buffalo chamber of commerce put up a huge sign naming Premier Bob Rae as its man of the year. He was the man of the year for Buffalo because he had driven so much investment and business out of Ontario and into Buffalo that it thought it should acknowledge the benefit of NDP socialistic policies in Ontario.
Fortunately, in 1995 the people of Ontario put that party out of existence. It had caused so much damage in the province that for a few elections afterward not a single NDP member was elected to the federal Parliament. It was that bad. That is the NDP record with spending when it gets its hands on power.
The Conservative Party opposes this bill because we have seen what Bob Rae type governments have done to the economy and how it sets back the nation. We do not like to see that happen.
From a Saskatchewan standpoint, I have to oppose the budget because it does not address BSE issues. It does not address the forestry problems. A forestry sector in Saskatchewan is hurting very badly for a whole host of reasons. It does not help the grain producers who have been hit by drought, frost and income problems. It is unbelievable. The farmers in Saskatchewan are looking at a net income situation that is massive this year, unparalleled in the province's history.
Then there is the equalization formula. Of all provinces, the province that I think is most unfairly dealt with under the equalization formula is Saskatchewan. Every elected official, including the premier of the province, knows this. We are all united in an effort to get this thing changed, except for one, the Minister of Finance. I have to remind myself to keep mentioning that point.
None of these things are addressed in this budget. Rural communities in Saskatchewan are reeling from these sorts of problems, but not one step has been taken in this deal to address those issues.
Let me go back to the vote on the first budget bill. Our party had a lot of concerns about the budget. There may have been some good things in the it but there were a lot of negatives. We respected what people were saying across the country, which was to let Parliament work. Canadians did not want an election so we held our noses and abstained on that.
The leader of the New Democrats and his 18 New Democrat members voted against that budget and pointed fingers toward the Conservatives and said, “How dare you prop up this corrupt, incompetent Liberal government”. There was not one announcement in the budget for agriculture. New Democrats sent out ten percenters and news releases to Conservative ridings condemning the Conservatives for abstaining on the first budget. Lo and behold, a few months later, here we are.
Let us review another aspect of this whole thing. It is quite clear that history will show that this is one of the most desperate Prime Minister's in Canadian history. He goes from one crisis to another and will do just about anything to stay in power. That is how history will judge the Prime Minister.
(1235)
Back in that period of time, the Prime Minister, through Tim Murphy and other people in his office, started trolling for opposition members of Parliament to prop up and support his government. They trolled and trolled. They caught one fish, a little fish in a big pond, but they did catch it and get it on the other side. They tried like the dickens to get more people. However, at the same time, three of the Prime Minister's own people left his ship. So much for his leadership.
Lo and behold, the Prime Minister had a meeting with the leader of the NDP in a five star hotel in Toronto. I am sure there was champagne. They had their luncheon and their meeting and so on, and they signed themselves a deal. It was an unholy arrangement, I would say. It solemnized something that I am not exactly sure would receive blessings from any divinity, but they did have Father Buzz there. Father Buzz Hargrove gave it his seal of approval.
With that trolling on that date, that desperate Prime Minister really hit pay dirt. He got 19 New Democrats to join his incompetent and corrupt administration. They were caught hook, line and sinker on that day. They bit big time. With all the trolling that carried on, the Liberals got one person from the Conservatives, but on that day they got 19 New Democrats that just went right into bed with them and solemnized this unholy arrangement.
What is this great Liberal-NDP budget? I have it here. If we throw off the front page, it is just legalese. Paragraphs one and three are legalese. The bill is one-quarter of a page long. What does it say? I will put this from a Saskatchewan standpoint. I am trying to find out how the farmers in Saskatchewan and the equalization issues and so on are addressed by any of these points. Maybe I missed something and the NDP members can point out where I am wrong.
For the environment, including public transit and the energy efficient retrofit program for low income housing, there is an amount not exceeding $900 million. I do not see anything about farming there. I do not see anything about BSE. I do not see anything about forestry and I do not see anything about equalization.
The second point deals with training programs and enhanced access to post-secondary education to benefit, among others, aboriginal Canadians, in an amount not exceeding $1.5 billion. Yet again, I do not see anything for agriculture. I do not see anything about equalization. I do not see anything for tax relief for small business people in Saskatchewan.
The third point deals with affordable housing, including housing for aboriginal Canadians, in an amount not exceeding $1.6 billion; and the fourth point deals with foreign aid in an amount not exceeding $500 million.
I do not want to be interpreted as being meanspirited in the area of foreign aid, but quite literally, I have communities in my riding in Saskatchewan that are reeling big time. We have a government in this country that is deaf and blind to the problems in those communities. We need some foreign aid in our own country as well because we have some big time problems in different parts of the country.
There is a lot I can say about this unholy arrangement between the NDP and the Liberals, but it still boils down to the fact that there is nothing really of any substance for the people of Saskatchewan. There is nothing for grain producers, nothing for BSE, nothing in the way of equalization, and nothing for a very troubled forestry industry. There must have been too much smog in Toronto that day and the leader of the NDP could not see Saskatchewan when he made his one-quarter page deal with the Liberals, but he did join that corrupt and incompetent Liberal administration when he signed that deal, and so did the other 18 members of the NDP.
(1240)
Hon. Keith Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians listening to the diatribe across the way would be aghast at what they heard. Most Canadians are not really interested in the silly hijinks that often occur in this place.
What do they care about? They care about having a job. They care about health care when they get sick. They care about education for their children. They care about ensuring that we have a vibrant private sector that would enable us to create jobs for them. They care about social programs that would be there in perpetuity. They care about the aged to ensure that they are going to have care when they get older. They care about their pensions being there for a long period of time. They care about their environment. They care about their cities.
Those are the things that Canadians care about. Those are the things that we have been seized with. Those are the things that are in our budget that we released. We put infrastructure money for cities. We put money in to ensure that kids have a headstart and that their basic needs are cared for, not to supplant parents but to work with them to ensure kids have the best chance possible. We have ensured that our budgets are balanced. We have a budget that is the eighth consecutive surplus budget.
Is it perfect? No, it is not perfect. However, it goes a long way toward addressing many of the concerns Canadians have, in a pragmatic way, in a financially stable way, and in a way that addresses their concerns. No government can do everything that is asked of it, but I would submit that we have gone a long way to addressing many of the concerns of Canadians.
The member mentioned that there is nothing in the budget for Saskatchewan. The member obviously has not read, or understood, what the government has done with respect to its cities agenda. We put money in not only from the gas tax but we have ensured that we have moneys for the GST. GST moneys are going to be removed from municipalities and those moneys can be used to help the infrastructure needs of those communities.
Does the hon. member not acknowledge that Saskatchewan is going to get substantial amounts of moneys from the GST rebate and also money from the cities agenda that we have actually managed to hammer out or are in the process of negotiating with the various provinces? Does he not think that would be a good thing and if he does not, what is his party's plan to deal with the infrastructure needs of cities?
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Mr. Speaker, we presented a motion last year and the member should remember it. I think he was an independent at that time. We recommended that 5¢ go back to the provinces on the condition that it be used for roads, bridges and municipal infrastructure. That was a firm commitment by us. It was a platform issue we had last time.
The member has been here since 1993. This is 12 years later. All of a sudden, the Liberals see the light that there is an imbalance at the municipal level and they need some cash to pay for something if they had some important things. The light finally went on. The leader of the Liberal Party is basically stalled on a page from the Conservative platform on fiscal balance and the municipal infrastructure issue. The Liberals are on that page and it took them 12 years to do it.
I have a point regarding gas tax rebates. Saskatchewan, because of its economy, is getting back its revenues on a per capita basis, but it uses twice as much per capita as any other province in the country. One could almost argue, under this arrangement, that Saskatchewan, whose per capita income is well below Toronto or Vancouver or Montreal, is in fact subsidizing major infrastructure programs in those centres.
If the member opposite thinks that is a fair arrangement, taking from a province with a per capita income of $19,000 and transferring it to cities where the per capita income is $55,000, I am afraid I have a serious disagreement with him and I have a problem with his mathematics as well.
(1245)
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Prince Albert mentioned a number of items that were not in the budget. He mentioned forestry, equalization, farming and BSE, and obviously, they were not in Bill C-43 when it came before the House. However, $4.6 billion in tax cuts for corporations was in that budget, which in essence the Conservatives supported by way of not voting against it. In essence, they were voting for a budget that did not have farming, BSE, equalization, forestry and a number of items.
We worked out a deal where some additional dollars could help out Canadians with education and affordable housing. My colleague again mentioned and criticized the foreign affairs dollars which were supported by his own colleagues and are still supported by his own colleagues within his party. So they had better get things together because they are starting to sound like the Prime Minister and the finance minister.
If all those things were not in the budget, why did he not vote against the budget and why did his party not make some effort to get that budget changed so that it would reflect the needs of Canadians?
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Mr. Speaker, I find the whole discussion kind of convoluted and hard to figure out. There were some tax cuts for the business sector including small, medium and large size businesses. Part of the deal made with the champagne socialist leader and the Liberal member in that five star hotel was to take away all those tax cuts.
The Minister of Finance was left right out of those negotiations, but he came back to the House after three different budgets were introduced in one week and he is still standing. He is a little bit shorter, but he is still standing I guess. He said he would take the tax cuts out and then put them back through another deal, but the Leader of the NDP said that they must come out. However, here they are still in their unholy alliance despite these acknowledgments. I find that interesting.
I guess the NDP has adopted the Liberal approach which is to take a bunch of money and give it to a few Liberal friends in the corporate and commercial world and make all the other businesses suffer, rather than give everyone the benefit of tax cuts, including small, medium and large size businesses. This way they can all prosper and compete on a level playing field.
The NDP would prefer to give grants to General Motors rather than give General Motors a tax cut so it can get some breathing room. That is the NDP approach.
Mr. Bradley Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the bill. To give a little history of where I am coming from and what I am speaking to in this bill, I will go back to the original budget bill because, as has been well established, this is budget bill part two.
On the morning right before the finance minister brought forward the bill, I had an S. O. 31 member's statement about what the priorities were for people in my constituency, what the people of my province cared about. I want to revisit that.
In that statement I talked about my good friend, Andrew Duff, a farmer who works on a feedlot in eastern Saskatchewan. I talked about some of his priorities for his family. I want to go through a few of them again.
One of his priorities was tax cuts. He is on a farm and makes no money, yet he still pays taxes, some of which admittedly are provincial and municipal, but largely because of the unequal equalization, those taxes are difficult to lower. Other taxes are through his job, such as his EI premiums, which are applied in Saskatchewan. As a farmer he is ineligible for unemployment, so that is nothing more than a payroll tax. Of course there is the fuel tax, the inputs on his fertilizer for his grains and so forth.
One of his priorities was to have a tax cut so that he could afford the farm, something which is being productive and supplying jobs for other people through his purchases in the community.
Another of his priorities was a real and sustainable plan for agriculture. We held our noses the other day when we voted for the other piece of legislation that really did not do anything for agriculture. We did that because of the dire straits of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, a province which has been shortchanged repeatedly by the federal government. That province needed help and needed the prosperity from its own natural resources returned to it, as it rightfully should be. We in this party, even though we knew that there were large elements of the larger budget bill that were not good, reached out to help a part of the country receive its rightful due.
There was nothing in that plan for agriculture. There is nothing in this part two of the plan for agriculture. I am not talking about announcements of money, because as has been proven, announcements of money often are not delivered. What is needed is real substance, a real plan to be delivered.
Finally, the third thing my friend and his family would need, and which is true for many young families in rural Saskatchewan, is the child tax credit, something that could help them raise their families. My friend and his wife come from a dairy farm. The children are a part of the farm. They work. They cannot just run to and from town to an organized government day care centre. It is impractical. It costs more for them to drive in, drop the children off and then come back to work. It just cannot be. The only way they are going to get any help is if there is a direct child tax credit given to them. In the original budget and in this new piece of legislation that we are debating, it is not there. The priorities of Canadians from my riding and of Saskatchewan residents in general were not brought forward.
Another reason I am unhappy, displeased and opposed to this legislation is the lack of accountability. This point was brought up, quite succinctly I might say, by some members during the debate last night. A major priority and the main purpose of Parliament, of the people's representatives, is to hold the government to account for the spending of the dollars.
That is what all the battles were about. When we go back into British parliamentary history, in dealing with the problems of the funding, the king would not recall Parliament because he did not like Parliament's views, but he was forced to because Parliament ended up controlling the spending. We have seen the English civil war, various reforms, Gladstone and Disraeli, et cetera, as history has gone forward. Accountability is something of extreme priority that we must hold to.
One thing that is most disturbing about this current piece of legislation that we are debating is there is no plan and no real guidelines. As has been stated, that is true for the previous legislation. That is the justification and rationale used by some members who have been saying during the debate that there has been other inept, ridiculous, poorly thought out legislation which I and my hon. friends in the Conservative Party held our noses and supported, so why not support all future legislation that is poorly thought out and poorly planned?
(1250)
We are sometimes forced to support things for the greater good. This legislation has absolutely no greater good to it. There is no accountability. The point has been raised over and over again that when we read the substance of the bill, it is very sketchy. There is nothing there.
I remind my hon. friends in the NDP that if they really believe in the deal they got, perhaps they should take a look at past history. Whenever the Liberals have promised something, it has taken anywhere from five to 15 years to deliver that promise.
I remember the great campaign when the Liberals promised to take apart the GST. They promised over and over again to do it. A former member from Hamilton ended up having to resign her seat. In the end the promise that was said over and over again was not delivered.
There must be accountability. It is the primary purpose of Parliament. We look at past follies, and it has been said that a member from Saskatchewan will bring this up every time, but it affects so many people in our province. Firearms, rifles and shotguns are the tools that we use on our farms. They are used by hunters and for recreation; they are part of our culture.
The gun registry is perhaps the largest fiasco and the most ill thought out, ill conceived, unaccountable policy ever presented in the history of this country. It has cost $2 billion to register duck hunters. They are not the people who use handguns. Handguns have been taken care of since 1935. The gun registry was another one of those Liberal plans with no accountability. The Liberals just went out there and did what they wanted to do without thinking about it.
I want to briefly touch on some of the macroeconomic effects of reckless spending. This was demonstrated in the previous coalition between the NDP and the Liberals in the 1970s. I know the criticism will come that there were other reasons for the wild and reckless spending and the way interest rates got out of control. Fiscal prudence and accountability are important in all that we do.
One of the major concerns I have about reckless out of control spending is higher interest rates. It is fairly well known that when there are unproductive, irresponsible fiscal pressures on the demand side, the pressures then lead to higher rates of inflation.
The Bank of Canada has wisely followed a strict monetary policy. This is something which was not done and was part of the problem in previous eras, the lack of a conservative monetary policy. The Bank of Canada responds by hiking interest rates to crack down on inflation.
I want to ask everyone who reads these words or who is watching on television or any member listening in the House to think what higher interest rates will do for small businessmen and for home owners with mortgages. For example, if a carpenter is watching, he or she should think of how it will impact on his or her job in the future. Continued reckless spending by the NDP-Liberal coalition will help to kill that job.
Most people who own a home in Saskatoon, in my riding, in Burlington or anywhere have a mortgage. Young families have mortgages. I myself recently took out a mortgage when I purchased my first home. I am not looking forward to the macroeconomic disaster that the government's reckless spending is going to create.
I want to give some positive suggestions to the government so that the Liberals in the future have some positive ideas. I listed my priorities earlier, but let me state one of them again. I mentioned a cut to EI. This is a cut to what is essentially a payroll tax. I have particular personal empathy with this one because I worked in a bakery at minimum wage for a year prior to going to university.
I worked at the bakery with people who had been there for 10 or 12 years and who were ineligible, because of the vagaries of the system, to collect employment insurance. Yet year after year they were paying higher premiums than they deserved to pay. This is a job killer. Nothing stops small business from hiring more employees than pressures on the payroll and higher costs.
I know the government thinks our unemployment rate of 6.8% is wonderful. Any politician south of the border with such a rate would be defeated. Our unemployment rate needs to go down. There needs to be continuous pressure. This is only one item. There are many other things the government could do to have productivity and an agenda that actually creates growth for the country, instead of merely looking around to redistribute the wealth with no plan, no thought and no wisdom.
(1255)
The priorities the government has brought forward are not the priorities of the constituents of Saskatoon--Humboldt. They are not the things I stand for. That is why I will be voting against Bill C-48.
Hon. Keith Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the member's speech with its staggering number of inconsistencies and outright untruths. It was absolutely amazing to hear the lack of veracity for the facts that he was tossing around in the House.
The member thinks that somehow we have mismanaged the economy, but let us look at the facts. Canada has the most robust economy of all 26 nations in the OECD. Our unemployment rate is the lowest we have ever had. Our interest rates are the lowest we have had in decades. We are paying down the debt.
The member was correct when he said that to have a robust economy we need low inflation rates and low interest rates. That is important in order to have a robust private sector that can create jobs.
Does the member not read the economic indices of this country? Our economy is providing jobs. We have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the history of our country. We have the lowest interest rates and lowest inflation rates that we have ever had. I am sure his constituents would support that. Does he not support that? Does he not acknowledge that is the situation in this country? Does he not acknowledge that is good fiscal management?
(1300)
Mr. Bradley Trost: Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to listen to my friend comparing economic statistics around the world. I do not really care how badly many of the other economies in the world are run. Canada needs to do what is best for Canada.
He was comparing Canada with other countries around the world. Let us take a look at Germany, a country that is not partially run by his ideological allies, but completely run by his ideological allies. Germany has a 12% unemployment rate. That country followed policies similar to those in which the government is engaging.
The hon. member was crowing about a 6.8% or 6.9% unemployment rate. The President of the United States, and I have some pretty harsh criticisms of his economic platform too, almost lost the last election because that country had a 5% unemployment rate. That is using calculations which are stricter than what we have here in Canada.
I am not quite sure what the hon. member is tooting the government's horn about. Great Britain has a lower unemployment rate than Canada has, to a large degree caused by the previous Tory administration which followed a strict monetary policy that emphasized tax cuts, growth, ownership society.
I am really not quite sure where the hon. member is coming from. He is claiming credit for low interest rates, low inflation, et cetera, but let us take a look at the record.
I agree that previous Tory administrations did not follow correct and strict monetary policy. They were Keynesian in their approach. The member is taking credit for that. The Liberals criticized that for many years. Pressure was put on our economy to force up inflation because of reckless policies followed in the 1970s in this country and in other countries around the world. It is known as Keynesian economics, spending to prop up the government, put it on the demand side, and end up with stagflation, higher unemployment rates, lower productivity, no growth, no future, no plan.
That was why the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, chambers of commerce and so forth condemned the government. The government knows how to take credit for everything that was done before it, but it does not know how to actually get things done. It knows how to surf.
Hon. members on that side heckle about a previous administration. I am not here to defend any previous administration. In the 1872 election I would have voted Liberal because that was the party of honesty and integrity back then, something which the present Liberal Party is not. We have a duty as members to speak for policy now and policy for the future. I really do not care about previous governments. They all need to stand on their own record in history. We need to stand for what is right now.
I was too young to vote on all these issues that many members are discussing. I am one of the younger members in the House. My job is to look forward to the future. My job is to look forward to the future for my riding, the future of the people of Saskatoon--Humboldt, the future of all Canadians, young, middle age, old, however Canadians describe themselves.
Canadians need a growing economy. They need a robust economy. The low expectations of 6.9% that the government has made are simply not good enough. Canada should have the greatest economy in the world, the lowest unemployment rate, and the highest standard of living. This country has the natural resources and the talent. We have everything we need to make Canada the greatest nation in the world.
(1305)
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and speak in the House with you in the chair, Sir. I was going to say with you, Mr. Speaker, ruling the roost, but I am not sure it would be a compliment, although hopefully it will give me a couple of marks that I can use later.
We are here today debating Bill C-48. This is a budget bill that was put together for the prime purpose of keeping the present government in power. It was a $4.6 billion deal between the NDP and the Liberals to get NDP support to prop up the Liberal government.
This was at a time when not only were the Liberals buying a party, and they did buy a whole party through this process, but they were starting to try to buy individual members in the House. I think that goes a long way toward explaining why there is so much cynicism in the country. When Canadians sit back and look at some of the action the government has taken on just to stay where it is, it appalls them.
I have a couple of issues to start with and then I would like to get into what my party and I think about where the country should be and what kind of country it could be if it were properly managed.
What we have now is a $4.6 billion budget bill that is two pages long and does not have the programs or the regulations to back up spending that money. The authorization is given to cabinet to “develop and implement” the programs, as it is stated in the bill, and to pay out the funds as it sees fit.
Does that not remind us somewhat of what happened with ad scam? Money was thrown around, hundreds of millions of dollars of our money, without proper authority and without the proper regulations, checks and balances in place to make sure it was being spent properly.
Here we have $4.6 billion that will be dispensed through the authorization of the cabinet without any documentation to back it up or to bring to the House so Canadians can have a look at how it is going to be spent and if it is going to be spent wisely. That in and of itself is a huge problem.
When we look for some of the things that are not in Bill C-48, as many of my colleagues have alluded to, it is quite alarming. In the NDP priorities that were part of the deal made with the Liberals, things were left out and forgotten. We could go on about agriculture and a few other things, but we will move on.
Before I get into it too deeply, I would like to thank the members of the Conservative Party who sat on the finance committee. As we know, there were many late nights with long hours and pretty intense debate. I remember one night being here until almost midnight when the finance committee was in a parallel sitting to the House to deal with this bill.
The members for Medicine Hat, Portage—Lisgar, Peace River and others who sit on that committee did a tremendous job of trying to hold the government to account and also of bringing forward good, solid amendments. Had those amendments been accepted, we would be able to move forward. The government completed rejected most of those issues.
As it ended up, the bill that came back to the House was a title with nothing below it because we could not agree on any of it. We are very concerned, as most Canadians are, that this money is going to be spent and spent in a way that is not open to public scrutiny and could be mismanaged.
We as the Conservative Party stand and criticize the government to hold it to account, which is part of our mandate, but our other mandate is to have alternatives to what the government is doing and to have our own vision of where Canada should go.
This country is blessed with natural resources and an expanse that should allow every citizen of Canada a good life and an ability to work, to feed their families, to plan and save for the future, and to have the wherewithal to educate their children. These are the issues that most families talk about when they come to talk to me.
They would like to see some substantive tax breaks for families so they can decide. We can get into the child care situation the government is promoting, in which it is going to create many day care spaces, not worrying about people who work shift work and not worrying about people in rural areas. That will be for just certain aspects of society.
(1310)
We in the Conservative Party are saying that all families should be given a tax break so they can make the decisions and have a choice as to how they raise their own children. Most parents, when it comes right down to it, would prefer to raise their own children, but most families are now are two income families. Both parents work because it takes six months out of every year just to pay their tax bill.
Parents have to work half their lives just to pay taxes. That is the reason they have to work. If we were able to restructure the tax system and leave the money in the pockets of parents, they would have choices as to how their children should be cared for and they would have a few bucks to save for their future, their retirement and their children's educations.
A lot of Canadians will never realize the hope and dream of owning a home because they do not have the funds left over at the end of the month to put toward a mortgage. We have to change that. Everybody should have the opportunity to have affordable housing. That is right in the Conservatives platform. We support Canadians having affordable homes.
As for this idea that we have to take the money away from all Canadians so we can direct it back to them, should we not leave it with them and let them make the decisions on how they are going to spend their funds? Does that not add up?
There is a regional disparity in Canada. There is this financial imbalance we talk about. This is another thing that we as a nation need to be addressing. We need to make sure that all areas of Canada have the opportunity for economic growth and stability. With that comes the opportunity for citizens to enjoy a good quality of career, to own their own home and to have peace of mind knowing that they have been able to put a few bucks away to educate their children or for their own retirement.
When people are empowered in that way, when they make those decisions for themselves, it also blends into creating a society that looks more toward itself to solve its problems than anywhere else. That is where people should be looking, but we have to give them the means to work through those problems. I think that if we levelled out the economic situation across this country and gave everybody that hand up instead of a handout, that is the way to improve things.
Part of the deal the NDP made with the Liberals is really amazing. It cost them $4.6 billion to buy an entire party on the premise that the Liberals would get support in the House. There still were not enough votes to ensure the Liberals' success, so they had to try to buy off more people in the House. They were successful in some cases and unsuccessful in others. Part of the deal was that the NDP wanted the tax cuts taken out of the budget, so the Liberals said they would do it, they would take them out of the budget and then bring them back in another way.
Therefore, not only did they spend $4.6 billion to buy some votes that were not enough to sustain them in the House, they reneged on the part of the deal regarding tax breaks, because those tax breaks are still going through and the NDP is still in the House to prop up the Liberals. It is almost as ridiculous as some of the backbench Liberals who are so opposed to Bill C-38 and are continually propping their government up long enough so they can pass Bill C-38. Some of these people will need to answer to their own constituents.
I would like to get into some of the party policy that Conservatives think needs to be implemented in this country to keep it strong and viable, to make it an even greater country than it is, to make it as great as it should be. As I say, I am from Alberta, and Albertans are blessed with resources, many of which are as yet untapped. We have oil, coal, farmland and forests. Everything is there.
I suppose that those of us living in Alberta have an advantage due to that, but because of the way this country is structured and because of the willingness to share shown by provinces that have more than others, we should be making sure it is done in a way such that the people who do not have as much are brought up to the same standard.
(1315)
We believe that in order to have a strong economy and maintain good health, Canada must have strong, coordinated and achievable environmental policies. A Conservative government believes that responsible exploration and development, conservation and renewal of our environment are vital to our continued well-being as a nation and as individuals.
Being from Alberta, I say that because of the oil and gas exploration and the many things that go on there. At the same time that we explore and develop those very necessary resources, we have to be conscious of the environment. It is a proven fact that when the economy is going well, the most attention is given to the safeguarding of the environment.
In many of the classes in which I speak, like most of the members here who do the same when they go around to schools, I note that the environment is a key issue to the young people in our country. Good for them, I say. I am not so proud of what my generation has done to the environment, but the next generation is going to be prepared to fix it. We have to ensure that the tools are there to do it. Responsible development and responsible exploration, with an eye on both, and being able to facilitate that while protecting the environment, is part of what needs to be done and it is part of what we believe in.
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, to respond directly to my colleague's comments, he mentioned that the Conservatives support good, quality education so I am at a loss as to why they would not support the additional dollars the NDP has ensured in Bill C-48. They were not in Bill C-43, the budget that the Conservatives were willing to go along with. They are in Bill C-48, yet the Conservatives are talking about not supporting it. That is speaking on two sides, and I imagine we will see both coming out in the pamphlets that the Conservatives will send around in the next little while.
In the member's last statements, he talked about supporting the environment. Again, on the road to improving support for environmental initiatives, it is in the NDP budget, Bill C-48. It is there. It hit that right on the mark. He talked about the need for affordable housing. That is in the NDP budget, Bill C-48.
I am really at a loss as to what the problem is that the Conservatives have with this budget other than the fact that corporations may not get $4.6 billion in tax cuts, the corporations that the Conservatives are here to represent rather than representing all the people of Canada. Tax breaks for small and medium sized business are still in the budget. That was part of the deal as well. Those members can talk about them not being there all they want, but the reality is that they are still there.
If the Liberals can come up with another $4.6 billion for tax cuts, we will deal with that next time around, but what we are saying is that if they can give this $4.6 billion after already giving billions of dollars in tax cuts in the last number of years, they can give back to Canadians. Why are the Conservatives against dollars going back to ordinary Canadians?
Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, that is interesting. In my remarks I asked how we are to know where this money is going. There is a lot of assuming going on here on behalf of the NDP. If those members are going to make a deal with the Liberal government, they had better get it spelled out pretty clearly as to how it going to be applied. There is no indication of when and how this money is going to be dealt out. I think the NDP members are in for a big surprise. When all the smoke clears, I think they are going to end up getting a very small portion of what they have agreed to.
The member talks about giving some tax money back to Canadians and asks why not. That is exactly my point. Why take it in the first place? Why take it and then give it back? The most equitable way to do this is to leave it in the pockets of the people who earn it and let them make the decisions on how they are going to spend it. There are certain areas that the government needs to be dealing with, such as the security of our nation, the funding for the armed forces, the international issues that face us and monetary policies. All of these issues need to be dealt with by the federal government.
However, a lot of what the federal government is doing here, with the support of the NDP, I might add, is pushing more and more into provincial territory. The gas tax rebate is something we support but we want to do it in a very different way. To get that money to municipalities there must be provincial involvement. For the federal government to say directly to a city or a municipality that it is going to do this, thus bypassing the authority of the province, is a dangerous precedent. If we are going to do it, let us get involved with the provinces and let us make sure there is an agreement for them to pass that money forward.
(1320)
Mr. Wajid Khan (Mississauga—Streetsville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party has just demonstrated why it has been in opposition for 12 years and I anticipate it will remain there for another 12.
Let me set the record straight. Before I do that, the rambling speeches that I have heard in the last couple of days are full of inaccuracies to the extent that they could probably make the Guinness Book of World Records.
The fact is the deficit, unemployment, interest rates and the bankruptcies were soaring when that party was in power. Surplus after surplus after surplus has brought nothing but good to the Canadian people. The rates are low, affordability is high, tax cuts of $100 billion have been given to the people over the last five years and the country is prosperous.
I cannot understand why the government was so corrupt when Bill C-43 was before the House and the same corrupt government, supported by the Conservative Party, voted in support Bill C-43. Initially the Conservatives opposed it and then they supported it. Now Bill C-48 is corrupt. Will they make up their minds and support Bill C-48? It is for the greater good of the people.
Members opposite said that the deal was recorded on a napkin. It does not matter where it was recorded. They also said that the government saved its skin by making the deal with the NDP. We have saved the skin of Canadians who do not want to be burdened with the deficits, tax burdens and all those things that party wants to impose on them. Why did they support--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Lethbridge.
Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, the one thing on which I agree with the hon. member is the Liberal government is corrupt. I will just repeat what he said.
We are short on time, but one area of the economy that the hon. member boasts about is the agricultural community in the country. The agricultural industry last year was in the red. If we add it up, the entire industry lost money. That is due to the Liberal government's failed attempts at negotiating fair deals for our producers. It is due to the high taxation policy of the government. It is due to the government taxing the industry into the ground.
As the hon. member said, one of the basic pillars on which the country was built is the agricultural community. As an entirety, it lost money last year. It is a damning statistic that comes from the government's failed policies, whether it is agricultural, economic or trade. They have all contributed to that.
Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Oshawa, I will be speaking against Bill C-48. By supporting it, it would be encouraging and allowing reckless spending, spending that is being deployed by the government in a desperate attempt to hold on to power.
The Conservative Party will not allow the government to spend without a plan and we will not allow the Liberal Party to buy the votes of Canadians. We cannot give our approval for an irresponsible budget to a corrupt government that lacks the moral and constitutional authority to govern. The Conservative Party is committed to standing up for Canadians and Bill C-48 is clearly not in the best interests of Canadians.
In exchange for NDP support, the Liberal government has made careless promises and is engaging in reckless spending. Even before the deal was made with the NDP, program spending under the Liberal government soared by $18 billion, or 12% more than last year to more than $158 billion. The Liberals have now committed to spending an additional $5.1 billion over the next two years, funded entirely through contingency funds set aside for unforeseen circumstances.
To fully implement all the programs included in this bill, the government would need to post $8.5 billion in surpluses over the next two fiscal years. Leading economists have warned that these spending commitments rule out fiscal flexibility to cut taxes, reduce the debt or increase spending over the next few years. The Conservative Party will not support such irresponsible fiscal policy.
If enacted, this bill will have detrimental effects for Oshawa, as it would for many cities in the country. Let us not look at the fact that this is a bill to spend without a plan, but let us look at where the Liberals claim the money will be spent.
The Liberals say that this is a bill to lower tuition for students, but when reading the bill, not once does it say student and not once does it say tuition. It is not mentioned. It talks of supporting training programs and enhancing access to post-secondary education. This is an example of misleading the Canadian public. This statement could mean anything. If the Liberals wanted to lower tuition, why did they not just say so?
They claim the bill is for the environment, for low income housing and for improved public transit. Recently we have learned that by far the greatest benefactors of the gas tax are the big cities. For example, Toronto, which only has 20% of the population in Ontario, will receive half the gas tax. The NDP mayor of Toronto was recently quoted as saying that he was thrilled with the results of the public transit deal. That is not a surprise, considering Bill C-48 disproportionately benefits big cities.
I stand here today on behalf of the hard-working taxpayers of Oshawa who are sick and tired of subsidizing these big cities. According to my calculations, Oshawa pays approximately $30 million per year in gas taxes, which means $150 million over five years. According to the Toronto Star, that Liberal paper right from the centre of the universe, over five years Oshawa would receive back a total of $11.3 million. In other words, we take out of Oshawa $150 million and we get back $11.3 million, a difference of $138.7 million.
This is not acceptable. This bill is merely an attempt by the Liberals to buy big city votes while taking advantage of small-town taxpayers and rural Canadians.
Experts agree that to fund its budget, the Liberal government will have to use up the majority of the federal emergency reserves, a move that rules out any potential personal tax cuts at a time when Canada is dealing with near stagnant economic growth. Experts argue that this is just one more sign of the Liberal government's failure to acknowledge Canada's productivity crisis.
Over the past decade, Canada has ranked 18th out of 24 industrial nations in average growth, labour and productivity. GDP per capita is estimated at just 84% of that of the United States as a result of lower productivity growth in Canada. A recent Statistics Canada report indicates that last year was Canada's worst performance in terms of productivity in almost a decade. The finance minister commented on it and blamed the corporations. As a result, our standard of living is at risk.
(1325)
Experts say that to improve this situation, Canadian corporations desperately need the $3.4 billion in tax relief that the government offered in its original budget. By reneging on this commitment, the Liberal government is ignoring the productivity crisis in the country and allowing the prosperity gap between Canadians and Americans to grow.
The government's agreement to scrap the corporate tax cuts in exchange for NDP support will also damage manufacturers and exporters that are already burdened by over regulation and an uncompetitive tax regime as a result of Liberal policies over the last decade.
The government has been warned that if these policies do not change, we are unlikely to be the number one trade partner to the U.S. five years from now if it refuses to address this reality.
I represent Oshawa, the jewel of Canadian and North American auto manufacturing. The manufacturing plants in Oshawa recently won the J.D. Power award for top automotive quality in North America. This is something of which I am very proud. For someone who worked on the line at GM while growing up, I know how hard the employees work and how much pride they take in their achievements.
Over the past few years General Motors, along with other Canadian industries, has dealt with a 30% appreciation of the Canadian dollar that has consequently harmed competitiveness and productivity. In other words, with our greatest trading partner, the United States, everything that we put across is costing 30% more.
The Canadian automotive industry is facing unprecedented challenges and competition from the offshore auto manufacturers. The threat of an influx of Chinese automobiles right now in North America is a threat that needs to be taken seriously, not ignored.
Recently General Motors announced 25,000 layoffs in the United States. According to the CAW, there will inevitably be a fallout here in Canada. Canadian auto jobs are at risk. What did the NDP do, the supposed champions of labour, at a time of unprecedented offshore challenges and a high Canadian dollar? In conjunction with the Liberals they hit the automotive industry when they were down. By removing the corporate tax cuts, they are further putting Canadian jobs at risk. If the NDP thinks it can affect the automakers bottom line without directly affecting jobs, it is not fooling anyone.
When the NDP members had the Liberals on the ropes and the Prime Minister was willing to agree to almost anything, they failed to make Canadian auto workers a priority. They could have easily forced the Liberals to table their elusive auto strategy. We have been hearing about this auto strategy for months. Where is it? They claim it is in the works, but they fail to release a transparent auto policy for all to see.
Instead the NDP members sold their votes for a deal, a deal that will ruin the finances of the country by allowing the government to spend and to spend without a plan and without accountability. Does that sound familiar to anyone?
To support Bill C-48 would mean the Conservative Party of Canada supports a government that does not have the authority to govern. We stand strong in our belief that accountability and transparency in government are vital to democracy in our country and that the well-being of Canadians should come first.
I stand in the House today to assure the people of Oshawa and Ontario that I, along with my Conservative colleagues, will not support reckless legislation that will harm Canadians and put Ontario jobs at risk. Therefore, we will vote against Bill C-48, and our votes cannot be bought.
The Conservative Party of Canada believes that our goal should be to give Canadians the highest standard of living in this world. Every Canadian who wants a job should be able to get a job. Our policies should be reflective of this. Every region, such as Oshawa, in the country should enjoy economic growth and new opportunities for the people in these regions.
Our goal is to make Canada the economic envy of the world. We want every mom and dad, every child in the country, to go to sleep at night and know that they can reach the Canadian dream.
Every family and person should be able to buy a house, save for their retirement and ensure that they have a little left over if they want to go to summer camps or on vacations. Maybe Canadians want to use their money. We should leave it in their pockets because they may want to start a business some day. That can only be done if the government does not tax too much and does not spend too much.
Bill C-48 is just that. It is opening up a blank cheque for the government to reckless spending. We cannot support this bill.
(1330)
Hon. Judi Longfield (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and Housing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the young member across who said that he was here to defend his constituents in the city of Oshawa. I would remind the member that I also have the great honour of representing the citizens of the city of Oshawa.
I was quite surprised to hear the member indicate that this government has not helped the city of Oshawa. What about the government's $200 million grant to General Motors for its Beacon project? This investment by the Government of Canada will allow General Motors to invest $2.4 billion in the very city he says that he wants to represent and where he wants to protect jobs.
How does this $200 million investment kill jobs and how does this investment not help his constituents?
The member says that he will be voting against Bill C-48 but he also says that he agrees with affordable housing and with cleaning up the environment. As a former chiropractor, I am sure he understands that clean air is what gives us all a better quality of life. When I read Bill C-48, I see money for the environment and for affordable housing.
If he were to talk to the chair of social services in the Durham region, she would tell him that Durham region is in need of affordable housing and that it is happy to have the money that this government is putting in.
If he were to talk to the chair of the region that he represents, who is also the president of AMO, he would tell him how excited and pleased he was about the gas tax rebate.
If he had attended the meeting of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities he would have heard mayor after mayor from small communities extolling their absolute delight at the kind of cooperation they were finally getting from a federal government that considered them partners.
I am surprised that the member opposite is not listening to his constituents.
(1335)
Mr. Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to say where to start and where the question was exactly in there.
In talking to the 40 mayors who came up to visit the Conservative caucus, they were concerned because for the last 12 years they have had no contact with the Liberal government. As a matter of fact, they said that they were happy with the little crumbs that were finally being thrown at them by the Liberal government after so many years of neglect and so many years of downloading from the Liberal government to the provinces and then to the municipalities.
What my constituents are telling me is that they are sick and tried of paying increased municipal taxes to subsidize the big cities where the NDP and the Liberals want to vote buy.
She talked about the GM Beacon project and how the government is investing $200 million. Well I say thanks very much, finally, for an investment in the infrastructure that General Motors is going to invest in as well. However this is just an example of the Liberal government's policy toward industry.
What the government first wants to do is overtax the corporations, then over-regulate them and then, as we have seen at General Motors Corporation, once they start to struggle, subsidize them. This is typical of the NDP and Liberal approach. What they want to do is choke off business by overtaxing them and when they are running into problems, hand them out money.
That is not our approach. We are not into giving blank cheques to corporations. We are looking very closely at the money given to General Motors. I am very pleased to see that we are finally getting an investment but it is just a little bit. I would liked to have seen a little bit more planning.
If we are looking at an auto strategy, the Minister of Industry has been promising an auto strategy for years, and an auto strategy is not about throwing money at corporations. An auto strategy is investing in the infrastructure required to make investment, not only automotive investment but all industry investment, here in Canada and in our province of Ontario.
Where is the new border crossing at Windsor-Detroit? When the NDP had these guys on the ropes, it could have talked about that. The recent Senate committee said that it was an emergency situation, not something that needs to be put off another 12 years before the government decides on it.
We need to see some leadership from the government to move forward to get that border crossing put in there, not 10 years from now but now. We needed it 10 years ago. Where is the planning and the looking ahead? The government fails to look ahead and fails to plan.
If the government does not understand the situation I will explain it. One in seven jobs in Canada is related to the auto industry. Over $1 billion in revenue goes across the Windsor-Detroit bridge every day. When will the government step up to the plate? When will it look at the regulatory problems, the infrastructure and a power coordination over the entire country so that when industry wants to invest and do business in Canada we will a have stable electrical and power supply? When will that happen? That is what I want to see from the government.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, putting together a budget is mainly a science, although not 100%. It is also partly an art with a little bit of a hope, on a wing and a prayer, because one is never sure in the upcoming year what kind of economic factors one will face as a country that may be out of one's actual control.
It takes a lot of work from a lot of people giving it a lot of thought to come up with a budget that they think will carry the nation through for a year, and with these Liberal budgets even further than that, and properly provide for the essential services based on the amount of revenue that will come in from a variety of sources.
However we need to take into account the interest rates, the commodity rates and what the price of oil and gas will be. It is definitely a science that has to be followed carefully and rules have to be applied and followed, otherwise the budget goes off track.
It is not a lot different than preparing a household budget. Every family that is prudent knows that they have to take a look at what is coming in for the month, look at what the expenses are going to be and base their spending accordingly. Anybody who has ever put their household on a budget also knows that if one suddenly lurches from one's budget plan, one can be headed for trouble. There might be things that the family might look at and like to buy but we would consider those things in light of how much income there is or what is predicted to be coming in. Departing from that path could lead to a financial disaster in the household budget.
Canadians need to understand that this is precisely what has happened with the federal Liberal government. It came out with a main budget and when we looked at it as an opposition party there were some things that we did not like but there were some things in the budget that we did like. As a matter of fact, a number of the key factors in the federal budget, which was originally presented, were there because of our input. Our leader and various critics had gone over certain areas and came up with some suggestions. It was our suggestion that a portion of the federal gas tax go back to municipalities, so of course we support that in the budget.
We supported a lot of elements in the main budget but then an extraordinary thing happened. On the way to tabling the budget, which the Liberals did table and to which we gave tacit support because of our own input, all of a sudden there was a lurch and the budget went off the rails because the government made a deal with the socialists, the NDP, and came out with an unprecedented and unplanned amount of spending in the neighbourhood of $4.6 billion. This was out of the blue.
Earlier, when we had been proposing other measures, the government said that it could not be done because it had carefully budgeted, that it was a science and a bit of an art. It said that it had considered everything very carefully and that it had a budget. However, out of the blue, it put $4.6 billion on the table to buy 19 socialist votes. I ask members to do the math. It roughly works out to about a quarter billion dollars per vote. In a frantic effort to survive, the minority government went to the NDP and asked what it would cost and said that it would pay whatever the price. The price was $4.6 billion.
Some people have criticized the NDP members for striking this deal with the Liberals but I do not. I say, good for them. They said that each one of their votes was worth a quarter billion dollars. If we accept the amount that the Auditor General said the government blew in the province of Quebec on the sponsorship scandal, which was about $350 million, and we accept that Quebec has four million or so voters, that means that each voter in Quebec was worth about $80 to $85 to the government. However members of the NDP were worth a quarter billion dollars each. We are talking about egalitarianism gone wild.
The government just tossed out this $4.6 billion of taxpayer money. If we were to depart from our household finances as radically as the Liberals have departed from the finance of the nation we would get the attention of our bankers, our creditors and our suppliers who would be saying that we are out of control.
(1340)
The exact same thing will happen here and is already happening. Outside sources monitor what Canada is doing. Governments have to contend with credit agencies and rating agencies because their bonds are based on the kind of stability and confidence these external agencies have in their projections. When we take a $4.6 billion lurch, that introduces a notion of instability in people who are banking literally on our bonds and on our credibility.
The $4.6 billion caught the attention of the Economist magazine, one of many, which is a non-partisan magazine, but pointed to the government being out of control.
I have heard Liberal MPs try to blame previous governments. We all know that it was in the 1970s moving into the 1980s when the Liberal government, under Pierre Trudeau, departed from all sense of economic reality. That is simply a fact. Deficit financing was introduced at a gigantic, unparalleled, unprecedented rate and the country was plunged into record deficits like it had never seen before. That is when it started.
Pierre Trudeau had bought into the philosophy of John Maynard Keynes who said that when we run into trouble we just keep borrowing. That is basically what it comes down to. When John Maynard Keynes was asked what would happen in the long run when deficits kept piling up and we started hitting compound interest, he said that in the long run we would all be dead.
That was an irresponsible approach and this was an irresponsible approach to throw $4.6 billion out the door just so the Liberals would not wind up dead in the next election. That is irresponsible to future generations.
The mayors and councils of municipalities in my constituency could not get away with tabling a budget one day and then, in a matter of days later, radically depart from that budget. The ratepayers would not allow them.
The mayor of Okanagan Falls; the mayor of Naramata; Mayor Perry in Penticton; Mayor Tom Johnston in Summerland; Mayor Bob Harriman in Peachland; the regional district in Westbank; Mayor Laird in Merritt; and Mayor Brown in Logan Lake; those people could not get away with departing from the budget and just telling the taxpayers to trust them and that the money will be there.
The former finance minister, who is now the Prime Minister, had built up a bit of a false legend about himself being a great deficit cutter. What he did to dig into the deficit was that he slashed the health care transfer to the provinces overnight by 34%. It was no act of genius.
Regardless, he had built for himself a bit of a reputation as someone who was concerned about a deficit, but suddenly, like a drug addict who had finished the rehab program, he went crazy when he had a budget and he thought he was going to be curtailed; $4.6 billion one day and in the next 21 days the Prime Minister went coast to coast after his sad appeal to Canadians on national television and announced spending of $23 billion, even outstripping the amount that he paid to buy off that NDP vote.
The other concern is with whom he has struck the allegiance. He has struck the allegiance with NDP members of Parliament, people who operate on a failed socialist philosophy, an NDP philosophy that plunged the province of Ontario into unprecedented debt and deficit and racked and ruined the economy. They did the same thing when they had the opportunity in British Columbia.
NDP policies are not built on reality. It will take whatever jurisdiction and plunge it into debt and deficit and therefore the inability to pay for essential services.
On this side of the House we are concerned about Canadians. We want to see essential services maintained, strengthened and, where necessary, expanded. We have already support Bill C-43, the main budget, but the only thing that will expand under Bill C-48 is the sense of recklessness that will lead to increased deficit and possibly even debt. We want to stop that. It is not wrong for opposition MPs to stand in the House and try to put a stop to the recklessness that the government is now putting on the shoulders of Canadians.
(1345)
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for the hon. member.
Given that under Bill C-48 new spending only comes into effect if there is a federal budget surplus of $2 billion or more, would the member not call that budget bill a no deficit budget bill?
Mr. Stockwell Day: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker, because the spending that the Liberals are talking about is unplanned. It is almost laughable. I do believe the member is being sincere here, so I am not laughing.
It is almost laughable when he talks about surpluses because we have seen the Liberal record when it comes to predicting or projecting surpluses. The Liberals tell us there will only be a certain amount at the start of the year. All the economists warn that they are way out of line, that the surpluses will be huge and that we should be giving money back to the people of Canada. They have been over on their surplus projections by untold amounts, so they have constructed for themselves a carte blanche.
They have drawn up an arbitrary figure of $2 billion and say that if they hit it, then all this spending kicks in. They can make that spending kick in at any time because their projections, according to every credible economic forecaster and every external commentator, is absolutely out of control. It is based on one thing and that is to have a hidden surplus near the end of the year or at election time so they can go on a vote-buying spending spree. We cannot trust that kind of surplus projection.
(1350)
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla and to several of his colleagues, screaming and yelling about how this $4.6 billion, very carefully allocated to some very clear priorities that are absolutely supported by Canadians and desperately needed by people, is somehow reckless, irresponsible, and it will break the bank. They infer that it is just totally irresponsible for this kind of big money to be dedicated.
Yet the member just stood up and acknowledged himself, in a very accurate way, that there have been very large surpluses that the government has not acknowledged. The potential is there for it to trot out the surpluses. The last time around the projection of the surplus was $1.9 billion and the surplus was actually $9.1 billion. What is the reversal of those two numbers? Something like $8 billion. What is the problem?
How is it that the Conservative members who understand this would not support something as clearly targeted to the needs of Canadians. Bill C-48 deals with four things: first, accessible and affordable education that we know is critical to a prosperous and productive society; second, affordable housing, which is an important job stimulus as well as something that Canadians desperately need. I heard the member for Central Nova talk about making sure families can live together. Affordable housing is part of that. Third, public transit; and fourth, energy retrofitting of low income housing, so we can have clean air to breathe. In addition, we finally make a tiny step in the direction of meeting the 0.7% commitment to international development aid, which his own party has now finally reluctantly come around to support.
How can the member explain the contradiction between the excessive rhetoric on how this cannot be afforded and what he knows to be the facts?
Mr. Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, we have given our support to each and every item that the member has mentioned. There are elements of that in the first budget that was tabled, Bill C-43, the very elements to which we gave support. We do not and cannot support unplanned and unprecedented spending.
The member for Halifax is quite right. I said in my remarks that when the government projects a surplus, it is wildly off the mark, but intentionally so. It hides the surplus throughout the year when we are asking for the true needs of Canadians, until we approach either election time or the end of the budget year, which we call March madness, because we know in March, spending goes crazy. It was close to seven times the amount. The member was quite right, $1.9 billion is all the government said it would have as surplus. We get to the end of the year and surprise, it is $9.1 billion.
Where does that excess come from? One of the biggest areas of excess is from an EI fund that is grossly overtaxed. We have hardworking employees paying out of their paycheque every day into the EI fund. Even the Auditor General has agreed with our figures and told the government that it was putting way too much burden on the shoulders of hardworking people in the EI fund and the business community, especially small business. They are paying far too much into the EI fund.
There is enough in the EI fund to take care of long term unemployment problems or even a catastrophic crisis in employment. Yet the Liberals continue to tax at too high a level. They are overtaxing hardworking Canadians to get surpluses that they hide and then announce with unplanned and unprecedented budgeting. It is not the way to go. It is not honest. It is not good for the economy and it is not good for hardworking people.
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is important to review the events that led up to the introduction of Bill C-48 and how our socialist friends in the NDP down at that end have reacted with the corrupt Liberal government.
In weeks prior to the deal being made in some hotel room with respect to Bill C-48, the NDP stood up on a daily basis in the House reflecting and railing about the corruption that was being made public through the Gomery commission. This corruption was not being made known through arbitrary allegations, but through sworn testimony and sworn confessions by key Liberal Party members who had participated in the biggest corruption scandal that we have ever had in the last decade.
The NDP knew that. It acknowledged that on a daily basis. Those members criticized the government over and over again, every single day, for the corruption and the ripoff of taxpayers' money. Those NDP members cried about the Liberals scooping that money for their own campaign coffers when it could have been used on things such as affordable housing, the environment, and helping students with tuition fees. Those members talked on a daily basis about the nasty corrupt Liberals.
Then came the time when the corrupt Liberal minority government was possibly going to go down in political flames through a non-confidence vote. We have to perhaps forgive the leader of the NDP for being a little naive about the honesty of the Liberals, but then again maybe not because several people in his caucus have a lot of experience dealing with that crowd over there.
The NDP leader and some of his party members knew the Liberals were corrupt. They knew the Liberal Party stole tens of millions of dollars from taxpayers and had given it to their friends or used it on their campaign. However, the NDP members felt the Liberals were in a real tough spot and were going to go down in flames on a non-confidence vote, so they thought they would see what they could get out of it. The NDP members thought they could scoop some of the money for some of their projects.
In the blink of an eye NDP members went from calling the Liberal government corrupt, which it is, to being best friends via a deal made in some hotel backroom brokered by Buzz Hargrove, the new Liberal finance minister apparently. They came up with a deal. The NDP knew the Liberals were corrupt. That party knew the Liberals did politics in a very suspect way. The NDP members told the Liberals that if they received about $4.5 billion for some of their projects, they would forgive them, sleep with them, and everything would be fine. I did not say this, but that type of arrangement has been described by some as basic political prostitution. I did not say it, but I tend to agree with that statement.
Here is what happened. The Liberal finance minister presented a budget in February 2005, Bill C-43. The Conservative Party proposed some amendments to the legislation because we did not quite agree with it. The Conservative Party wanted to make this Parliament work. We were committed to making this Parliament work, so we decided to propose some amendments. We decided to support the legitimate budget, Bill C-43, for the 2005-06 parliamentary year.
Suddenly, because of the sinking ship fiasco, this new deal came along with $4.5 billion written on a napkin with Buzz Hargrove's signature on it. The NDP made a deal with the Liberals to provide them with support for the non-confidence vote.
(1355)
This is $4.5 billion of taxpayers' money that came out of the sky, 23 floors up in a hotel, that the Liberals want us to accept when there is absolutely no plan for spending attached to it. There are some vague areas, but there is no plan. The areas that they describe are ones that have been criticized soundly by the Auditor General and we cannot support them.
The Deputy Speaker: We will now move to statements by members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[S. O. 31]
* * *
(1400)
[English]
The 1918 Anti-Greek Riot in Toronto
Hon. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about a turbulent time in our history. Between August 2 and 5, 1918, mobs of about 50,000 people took to the streets in Toronto waging pitched battles with police and destroying every Greek business they came across. The riots were the result of prejudice against new immigrants and the belief that Greeks did not fight in World War I.
Today, Mr. George Treheles, Mr. Michael Vitopoulos and Mr. Thomas Gallant presented a book entitled The 1918 Anti-Greek Riot in Toronto, documenting the causes and the results of the 1918 riot to the Library of Parliament.
I want to thank these gentlemen for writing and publishing this book so that this tragic event in our history is not forgotten. Although the riot took place in 1918, it brings into sharp focus the need for all Canadians to respect and accept the cultural diversity which makes Canada such a vibrant place to live and bring up our children. We must remember our history so we do not repeat our mistakes.
* * *
National Aboriginal Day
Mr. Jeremy Harrison (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, 2005 is the year of the veteran and today is National Aboriginal Day. It seems only appropriate that on this day we honour Canada's aboriginal war veterans.
This morning at the National Aboriginal Veterans War Monument, Canadians from all walks of life paid their respects to the first nations, Innu and Métis who served their country, many of them making the ultimate sacrifice.
Thousands of aboriginal people volunteered to serve their country. From the warriors under the leadership of Joseph Brant who helped repel the American invasion of 1813, through the first and second world wars and the Korean war, to the numerous peacekeeping missions of today, aboriginal people have served Canada despite the fact that many of them were not accorded full rights as citizens.
While laying a wreath or making a speech can only pale in comparison to the sacrifices made by these brave men and women, they symbolize our gratitude. In Cree they say “Kahgee pohn noten took” on Remembrance Day. It means “the fighting has ended”. On behalf of all Canadians I say, may we never forget.
* * *
Canadian Forces Naval Sword
Hon. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on June 12, Lieutenant Ralph Edwards was presented the Canadian Forces Naval Sword with the gold braid on behalf of cadets, officers and parents at the Sea Cadet Corps Iron Duke in Burlington for his 25 years of outstanding contribution to youth in our community.
A sea cadet first in 1957, Ralph Edwards joined the Royal Canadian Navy in 1967 and served on board HMCS Fraser. In 1974, he became a member of the RCMP. Ralph Edwards has made an extraordinary contribution to youth as a cub scout leader since 1970 and with many youth organizations, including the Sea Cadet Corps Iron Duke as civilian instructor and eventually commanding officer.
Ralph and his wife Sandra Edwards have been foster parents with the Halton Children's Aid Society for the past 29 years and their two older children have followed their example.
On June 4 this year, the RCMP recognized Ralph Edwards for his outstanding volunteer service. He received the IODE Police Community Service Award in Edmonton.
All Canadians and all citizens thank Lieutenant Ralph Edwards for his contribution and wish him all the best.
* * *
[Translation]
Carmel Paquin
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, some people touch our lives because of their dedication, or their love for others, the arts, artists, young people and life in general. These big-hearted people make us wonder what we would do without them.
I know of such an exceptional man. His name is Carmel Paquin and he is a parish priest in Lac-à-la-Tortue. He has touched my life and the lives of the people of the Mauricie and all of Quebec during 50 years of religious service.
His dedication, work and concern for others are proof of an unwavering open-mindedness that has made a lasting impression on the hearts of everyone he meets.
Carmel Paquin, we wish you a happy anniversary and many more years among us.
* * *
Volunteer Firefighters
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week, my father-in-law's home in Bouctouche, New Brunswick, caught fire as a result of a problem with the electrical panel. In less than 45 minutes, the house was totally consumed by flames.
However, the volunteer firefighters in the town of Bouctouche arrived on the scene, got the fire under control and prevented it from spreading. With the help of other volunteer firefighters from Cocagne, Saint-Antoine and Shediac, further losses were avoided and the fire was brought under control and eventually put out. We offer them our thanks.
Such difficult times make us think about the extraordinary services our voluntary firefighters provide. These brave men and women often face great danger but they always do their duty, and our communities are much safer as a result of their commitment and courage.
It is time that Parliament recognized their services by, as I have always said, supporting the bill granting them a tax credit as compensation for their efforts and commitment and, above all, the sacrifices their families make.
* * *
(1405)
[English]
Health Care Provider
Mr. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is with bittersweet feelings that I speak to the House today. Melissa Anderson, who has been my primary health care aid for two years, is leaving to get married.
Melissa is special in many ways and I would like to highlight two of them. She is the first unelected person to sit with members in the House of Commons and she embodies the same selfless, patient care administered every day by health care workers across Canada.
My logistics as an MP are complex. With Melissa's help, I have been able to fully perform my duties.
For Melissa, family is her first priority. I know she will provide the same compassion and care she has given me to her new husband, Carlin Thiessen, as well as her stepchildren Devin, Colin and Bryce.
I would like to thank Melissa for her commitment, dedication and her unswerving patience with me. It has been an honour to serve my first year as an MP with her. I wish Melissa all my best.
* * *
National Aboriginal Day
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today, June 21, is National Aboriginal Day. As founding peoples, first nations, Inuit and Métis have played a vital role in shaping Canada's history and future.
Canada is a country of great cultural diversity built upon compromise and understanding.
Today in Iqaluit, 11 Inuit students will be the first graduates from the Akitsiraq law program. Inuit are participating in key areas of leadership and social awareness. I congratulate them.
I would also like to congratulate the Premier of Nunavut, Paul Okalik, on attaining an honorary Doctor of Laws from Carleton University this past Saturday.
Inuit and all aboriginals alike are playing a leading role in this great country's future and we will do more. I join all Canadians in celebrating National Aboriginal Day.
* * *
[Translation]
Gisèle and Jean-Charles Burelle
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on June 30, two volunteers who have been heavily involved in working for the children of the world will be taking retirement. They are Gisèle and Jean-Charles Burelle, the directors of UNICEF Montérégie.
Mr. and Mrs. Burelle have been involved with UNICEF, the United Nations Children's Fund, for over 40 years, working with it to provide disadvantaged children with a better world. They also founded Mécènes de la Montérégie, a philanthropic organization which works more directly with disadvantaged families on the south shore.
In my capacities as a mother, who believes every child is entitled to a good start in life, as a proud ambassador for UNICEF Montérégie, as a citizen of the riding of Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, as well as its MP, I assure them of my deepest admiration and appreciation of their exceptional commitment to humanity's greatest treasure: our children.
* * *
Anne-Marie Alonzo
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Quebec cultural community mourns the loss of Anne-Marie Alonzo of Laval, playwright, poet, novelist, critic and publisher.
Laval's annual Festival de Trois owes its existence to her. The author of some 20 books, she won the Émile-Nelligan award in 1985 with her Bleus de mine.
Anne-Marie Alonzo was a contributor to the Gazette des femmes, Spirales and a number of other periodicals. She co-founded Trois magazine and in 1989 launched the Festival littéraire de Trois.
In 1996 she was made a member of the Order of Canada and in 1997 was awarded the bronze medal by the Société Arts-Sciences-Lettres of Paris.
Ms. Alonzo leaves a permanent legacy to the culture of Quebec. My most sincere condolences to her family and friends.
* * *
[English]
Members of Parliament Staff
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as we approach the end of this parliamentary session, I thought it would be appropriate to take a moment to thank all the individuals who help us fulfill our roles as members of Parliament.
We as members depend on our staff for support at all hours, for advice on issues facing the nation and, in most cases, help with our day to day lives.
I must make special mention of three Conservative staffers who are leaving the Hill to pursue other interests. Jim Armour will be missed for his fatherly advice and his fast quips. Mike Storeshaw will be missed because of his leadership and his ability to stay cool under pressure.
Nancy Heppner, our question period director, will be missed because of her ability to focus us on the topical issues and put the Prince of Meanness, the member for Calgary Southeast, in his place.
On behalf of my Conservative colleagues, I want to thank all of our staffers for their sacrifices, their sage counsel and their support during this past session.
* * *
(1410)
[Translation]
Infrastructure
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to be able to recognize the investment promised by the Government of Canada to the communities in Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.
As part of the new deal for cities and communities, the government will divert over $13 million in revenues from the gasoline tax directly to the 10 municipalities in my riding. These funds will help all the communities to improve their infrastructure, thereby improving the quality of life there.
I look forward to seeing progress on the innovative projects this money will make possible.
I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Minister of State for Infrastructure and Communities on this excellent initiative.
* * *
[English]
National Aboriginal Day
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today is National Aboriginal Day and I am proud to reaffirm that New Democrats stand in solidarity with Canada's first nations, Innu and Métis peoples. In this Year of the Veteran, it is appropriate to especially honour aboriginal veterans.
[Translation]
So it is a very special honour for me in this Year of the Veteran to pay tribute to Canada's aboriginal veterans.
[English]
Aboriginal veterans fought side by side in wartime but have been treated shamefully in peacetime; Canadians, like Sergeant Tommy Prince of Manitoba, our most decorated veteran. He won service medals, the Military Cross and was even awarded the Silver Star of the United States. Despite his great service to our country, he died like so many other aboriginal war veterans, in poverty, without access to the compensation other veterans enjoyed.
As we celebrate today our solidarity with Canada's aboriginal peoples, let us not forget those left behind and let us vow not to let it happen again.
[Translation]
May we never forget.
* * *
[English]
Public Service
Mr. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the federal public service is the largest employer in the national capital region. There are over 119,000 employees, thousands of whom reside in my constituency of Carleton--Mississippi Mills.
As we know, federal public servants are known for their professionalism, resourcefulness and hard work on our behalf. I support sound and innovative policies that continue to foster an efficient, effective and independent professional public service. As well, I firmly believe in legislating robust whistleblowing protection to ensure that those who expose corruption and wrongdoing are protected from reprisal.
In honour of National Public Service Week, I extend my appreciation and thanks to all public servants, especially those in Carleton--Mississippi Mills who work every day to provide Canadians with the services that make our society a healthy, safe and prosperous one.
* * *
[Translation]
National Aboriginal Day
Mr. Bernard Cleary (Louis-Saint-Laurent, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw attention today, June 21, to National Aboriginal Day.
This is a very special day set aside to celebrate the heritage, culture and unique contributions of first nations peoples, the Inuit and the Métis to all the other peoples of the world.
For the first nations, the summer solstice marks the celebration of light and the longest day and is marked by festivities in the communities.
I would like therefore, on this special occasion, to offer my best wishes to all aboriginal persons in the fullness of peace and friendship.
* * *
[English]
Human Rights
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I had the rare privilege of meeting U.S. Congressman Sam Johnson in March. The Texas congressman was a prisoner of war in Vietnam for seven years. His book, Captive Warriors, is one of the most meaningful, significant descriptions on inhumanity that I have ever read.
Thirty years later there are continued allegations of maltreatment of religious organizations, harassment of practitioners and persecution of leaders. Political dissidents in Vietnam called for respect of human rights, freedom and democracy.
In January of this year, I visited Hanoi. I learned that the current political regime takes note of international opinion because it wants to ascend to the WTO and, in that context, is showcasing Vietnam by hosting the APEC summit in 2006.
This weekend, Vietnam's prime minister is visiting Canada. We must be honest with him. Canadians want to constructively help with the peaceful evolution of true democracy in Vietnam.
* * *
(1415)
Etobicoke—Lakeshore
Hon. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as parliamentarians, we all know the importance of a strong community base. I am proud to represent the people of Etobicoke--Lakeshore because they have an incredible sense of civic pride and are working continuously to improve our community.
Through their contributions, our community continues to flourish. Community activities not only create camaraderie but they also establish a supportive network that helps people improve issues of common concern.
This coming weekend the Grand Hamptons Owner's Association will be hosting their summer street party to meet each other and celebrate their neighbourhood. Throughout the GTA, members will be promoting safety in their communities in the National Night Out campaign.
I wish every one of my constituents a wonderful and safe summer. I look forward to seeing them and their families in and around the riding and at my summer community picnic on August 28 at Marie Curtis Park. Have a safe and enjoyable summer, to all my colleagues in the House and all of my constituents.
Oral Question Period
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[English]
Citizenship and Immigration
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it has now been confirmed that the former immigration minister was caught in a serious conflict of interest. During last year's election, the former minister rushed through ministerial permits to the benefit of campaigning Liberal MPs. In fact, she signed off on some 74 of them during the campaign and 19 in a two day period leading up to the writ.
Will the Prime Minister tell the House if anyone in his office was aware of this policy at the time?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have not had a chance to read the report. I have just come back from Montreal, where the cities announcement for Quebec was made. My understanding is that the report does not conclude that there was any personal wrongdoing on the part of the member for York West herself. That obviously answers the hon. member's question.
Hon. Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, CPC): Mr. Speaker, let me explore my first question a little further. The Prime Minister has consistently defended the actions of the former minister. In fact, he stood up for her actions 100% up until today, and I guess including today. Can the Prime Minister tell us when he became aware that the former minister was distributing ministerial permits on a partisan basis?
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact no permits are issued on any partisan basis. They are issued to the applicant, wherever that applicant comes from.
In response to that kind of initiative it is probably instructive for the Leader of the Opposition and in fact for all of us to understand that the department makes some 1.1 million positive decisions a year and that some of these TRPs are in those 1.1 million decisions a year, according to a very transparent and merit based system that the department exercises.
Hon. Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Ethics Commissioner found that 98% of the rushed permits went to Liberals. Nobody is fooled that this is not on a partisan basis.
Members will remember that in the lead-up to May's confidence vote, the government staged a phony complete exoneration for the former minister here in the House. The Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and the communications director of the Prime Minister all sang the former minister's innocence, which is not exactly what the report says.
When did the Prime Minister learn that this so-called complete exoneration was in fact a fabrication?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clearly what the hon. member is doing is misstating the report. I have not had the opportunity to read it, but it is my understanding that the Ethics Commissioner came to the conclusion that there was no personal wrongdoing on the part of the hon. member.
There is an independent Ethics Commissioner. I think it is very important that we not engage in innuendo and allegation here. The fact is that I have great confidence in the hon. member. I have expressed that before and I express it again today.
* * *
Gasoline Prices
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is important that the Prime Minister read the report before he exonerates the minister. It would be a nice change.
Canadians are facing some of the highest gas prices we have ever seen in this country. Meanwhile, the government continues to rake in massive gas tax revenues. The price of gas affects every single individual, family and business in the country. When is the government going to do something to lessen the burden on Canadians?
(1420)
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the budget we have in fact taken steps to reduce the tax burden on Canadians. There was a proposal for about $13 billion in savings over the course of the next five years, including increasing the minimum amount that is tax exempt, which will be going from $8,000 to $10,000. That will in fact put 860,000 Canadians of low income off the tax rolls altogether.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that rhetoric and 90¢ will buy us a litre of gas. We are asking about gas taxes here. The government is rolling in gas tax revenue right now. Canadians, though, are getting hosed at the pumps, in part due to high taxes.
The government charges GST on top of all the other taxes on gas, which leads to still higher prices. When will the finance minister commit to ending this government sponsored price gouging and simply axe the tax on tax?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have taken two steps specifically in relation to this measure.
First, in an earlier gas spike not very many months ago, we earmarked the proceeds from that period of time to the medical equipment fund, which was in fact in the $41 billion that we are transferring to the provinces to improve medicare. Now we are transferring half of the gas tax, ramping up half of the gas tax, to Canadian municipalities to help to pay for their infrastructure.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with the arrival of the summer holidays, gasoline prices continue to climb. There is a paradox here. Whenever oil prices soar, prices at the pump immediately follow suit. Conversely, when oil prices drop, quite often, retail gas prices do not immediately reflect that slide.
Does the Prime Minister realize that oil and gas companies are taking advantage of the inaction of this government, which continues to sit on the sidelines and do nothing to rectify this rather particular situation?
[English]
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Competition Bureau has reviewed gasoline pricing a number of times over the last 10 years and has never found any evidence of collusion. The price of oil and gas is internationally determined. The setting and control of gasoline prices at the pump is a provincial responsibility.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are well aware that retail gas pricing is a provincial responsibility, but the Competition Act is a federal one. If they have not found anything, it is because this legislation has no teeth. That is the problem. The government also has the power to create a petroleum monitoring agency, something the Bloc Québécois has been demanding for a number of years.
Once again, is this government not proving that it is favouring the oil and gas companies over consumers?
[English]
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not think anybody needs to be reminded of what gasoline prices are out there. What we need to do is make sure that we have a good strong competition policy. I hope the hon. member and his party will vote for the amendments to the Competition Act that are in front of this Parliament.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, every time gas prices soar, we have proof that the federal government has not fulfilled its responsibilities as it might every time we have asked it to.
Will the Minister of Industry admit that, fluctuations in international prices aside, refinery profit margins are too high, and that the federal government still refuses to intervene in order to protect consumers? Why?
[English]
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the Competition Bureau has investigated gasoline pricing numerous times over the last 10 years. It has not found any evidence of conspiracy to fix prices.
If the hon. member has a complaint, it should be brought before the Competition Bureau. He and his party should support amendments to the Competition Act to give it more teeth.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the federal government has the powers and the responsibility to look at competition issues. The lack of competition in the oil and gas sector creates such high gas prices for us.
Will the government admit that power is concentrated in the hands of the oil and gas companies because the refineries and the distributors in Canada are in fact one and the same, and they can do whatever they want with gas prices at the expense of consumers?
(1425)
[English]
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have to say that the last people in the world who should be trying to figure out what a competitive market looks like are politicians and people like that. It should be left in the hands of experts. It should be left in the hands of an arm's length legal body like the Competition Bureau.
* * *
International Cooperation
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, the one who says he has kept every promise that he has ever made. It turns out that Bob Geldof does not agree. In fact, he is saying that the Prime Minister should stay home unless Canada is going to meet its obligations and keep its promise to the world.
Canadians are bothered by the fact that we are asked to stay home because we cannot keep our word to the world. Does this bother the Prime Minister enough that he is finally going to keep this promise?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe in the 0.7% and I would very much like to see Canada get there by the year 2015, but I am not going to make a commitment that I am not sure the government will be able to keep.
I believe it is important that governments say not just what they are going to do, but that they say how they are going to do it. I am telling members that the problem with international public policy is that too often commitments are made on the grounds of photo ops. I will not do that.
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it says a lot about this Prime Minister's foreign policy that Khadafi wants him and Geldof does not. That is all I can say. Talk about photo ops.
Let me ask a question of the finance minister, if I may, because he quoted Bob Geldof yesterday. According to him, Canada was doing what Sir Bob was asking, but today Sir Bob himself contradicted the finance minister and in fact told the finance minister to stay home if he was not willing to keep Canada's promise to the world.
Would the minister like to quote Sir Bob today or would he finally get around to honouring Canada's commitment?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Yes, Mr. Speaker, let me quote Sir Bob from this morning. He said “a historic doubling of aid to Africa, which is precisely what is needed...all that Africa can absorb in terms of aid, because of a lack of infrastructure” and government “is a doubling of aid”. I am pleased to say that Canada's aid to Africa was doubled in the budget on February 23.
* * *
Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the ethics report on the former immigration minister contains new information that the Prime Minister's Office knew of the scandal immediately following the last election.
Why did the Prime Minister not act on it then? How can Parliament or the public have any confidence in the ethics code when the Prime Minister himself knew it had been violated but conspired to keep this scandal silent?
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as was said earlier, the report came out today and the government and the responsible ministers are reviewing the report. The Ethics Commissioner did his work. He provided that report to Parliament.
What is wrong is that the hon. members do not like the contents of that report, so they are attempting once again to discredit the Ethics Commissioner himself.
Mr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister waited until the immigration scandal became public before he acted on it. He also waited until the sponsorship scandal became public before he acted on that scandal.
Why does the Prime Minister always wait until he gets caught before confronting corruption?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the first question, in terms of my own staff, the report indicates, I am told, that my staff did act appropriately and there was no criticism of them.
In terms of the member's second question, the fact is that on the day the Auditor General's report was tabled in the House of Commons, we named the Gomery commission. The day I became Prime Minister, we cancelled the sponsorship program. The fact is that what we did was take immediate action because we believe that the truth will out and triumph. The fact is, get the facts out and we will act on them, and we have.
* * *
(1430)
Natural Resources
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on Friday I stated in question period that three years ago the U.S. had requested an IJC referral for the Devils Lake diversion and the Canadian government refused.
The environment minister claimed that is not true. I have a letter dated May 21, 2002, from former Canadian ambassador Michael Kergin, which states that the Liberal government declined a joint referral. Why is the government trying to cover up the fact that it had an opportunity to have a joint referral to the IJC?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us correct the record on this fact that has been circulating around here. The fact that the member has raised is absolutely not true. Canada has never refused to go to the IJC. We said at that time that on the preliminary project it might be premature, but we never denied and we never refused going to the IJC. On the contrary, on an earlier draft of the project, we simply said that we needed the full project to go on it, on the basis of the reality.
This is just wrong.
Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I think the minister will want to rethink his answer.
Marc Grossman of the U.S. Department of State sent a letter on May 20, 2002 to the Canadian embassy inviting Canada to join the U.S. in making a reference to the IJC on the then proposed Devils Lake project. Ambassador Kergin replied in writing:
|
In the view of the Government of Canada, it is inappropriate to refer to the IJC a proposal, such as the potential Devils Lake project-- |
Why did the government blow such a great opportunity to make a joint referral to the IJC?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, those members are not helping the cause of Lake Winnipeg and Canada by repeating false interpretations. At that time it was the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that claimed that the project was under review for environmental assessment, that was cancelled by North Dakota. At that time indeed, we rejected that argument. Members should get their facts right. It is strange that they only started expressing concern about Devils Lake this month. Before that they did not care.
* * *
[Translation]
Broadcasting
Mr. Maka Kotto (Saint-Lambert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if I understood the Minister of Canadian Heritage correctly yesterday, she said she cannot be both judge and jury, that she cannot act immediately, that she cannot appeal the CRTC decision on subscription radio before certain groups appeal the decision themselves.
Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage assure me that her words, as I have reproduced them, are a clear reflection of her thinking on the recent CRTC decision on subscription radio?
Hon. Liza Frulla (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, I did say yesterday that this is a highly complex decision and that it had taken the CRTC a year to reach it. We are going to take time to judge the repercussions.
Second, the groups or organizations wishing to appeal have 45 days to do so, and then we have 45 days to respond. We will meet our responsibilities and respond.
Mr. Maka Kotto (Saint-Lambert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will read an excerpt from the Broadcasting Act. It states:
|
Where the Commission makes a decision to issue, amend or renew a licence, the Governor in Council may...on, on petition in writing...or on the Governor in Council's own motion, by order, set aside the decision or refer the decision back to the Commission for reconsideration and hearing of the matter by the Commission. |
Why does the minister maintain that she needs to wait for certain groups to appeal before she acts, when the legislation clearly stipulates that she may do so on her own initiative?
(1435)
Hon. Liza Frulla (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the decision was released at 4 p.m. on Thursday. It took the CRTC a year to reach that decision and submit its recommendations to us.
As I said, the groups have 45 days to appeal and we have 45 days to respond. There is every indication that some groups will be appealing. We are, therefore, going to wait. In the meantime, we are studying the repercussions of the decision. I will not go back on my word.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage made it very clear yesterday that she cannot be both the judge and the judged regarding the CRTC's recent decision on subscription radio. The minister is, in fact, neither judge nor judged. Her role is to appeal, as permitted under the law.
Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage stop talking about being both defendant and judge, which is not relevant here, and will she do her duty and ensure the Canadian and Quebec culture is protected?
Hon. Liza Frulla (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have to say, with all due respect to the opposition, that I do not need their advice on protecting Canadian and Quebec culture.
That said, all indications point to an appeal by certain groups. In the meantime, I repeat, the decision is a complex one. We are looking at it very thoroughly. I will carry out my responsibilities, as I always do, to protect Quebec and Canadian culture. That is the story of my life.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to add one chapter that is not blackened to the history of her life. At the moment, francophone Quebec culture has a mere 2.5% of all satellite radio programming, something the Union des artistes criticized as well this morning.
In the name of the cultural diversity so dear to her, will the Minister of Canadian Heritage act immediately, not wait for the others, not wait until certain groups decide to launch an appeal, but appeal the decision herself?
Hon. Liza Frulla (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I said I will carry out my responsibilities and so I will. I need no lessons from anyone. I will do it with full knowledge of the issue. Period.
* * *
[English]
Technology Partnerships Canada
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government has not been forthright about the management of Technology Partnerships Canada.
For years this program has been justly criticized because virtually no money has been repaid, very few jobs have been created, and reviews and reports that have been promised have never materialized.
The Minister of Industry yesterday claimed that there have been no improper payments to lobbyists through the TPC program. If this is the case, why will the minister not release the results of the special audit today?
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the audit that we have done is part of a preventive audit that the department has undertaken as a proactive measure to ensure good administration.
We have found some anomalies in that consulting fees were paid to people to help clients apply for a TPC grant. Those grants have been extremely effective in helping to transform the technology of companies in Canada. They have helped create companies like Research in Motion.
We will continue to administer these programs with diligence.
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this is over $2 billion of taxpayers' money and taxpayers deserve to know how their money is being spent.
The fact is that three Liberal industry ministers in a row have promised public reviews of this program, yet not one has ever been presented to the House or to Canadians. Billions of dollars have been spent, millions of dollars have been wasted, yet this program remains shrouded in secrecy.
Why does the government continue to hide the facts of this program? Why has a special spin committee been set up at Industry Canada to do damage control on the audit? Why will the minister not release the audit?
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, those hon. members have been attacking the technology partnerships program for as long as I can remember.
It is a program that is helping to transform technology in a lot of small and medium size companies in this country. A lot of them are in those members' ridings. A lot of those people are lobbying government for TPC grants.
It is a good program. We will be releasing the results of the audit that we are undertaking. We will be reforming the program.
(1440)
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry has publicly admitted that money from the Technology Partnerships Canada program ended up in the wrong hands. Yet despite assurances that he will get to the bottom of it, the minister is delaying the release of his findings until September.
Canadians cannot handle another cover-up. If the Minister of Industry is really serious about getting to the bottom of this, will he ask the Auditor General to conduct a full audit so that Canadians can be assured of the truth?
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I already said yesterday in the House that we would be releasing the results of the audit in September.
The reality is the audit is not complete. The audits are very complex. If the Auditor General chooses to undertake an audit, and I believe she will, that will be done whether I ask her or not.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his optimism, but Canadians do not share it. I am quite certain he can understand why. They do not trust the government or its ability to manage funds properly.
Will the Prime Minister give his word that no moneys from the technology partnerships program found their way to the Liberal Party of Canada?
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is the usual hogwash, innuendo, name calling, attempts to smear.
All of the money that was paid to consultants who were helping clients obtain TPC funding has been returned. All of it has been returned, every cent.
* * *
Alberta Flood
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the province of Alberta has experienced significant rainfall resulting in severe flooding and the evacuation of many residents. While the situation has stabilized, numerous highways remain closed and there are several communities still under a local state of emergency.
Can the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness please inform the House what arrangements the federal government has in place in order to help in the recovery effort?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say that the government expresses concern for all of those in Alberta who have been affected by the flood.
The Prime Minister has spoken with Premier Klein and the mayors from a number of affected communities. I am in regular contact with those on the ground, including mayors and provincial ministers.
I have offered assistance, be it military, financial or otherwise, if the province believes it is required. The province can request financial relief under the DFAA. I have indicated to the Government of Alberta that if it makes such a request, we will move quickly to respond.
In fact, we should be able to advance dollars as soon as a provincial request is forthcoming.
* * *
Agriculture
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is the first day of summer and Canadians are sparking up their barbecues.
Steak prices have not dropped, farm debt is rising and packer profits are soaring. We are living through the worst agricultural crisis in memory and two U.S. food giants are making out like bandits. Cargill and Tyson control over 80% of the slaughter capacity in this country.
What steps will the minister take to ensure a guaranteed floor price and protection against predatory pricing practices from these U.S. food giants?
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are a number of measures that need to take place.
First of all, we need to increase our capacity in this country for processing meat and that has increased by more than 30% Second, we need to expand our marketplace simply beyond the United States. I am happy to say that we have regained access or established new access in 14 new marketplaces over the last year.
At the same time, we have provided either direct or indirect support to those in the cattle and beef industry and other ruminant industries, of over $2 billion. We will continue to support those industries.
(1445)
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am not talking about band-aid solutions to producers or allowing Tyson and Cargill to expand their slaughter capacity. We know that they control the shots on both sides of the border. The March 2005 boxed beef report says that packer profits have jumped sharply, while cattle prices have tanked. It is a virtual U.S. agri-monopoly.
What do we do with monopolies? We bust them up. When will the government stand up and bring in a regulatory pricing regime to insist that these U.S. profiteers are finally brought into line?
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising to have the NDP characterize $2 billion as band-aids. That is in line with that party's philosophy.
Quite frankly, what we have done in terms of helping our cattle producers is to put in place a set aside program which has helped to stabilize the price. This has allowed them to get a much greater return from the marketplace than they otherwise would have.
The long term solution is to bring rationality back into the marketplace by balancing supply and demand. That is why it is important to increase our slaughter capacity. That is why it has increased by 30% over the last few months.
* * *
Health
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC): Mr. Speaker, when it comes to privately owned health clinics, one of the biggest customers is the federal government itself.
The Canadian Forces spent $1.3 million last year and $1.6 million the year before that. Like the Supreme Court, the Canadian Forces recognize that wait times in the public system are far too long, so they are sending their patients elsewhere.
Is the Prime Minister opposed to our soldiers getting care from private clinics?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the Canadian Forces are not participating in the health care system with the provinces.
We get our health care where we can in conjunction with the needs for those services. We acquire them from the public health care system, but we do use private facilities when necessary to meet our unique occupational needs.
We have done that and we will continue to do that as we are not a part of the health care system of this country. We have unique characteristics and unique needs.
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that he is opposed to a two tier health system, but he gets his health care from a private clinic.
Correctional Service of Canada spent $31 million on medical clinics and suppliers last year. The RCMP spent almost $250 million on medical clinics. Neither distinguished between a privately owned clinic or a publicly owned clinic.
The real question is why do the likes of Clifford Olson and Paul Bernardo get health care ahead of ordinary Canadians?
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact is that right from the inception of public health care, there have been groups that have been exempted from the Canada Health Act and from the public health system. They are the RCMP, the forces and the workers compensation boards.
If we now want to change that and embrace them within our public health care system, I am certainly prepared to take a look at that.
Mr. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday on a Vancouver radio show the Prime Minister claimed that wait times are coming down. The reality is that wait times have doubled under 10 years of Liberal government. There are no benchmarks. The government has no plan.
Will the Prime Minister admit that he misled Canadians and that there are no benchmarks for wait times in place?
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is wrong. If we look at the experience in Saskatchewan, the wait times are coming down. If we look at the experience in Ontario, there will be a website that will be launched to monitor wait times. The fact is that the hon. member uttered complete hogwash about the Prime Minister misleading the House.
Mr. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister is incorrect. I said that the Prime Minister misled all Canadians.
The Supreme Court has said that people are dying due to wait times. At the health committee last week a Liberal member blasted her own government for inadequate action on addressing wait times. The court decision proves that Liberal mismanagement and incompetence is wreaking havoc on the health of Canadians.
Does the Prime Minister agree with the Supreme Court, members of his backbench, and the vast majority of Canadians that the government has no credibility on health care?
(1450)
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely wrong. We recognized the issue in the last election campaign. We provided $41 billion for the next 10 years. The court has simply given expression to something that we recognized a year ago.
The opposition party wants to actually dismantle our health care system. Let me read from the Reform Party's 1995 taxpayers' budget. It stated:
|
Activities in the Department of Health would also be phased out as provinces assume their constitutionally-mandated responsibility for health care. |
In that government, if it ever came to be, health care--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges.
* * *
[Translation]
Immigration
Ms. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ): Mr. Speaker, members of civil society as well as undocumented immigrants are marching to Ottawa in order to make the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration aware of the need to resolve this situation, to stop the removals and to abolish security certificates. The minister has apparently said that he has submitted a regularization plan and would be obtaining cabinet approval shortly.
Does the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration intend to meet with the marchers and listen to their demands for a complete and inclusive regularization program?
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have met with various groups representing various segments of our society. I continue to meet with all those who are interested in making this great country their home. I am also following through on making changes to ensure that our immigration system is the best in the world.
Ms. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ): Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration also take this opportunity to listen to Amnesty International, the Canadian Council for Refugees, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, who have all indicated that the lack of any appeal process is a major flaw in the Canadian refugee determination system?
L'hon. Joseph Volpe (ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that I listen and then take action, judging by the changes I have already presented this year in the House. For example, many more parents and grandparents are now being accepted. A system was implemented that will allow people with student visas to work while in school and another system will help regionalize the benefits of immigration. We—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.
* * *
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a Quebecker was kidnapped in Haiti. She was tortured and held until a ransom was paid. When her family called to report it, the Department of Foreign Affairs advised them to call the Montreal police. Almost every time a Canadian is captured or tortured, the government does nothing.
When will the government protect its citizens abroad?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that family has even thanked the Canadian government and the Department of Foreign Affairs for the excellent work we did in this regard.
Making public reference to a ransom is not a very responsible thing to do. The family asked specifically that we adopt the attitude we have taken.
We are asking Canadians not to travel to Haiti at this time, unless they have extremely important or urgent reasons for doing so. At present, the situation in terms of safety is precarious and difficult.
We will not comment on a specific case, in keeping with the family's wishes and our sense of duty.
[English]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we just talked to the family member who made the call and she was not too impressed. It was the same situation when Bill Sampson was held prisoner in a foreign country for two years. He was tortured. Our government did virtually nothing. In fact, it was the British who helped the man escape.
When Zahra Kazemi was captured in Iran, she was beaten, tortured, raped and murdered. What was our government's response? We sent in our ambassador to normalize relations. In this situation, a frantic family member phones up after somebody has been kidnapped and is told to phone the Montreal police.
When will the government start speaking up for Canadians and putting some word of concern into the terrorists and the--
(1455)
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can tell members that our government has always been vigilant. My parliamentary secretary has been paying a lot of attention to precisely those cases and has travelled around the world to help Canadians, as do our consular services. We have triple the number of consular cases across Canada, given the situation we are in.
I can tell members that our embassies, consulates and consular services are there for Canadians. However, Canadians must take some responsibility as well and check with our website, and check the locations where they are travelling. We must take some responsibilities. The world out there is not always the way we would like it to be.
* * *
Aboriginal Affairs
Mr. Roger Valley (Kenora, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Northern Development.
June 21 is National Aboriginal Day, a day to recognize the contributions of first nations, Inuit and Métis to the development of Canada. I am delighted to extend my best wishes to the millions of Canadians celebrating National Aboriginal Day.
In recognition of this important day, will the Minister of State please tell the House what the government has done to close the gap that still exists and improve the quality of life for the first aboriginal peoples of Canada.
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Minister of State (Northern Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, National Aboriginal Day is the day of recognition for Canada's aboriginal people, and to acknowledge their contributions to Canada, their cultures, their traditions and their spirit as the first people of this country.
The past year has seen significant achievements. Last month the Government of Canada signed five accords with national organizations which reflect the renewed and strengthened relationship with first nations, Inuit and Métis people, and ensure a full partnership on issues that matter most to aboriginal people like health, education and housing.
* * *
China
Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister opposite continues to deny she gives money directly to China, but on the other hand, she will not deny she gives money to China indirectly, through her partners. When I asked her in committee today why her website lists various Chinese government ministries as the recipient of Canadian aid, the minister said it was not true. She said we could trust her.
Who is telling the truth, the minister or her department?
Hon. Aileen Carroll (Minister of International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thought that this morning we had finally had a calm and reasonable discussion in committee. I had the opportunity to explain what bilateral means, what government to government means, and to explain in detail the fact that our NGOs are working in an incredible manner to fill their rule of law which is to help enhance the human rights concept on the part of the government.
I said then, and I will say now, the government and my agency do not give one cent to the government of China.
[Translation]
Is it clear? Does the member understand this?
* * *
[English]
Information Commissioner
Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today in committee, John Reid, the Information Commissioner of Canada, indicated that on March 17, 2005 he received a letter from the justice minister advising that his term would end on June 30. On June 15 the same justice minister voted in favour of the standing committee's fifth report calling for the commissioner's term to be extended for one year.
What is up with that?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon has asked a question. I know he is waiting to hear the answer and so are all other hon. members. We will have some order in the House please while the President of the Treasury Board gives his answer.
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said the last time I was asked this question, we are looking into it. The motion was just passed. We will prepare the necessary documents. I will be discussing it with the Minister of Justice. What is up with that?
* * *
[Translation]
Veterans Affairs
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, former defence minister Paul Hellyer has said he was misinformed, deceived even, by the military of the day, and was not told the whole truth about the use of agent orange, an extremely harmful defoliant, at CFB Gagetown during the 1960s.
Does the present Minister of National Defence intend to take action and to intervene with the military authorities in order to ensure that they give him all the information they have available? How, in particular, does he intend to ensure that what they are telling him is true?
(1500)
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said on several occasions in the House, these events happened 45 years ago. We are making every effort to determine what happened.
This morning, experts appeared before the committee to answer members' questions. This week, some people will be going to Gagetown, New Brunswick to inform the public and to try to determine all the facts and find out who was affected. We will then be determining what compensation can be offered to those affected by these dangerous products.
* * *
[English]
Reproductive Technologies
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, approximately one year ago, the 37th Parliament passed a bill on reproductive technologies, first, to prohibit such things as human cloning, and second, to control certain activities such as experimentation on human embryos. Before such controlled activities can come under the law, regulations must be drafted, submitted to the health committee for comment, be amended as necessary, and then be promulgated.
Can the Minister of Health advise when the required regulations will be forthcoming, so that the law restricting experimentation on human embryos can be enacted?
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, regulation in this area would require consultation with Canadians across the country. We are in the process of doing that. We will be drafting regulations and then, of course, presenting them to the committee.
Last May 9 I announced the agency's location in Vancouver. It will be operational by early 2006 and the recruitment process of the agency's board of directors is already under way.
* * *
[Translation]
Vietnam
Hon. David Kilgour (Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Canada has been involved in training judges in Vietnam in order to help it reform its legal system.
[English]
The government of Vietnam continues to arrest and sentence individuals for their religious beliefs and peaceful expression of views, and charges them with things like sowing division among the people and undermining state and party unity.
[Translation]
Would it not be time now to consider other options to help Vietnam reform its legal system in order to produce tangible results?
[English]
Hon. Aileen Carroll (Minister of International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know how concerned the member is about assisting countries such as Vietnam and bringing them forward into a better understanding of democratic practices. We have a number of excellent programs in Vietnam. Some are in the training of the judiciary and our legal NGOs are building a number of legal capacity dimensions. I think that the work that CIDA has undertaken with Vietnam, which is one of our development partners, is indeed moving that country in the direction wished by the hon. member.
* * *
Points of Order
Government Motion No. 17
[Points of Order]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to Government Motion No. 17, which was put on notice yesterday and was under embargo.
Since the deadline for tabling motions is 6 p.m., I would argue that an embargoed motion cannot go on beyond that time. Indeed, I was unable to access the motion until 12:25 a.m. today and I would argue that Motion No. 17 should not be allowed to be called for debate until Thursday, June 23, for two reasons.
First, I should have been able to access the motion at 6 p.m. last night. The failure to have access to Motion No. 17 at that time should carry over by one day the notice requirement period.
Second, the notice was inaccessible until after Monday, June 20, at midnight.
Therefore I would argue that the earliest Motion No. 17 could be called is at 12:25 a.m. on Thursday.
(1505)
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would make the point that in terms of providing the motion, we met every requirement and every compliance. It went on notice as it should have. It was on the Order Paper today and there is an opportunity to call the motion on Wednesday.
I understand the hon. member across the way does not want to debate the motion and does not want to stay here and deal with the legislation that we are dealing with, which i