37th PARLIAMENT,
2nd SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 044
CONTENTS
Thursday, December 12, 2002
|
 |
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Genome Canada |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and Northeastern Quebec Agreement |
|
|
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Aboriginal Healing Foundation |
|
|
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.) |
|
|
International Labour Conference |
|
|
Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Response to Petitions |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Firearms Program |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC) |
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Non-Medical Use of Drugs |
|
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.) |
|
|
Foreign Affairs and International Trade |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.) |
|
|
Public Accounts |
|
|
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Transport |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay—Superior North, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Moore |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Canada Post Corporation Act |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Citizenship Act |
|
|
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
Rights of the Child |
|
|
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Child Pornography |
|
|
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Stem Cell Research |
|
|
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Government Contracts |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) |
|
|
Members of Parliament |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Research and Development |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
The Environment |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Coast Guard |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Stem Cell Research |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.) |
|
|
Child Pornography |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.) |
|
|
Immigration |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Child Pornography |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Age of Consent |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Child Pornography |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Government Contracts |
|
|
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ) |
|
|
Stem Cell Research |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Health Care |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Member for Richmond |
|
|
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Members of Parliament |
|
|
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Government Contracts |
|
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ) |
|
|
Coast Guard |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Child Pornography |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Iraq |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Penson |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Child Pornography |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.) |
|
|
Kidney Disease |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.) |
|
|
Rural Route Letter Carriers |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Religion |
|
|
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Stem Cell Research |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Child Pornography |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Kyoto Protocol |
|
|
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.) |
|
|
Child Pornography |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Stem Cell Research |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Privilege |
|
|
Goods and Services Tax--Speaker's Ruling |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
|
|
Prebudget Consultations |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Charles Caccia |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Charles Caccia |
|
|
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mrs. Sue Barnes |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mrs. Sue Barnes |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
|
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. David Pratt |
|
|
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Alex Shepherd |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Julian Reed |
|
|
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Julian Reed |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Julian Reed |
|
|
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
|
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
|
|
Public Transportation |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.) |
|
|
Forest Industry |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Western Economic Diversification |
|
|
Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.) |
|
|
Sex Offender Registry |
|
|
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.) |
|
|
Canadian Forces |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.) |
|
|
Peace Award |
|
|
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mothers Against Drunk Driving |
|
|
Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, Lib.) |
|
|
François Saillant |
|
|
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ) |
|
|
Literacy |
|
|
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.) |
|
|
Multiculturalism |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Canadian Space Agency |
|
|
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.) |
|
|
École de médecine vétérinaire de Saint-Hyacinthe |
|
|
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke |
|
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.) |
|
|
Peacekeeping |
|
|
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC) |
|
|
Queen's Jubilee Medal |
|
|
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.) |
|
|
Emily Poupart |
|
|
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ) |
|
|
Davis Inlet |
|
|
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Member for Halifax |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
Firearms Registry |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. John Manley |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Airport Security |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Natural Resources |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Foreign Affairs |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Firearms Registry |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
École de médecine vétérinaire de Saint-Hyacinthe |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
Firearms Registry |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Iraq |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Justice |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Aboriginal Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.) |
|
|
Tobacco Industry |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Highway Infrastructure |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Transport |
|
|
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Justice |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.) |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
Sports |
|
|
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Paul DeVillers (Secretary of State (Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Veterans Affairs |
|
|
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Rey Pagtakhan (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Science, Research and Development), Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Rey Pagtakhan (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Science, Research and Development), Lib.) |
|
|
Maple Syrup Producers |
|
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.) |
|
|
Aboriginal Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ind.) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Presence in Gallery |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
The Royal Assent
|
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
Mr. John Reynolds (House Leader of the Official Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Privilege |
|
|
Standing Committee on Procedure and House of Affairs--Speaker's Ruling |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Questions on the Order Paper--Speaker's Ruling |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Oral Question Period |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Reynolds |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Points of Order |
|
|
Statements by Members |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant |
|
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Firearms Program |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay—Superior North, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Prebudget Consultations |
|
|
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell |
|
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
|
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Rodger Cuzner |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mrs. Karen Redman (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mrs. Karen Redman |
|
|
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mrs. Karen Redman |
|
|
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
|
|
Message from the Senate |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Prebudget Consultations |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
|
The Royal Assent
|
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Prebudget Consultations |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell |
|
|
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
|
|
Employment Insurance Act |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC) |
|
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Justice |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Thursday, December 12, 2002
Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
(1005)
[English]
Genome Canada
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, on behalf of the Minister of Industry, the annual reports of Genome Canada for 2000-01 and 2001-02.
* * *
James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and Northeastern Quebec Agreement
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the 1998-99 and 1999-2000 annual reports on the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, and on the Northeastern Quebec Agreement.
* * *
Aboriginal Healing Foundation
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, also under the same provisions, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the 2000, 2001 and 2002 annual reports of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation.
* * *
International Labour Conference
Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the International Labour Organization's constitution to bring recently adopted conventions and recommendations to the attention of competent authorities, I am pleased to submit two copies, in both official languages, of the Canadian position with respect to convention 184 and recommendation 192 adopted at the 89th session of the International Labour Conference, June 21, 2001, in Geneva.
* * *
Government Response to Petitions
Mr. Geoff Regan (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 six petitions.
* * *
Firearms Program
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in 1978 when the government of the day first introduced modern firearms control legislation, the goal was to establish a program that improved public safety and saved lives.
Almost 25 years later, our goal remains the same. The Government of Canada believes that the firearms program contributes to public safety by keeping guns and ammunition out of the wrong hands, by deterring their misuse, and by controlling specific types of firearms.
[Translation]
We know, however, that there were many obstacles along the road to success, and that this road is not an easy one to travel.
In the first five years of the program, the basic requirements were constantly changing due to political and administrative needs. This made it extremely difficult to project costs and revenues.
(1010)
[English]
Let me be clear. The government has always endeavoured to report the costs of the firearms program with diligence. Departmental costs have always been reported through approved Treasury Board framework guidelines. The department has reported many times to Parliament on the program, including appearances before the finance committee in the other place and the House Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
[Translation]
However, the Auditor General stated, and I agree, that we need to do better. We have to get the administration of this important public safety program back on track and do it in a cost-effective manner that Canadians can support.
[English]
Last week I announced interim cost cutting measures, including an immediate freeze on major spending for the firearms program. I also announced that I am reviewing the administration of the program with a view to finding cost efficiencies. Until that review is complete, the program will be run at minimum levels.
I have already indicated that there are some limited funds left in the firearms program. We are looking within existing justice operational appropriations to manage any shortfall in program resources until my review is complete.
I will report back to the House with an accounting of how we manage any shortfalls. I will be open. I will be transparent.
[Translation]
We will ensure that this approach does not infringe in any way upon the department's other programs. Furthermore, this approach will have no impact on agreements with the provinces and agencies.
Let me be very clear on the last two points. First, before I make a presentation in connection with the supplementary estimates next March, I will review the administration of this program.
[English]
Second, the government remains committed to the principles of the firearms program. We are aiming to improve the administration of the program. The principles of the program and our commitment to them remain unchanged. I have said that we will fix it, and we will fix it.
I understand the concerns expressed in the Auditor General's report and in the House. I have made a commitment to the House to carefully examine the costs and the administration of the program, to make improvements and to be transparent in my efforts to do these things. I am fulfilling my commitments. We will be building a better Canadian firearms program.
The deadline for the public to register their firearms remains December 31, 2002. I recently announced a grace period for those who have applied for but have not received their registration by this date, to ensure that those who have taken steps to comply with the deadline are not prosecuted.
The policy is sound. It reflects the values of Canadians.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the minister's statement. I wonder why he even bothered to make the statement, because he did not say anything new. There was nothing of substance that merits taking time in the House to make this statement. He is saying the same old nonsense we have heard for a long time. He continues to defend a program that Parliament now refuses to fund.
We were hoping that the minister would finally accept responsibility for the fiasco and announce his resignation for the biggest cost overrun the Auditor General has seen in any government program. We were also hoping that the minister was going to announce this morning that he was scrapping the gun registry because it already has wasted almost $1 billion. For that billion dollars, he will only have registered one-third of the guns in Canada. Is he going to waste another billion or two or three before he admits the program is a dismal failure? How much is it going to be? We cannot get that response.
If he is not going to resign or scrap the gun registry, at least he could have announced this morning a general amnesty to allow all firearms owners the time they need to fully comply with the law. Because his own bureaucracy cannot get the paperwork done, he has put in place a six month moratorium or amnesty for owners to get their papers, all because his bureaucrats need more time to process the firearms licences and registration certificates. Does he really want to drive millions of gun owners and guns underground?
The Liberals issued a general amnesty in 1978, and the Conservatives also did it in 1992. What possible excuse can the minister have for sticking to a completely arbitrary political deadline of December 31 of this year?
The minister's own user group on firearms tells the minister that the way his program is designed is driving firearms into the black market, the exact opposite of what the public and Parliament were promised. Is the minister listening to his own user group? Has he even met with the group yet?
Poorly drafted legislation and an up to 90% error rate in the system are making it impossible for police to know who owns guns or where they are stored. That is the very thing the minister promised the police that the gun registry would do.
The three justice ministers who have been in charge of this file have so infuriated provincial and territorial governments that eight of them have opted out of the administration of the gun registry, and the western provinces refuse to enforce the Firearms Act. This is criminal law that the provinces do not want to have any part of, which ought to indicate to Canadians that there is a serious problem here.
This week the Nunavut Court of Justice suspended firearms registration requirements for the Nunavut Inuit because of lack of service, poor communication and low compliance. I remind the minister that he is responsible for ensuring that all Canadians are treated equally before and under the law. If they no longer have to comply with it, what about the rest of us?
An hon. member: Are you still advocating that they don't register?
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: All those people blathering over there better listen carefully. The minister's gun registry is such a boondoggle that the minister does not even keep track of the current addresses of 131,000 persons prohibited from owning firearms and he has no provision to check if their guns have been removed from their possession or to ensure that they have not acquired more guns illegally. Instead of keeping track of 131,000 convicted criminals, he is going to try to keep track of two million law abiding gun owners. Is there any sense in that?
He has his priorities backwards, because he thinks it is easier to track two million law abiding and honest people than 131,000 convicted criminals. That is the only explanation I can imagine.
Now the minister claims that thousands of convicted sex offenders have privacy rights. Where is the minister's concern about the privacy rights of two million completely innocent firearms owners whom he forces to report their changes of address or go to jail for up to two years?
What the minister should have said today is that the gun registry is such a mess that it is impossible to fix, that he is going to do the right thing and kill it, scrap it and abolish it.
(1015)
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to respond to the Minister of Justice.
It seems strange that the Minister of Justice took more than a week to react to the Auditor General's report criticizing the veritable administrative fiasco of the Canadian Firearms Program. Worse yet, it took the release of this report to get a reaction out of the government.
There are two possibilities: either the government knew and did not do anything, or it did not know, which is also worrisome because that means it does not even have control over the administrative machinery.
It took the specific intervention of the Auditor General to uncover the magnitude of the administrative mess, because the Liberal government, true to form, took an amazingly lax approach to the management of this program.
Because of this government's chronic lack of transparency, as highlighted in the Auditor General's report to Parliament, the costs of managing this program mushroomed. No one in the government had the moral decency to sound the alarm before the Auditor General did.
The costs of the program, originally estimated at $2 million, will soar to $1 billion by 2004-05, showing the government's incompetence and inability when it comes to managing public funds.
The fine words of the minister this morning do not assign blame or even admit responsibility, far from it. It is totally disgusting to see the minister downplaying the situation on the pretext that the challenge of firearm registration was such a great one. At best, this is evidence of the lack of concern and lack of awareness of the government, and of the present Minister of Justice, and his predecessors.
It is unacceptable that, despite the budgetary control exercised by Parliament, the government has succeeded in camouflaging the real costs of the program. Even some Liberal members have expressed their outrage at the government's mismanagement and called for the head of the Minister of Industry and former Minister of Justice.
Something along these lines is necessary, but it must be admitted that it was far beyond the administrative capacities of the ministers responsible. The hundreds of millions of dollars sunk into this program represent nothing more and nothing less than a huge government exercise in wasting public funds, the hard earned dollars of the taxpayers of Quebec and Canada.
As hon. members are aware, when this program was created, there was an atmosphere of austerity in Canada. Deep cuts in federal government program budgets, and in transfer payments to the provinces in particular, created some very precarious situations for the budgets of other levels of government.
In such a difficult economic situation, the taxpayers, who were bearing the brunt of these major sacrifices, were entitled to expect that the dollars saved would be properly administered. But no. Thanks to a cumbersome and incompetent government, the costs of one program were able to go through the roof without any control.
The Minister of Industry, formerly the Minister of Justice, was out of his depth and did nothing. Worse yet, the member for LaSalle—Émard, who kept a tight hand on the purse strings at the time, since he was Minister of Finance, did not sound the alarm either. And imagine that some people already see him in the Prime Minister's chair—unbelievable.
Through their incompetence, the Liberals gave the opponents of gun control plenty of heavy ammunition to use against it. This fiasco left two victims in its wake: the taxpayers' wallets and the very principle of firearms control.
More than ever before, we need to keep a close eye on this arrogant and incompetent government. That is why the people of Quebec have sent two new representatives of the Bloc Quebecois to this House.
(1020)
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice said that he wanted to be transparent and he was. He certainly has done a great deal for transparency this morning by so transparently engaging in an act of damage control with respect to the cost overruns associated with the gun registry.
I will begin by just going over the minister's statement. The minister says that the Government of Canada believes that the firearms program contributes to public safety by keeping guns and ammunition out of the wrong hands, by deterring their misuse and by controlling specific types of firearms. These are worthy goals and the NDP supports those goals of the firearms control program.
However that does not mean that we have to be lax when it comes to our job as parliamentarians in holding the government to account for how it administers particular programs. I must also say that the statement is very unclear as to what the government associates the cost overruns with.
The statement goes on to say, “throughout the first five years of the program”. Which program? Is the minister referring to the first 5 years of the 25 years that he referred to in the first paragraph of his statement from 1978 to 1983, or is he specifically referring to the first 5 years of the gun registry program which we are now in the middle of? It is not clear what he is referring to here.
The cost overruns, as I understand them, are associated with the registration aspect of the overall gun control program, and yet the minister hides that fact in his statement by never actually mentioning the registration program in his statement. The overruns are associated with the registry, not with the firearms control program that began in 1978, at least that is how I understand the situation. I regret that the minister decided to avoid the issue of the specific cost overruns associated with the registry itself.
The minister went on to say that departmental costs have always been reported through approved Treasury Board framework guidelines and that the department has reported many times to Parliament. Nevertheless, the Auditor General has said, and he agrees, that we must do better. The Auditor General did not just say that we should do better. The Auditor General said that the government did not do it at all, that it kept Parliament in the dark.
Therefore to suggest that somehow there is just a little degree of improvement that is required on the part of the government with respect to how it has reported to Parliament on the gun registry program is ridiculous and certainly not an example of due diligence in terms of reading the Auditor General's report.
If we were to read the Auditor General's report we would see that she is very hard on the government and does not just say that it needs to do better, like it was being tapped on the wrist. The government was given a great big wallop and told to fundamentally revamp how it reports the cost of this program to Parliament.
The minister should be faulted for a statement which so transparently seeks to minimize the way in which the government has mismanaged this program.
When the minister talked about seeking efficiency in terms of costs for this program, I want to warn him that we in the NDP will not stand for the privatization of the gun registry. If this is what he has in mind when he talks about cost efficiencies, then he will not have the support of the NDP.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: It is already happening.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I heard a member say that it was already happening. I know it is already happening. I have been on record before as the NDP justice critic against the privatization of the gun registry, but this would certainly be a violation of what the government committed itself to when it began this registry program in terms of confidentiality. I am sure that gun owners have no desire to have the list of who owns long guns in this country contracted out to some fly by night friend of the Liberals. They will probably give it to Groupaction for all we know, if they have not done so already. This is just ridiculous.
I hope the minister will not consider privatization as a way of reducing the cost. There must be a way to do this properly through sound public management. That is what we--
(1025)
The Speaker:
The hon. member for South Shore.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the government stood in the House this morning and repeatedly said that this issue was about gun control. Do we not wish it was so? It is absolutely a deception to say that this issue is about gun control.
The Auditor General herself said, “the issue here is not gun control”. Excuse me, the issue here is not gun control. It is not even the astronomical cost overruns, although those are serious. What is really inexcusable is that Parliament was kept in the dark. If we were take that a step further, Canadians were kept in the dark. Victims of family violence were kept in the dark. Victims of assault with a firearm were kept in the dark. Women, who are being threatened because peace bonds are not being enforced, were kept in the dark. This is absolutely about waste, inefficiency, deceit and deception deliberately imposed by the government.
The minister, if he wants to have a career in politics, has an opportunity to do something about it but he just stood in the House and told us that he would not, that he will allow it to continue.
We started out with an estimate of $117 million for the cost of a long gun registry. The net cost to run the program was supposed to be $2 million a year, for a total cost of $119 million. This is unprecedented deception on the part of the government.
Let us review the administration. There has been no ministerial responsibility and that was proven again this morning. Where is the responsibility on the shoulders of the member for Etobicoke Centre, from the member for Edmonton West, from the member for Outremont, from the member for LaSalle—Émard, from the member from Shawinigan? Does Shawinigan sound familiar? It should sound familiar.
What have we accomplished? We have had cost overruns hidden in the supplementary estimates. We have had a refusal to follow procedure in Parliament. Very little has been accomplished other than wasting a billion dollars. What would that billion dollars have done to protect women in this country?
This is not about long gun registration. Most parliamentarians support reasonable, responsible gun control. What saves lives is the safe handling and safe storage of guns. We have a gun registry in place and homicides have gone up 19%. Members should listen to the facts. The government has not done its job. It has lied to Canadians. It has lied to victims of violence. The government cannot do that. It is not acceptable.
The government has not done the job that it set out to do. It is time to scrap the long gun registry, to walk away from it and do the parts of gun control that work: training, safe handling, safe storage and making sure people are screened before they have access to a firearm.
There are millions of safe firearm owners out there and those are the people the government is targeting. It is not targeting the criminals. It is not targeting Mom Boucher who has a registered firearm. That makes me sleep better at night and makes me feel a lot better about the gun registry.
The government has not done the job that it started to do. Government members should be embarrassed to stand in this place and try to tell members of Parliament, and the Canadian public that we represent, that they somehow have been transparent in the application of their duties, because they have not been.
* * *
(1030)
Committees of the House
Non-Medical Use of Drugs
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the final report of the Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs.
On behalf of all the members of the committee let me thank them for their hard work and thank all the witnesses who gave us the benefit of their ideas, their passion and their interest.
The report is a very solid work plan for the government to move forward and make meaningful changes to our laws, to our system of education, prevention and treatment, and to invest in research.
The committee thanks everyone in this administration for their assistance in this process.
* * *
Health
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Health.
Pursuant to its order of reference dated Wednesday, October 9, 2002, the health committee has considered Bill C-13, an act respecting assisted human reproduction. The committee agreed on Tuesday, December 10, 2002, to report it with amendment.
I wish to thank the members, the witnesses and the staff who assisted us through these deliberations.
* * *
[Translation]
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade entitled, “Partners in North America: Advancing Canada’s Relations withthe United States and Mexico”.
This report is the result of Canada-wide consultations and meetings with leaders and opinion makers in Mexico and the United States.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report within 150 days.
* * *
(1035)
Public Accounts
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on Chapter 6 (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency—Economic Development), of the December 2001 report of the Auditor General of Canada.
I also have the honour to present the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on Chapter 8 (Canada Customs and Revenue Agency—Managing the Risks of Non-Compliance for Commercial Shipments Entering Canada of the December 2001 report of the Auditor General of Canada.
In addition, I have the honour to present the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on Chapter 8 (Other Audit Observations—Health Canada and Public Works and Government Services Canada), of the April 2002 report of the Auditor General of Canada.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to these three reports.
* * *
[English]
Transport
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay—Superior North, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Transport.
The report I am presenting before the House today has the unanimous consent of all committee members. I wish to thank all members from both sides of the House for their diligence and hard work in preparing this report, in such a short period of time, which is of so much interest to every traveller in Canada during this period.
The recommendation in the report states:
|
|
That the Standing Committee on Transport urges the Government to implement an immediate and substantial reduction of the Air Travellers Security Charge. |
This report meets all the criteria of the principles of user pay that has been adopted. The committee has established beyond a reasonable doubt that there is more than enough money in the treasury that has been collected already to pay for this. The committee urges the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice to immediately adopt the substance of this report and give the travelling public in Canada a break over the holiday period.
Mr. James Moore:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As the chair of the transport committee mentioned, this resolution was passed unanimously in committee. There has been some conversation and if the House would give its consent I would move that the report just tabled be concurred in.
The Speaker:
Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
Canada Post Corporation Act
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-342, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (mail contractors).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce an amendment to the Canada Post Corporation Act. This bill deals with the rural route mail couriers who deliver mail in the country. The mail carriers are considered by Canada Post to be independent contractors. Our point is that these are not independent contractors as such. They are wholly dependent on Canada Post for all they do. Therefore, the relationship is more of an employer and an employee than that of an independent contractor who can rely on numerous sources for employment and income.
However, the Canada Post Corporation Act specifically bars them from bargaining collectively. They are not allowed to organize into a union or take part in free collective bargaining. I think this is wrong. They are the only group of workers in the country who are specifically barred from organizing a union. This bill would eradicate one clause in the Canada Post Corporation Act and allow them to bargain collectively.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
(1040)
Citizenship Act
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-343, an act to amend the Citizenship Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce my private member's bill, an act to amend the Citizenship Act. My bill is designed to remedy an injustice in the Canadian Citizenship Act, whereby Canadian children whose parents took out United States citizenship between 1946 and 1977 automatically lost their Canadian citizenship through no conscious decision of their own.
Regrettably, amendments to the Citizenship Act of 1977 did not make these the citizenship of these individuals retroactive. My bill would make it possible for these individuals to regain their Canadian citizenship without being established as a permanent resident in order to do so.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
Petitions
Rights of the Child
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to rise on behalf of a number of citizens of Canada who have chosen to exercise their right to petition Parliament when they feel there are deficiencies in legislation.
I have three petitions. The first one calls upon Parliament to modify legislation to ensure that both parents are actively involved with their children after divorce through specifically defined shared parenting, and to modify the support guidelines to make sure that the support goes to the child.
* * *
Child Pornography
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from a number of citizens who call upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all the necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.
* * *
Stem Cell Research
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the third petition calls upon the Parliament of Canada to ban embryo research and direct the Canadian Institutes for Health and Research to support and fund only ethical research that does not involve the destruction of human life.
* * *
[Translation]
Government Contracts
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour this morning of presenting two petitions, one with 198 names and the other with 98 names.
The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to order a public inquiry, which is the only way to shed light on the close ties between the Liberal Party, its ministers and certain advertising agencies that have received millions of dollars in contracts from the Liberal government in the past few years, and on the entire federal government contracting system.
* * *
[English]
Members of Parliament
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a number of petitions this morning.
The first petition was signed by a number of residents of Richmond representing the views of over 4,000 signatures of an earlier petition with respect to a fundamental issue of democracy. The petitioners note that members of Parliament are elected by voters using a ballot which identifies each candidate by an official party designation and that voters use the party designation in many cases to make their decisions. They point out their concerns about violating the intention of voters when a member of Parliament changes parties.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to enact legislation which would require all members of Parliament who wish to change their official party designation in the House of Commons to resign and run in a byelection. Certainly the important Defend Democracy Richmond organization with Adrian Wade and others should be saluted for that.
* * *
[Translation]
Research and Development
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is presented by the Catholic Organization for Development and Peace. It was signed by residents of Montreal. Some 180,000 petition postcards have been sent to the Minister for International Trade so far.
(1045)
[English]
It is on the important subject of patenting of life, seeds and living organisms which are part of our collective heritage. The petitioners call upon Parliament not to promote policies that heighten poverty, threaten the environment, and increase hunger throughout the world. They oppose the patenting and private control of seeds, and all other forms of life.
* * *
The Environment
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of other petitions signed by a number of people from Yukon, in particular, David MacKinnon of the Transboundary Watershed Alliance who coordinated it. They are concerned about the magnificent transboundary rivers and watersheds in the province of British Columbia that are of major concern in that region. They point out that these rivers and watersheds face a variety of ecological threats, both inside and outside their boundaries such as the Bradfield Canal-Craig River Road proposal.
They call upon Parliament to adopt an ecosystem sustainable development policy for the region that promotes and protects the rights of workers, communities and the environment, respects cultural diversity, and ensures the capacity of these transboundary rivers and watersheds to meet the needs of this and future generations.
* * *
Coast Guard
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP):
Finally, Mr. Speaker, a petition that has over 510 signatures which were collected over the course of 12 hours on one trail leading down to the beach at Wreck Beach in British Columbia, the well known clothing optional beach. Judy Williams of the Wreck Beach Preservation Society was instrumental in collecting these signatures.
The petitioners note that the Canadian Coast Guard is in desperate need of a new hovercraft to replace the one that is scheduled for decommissioning in October this year. They are concerned about cuts in funding for the Coast Guard.
They call upon Parliament to make the Coast Guard an independent body to protect those sunbathers. It should be an independent body whose priority is the saving of lives and it should be separated from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The Coast Guard should be issued a new hovercraft to enable it to perform rescues of those in peril and certainly new uniforms as well.
* * *
Stem Cell Research
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have two petitions to present. Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, cancer, muscular dystrophy and spinal cord injury are still diseases. Progress has been made on research with adult stem cells with no immune rejections or ethical problems.
My first petition calls on the government to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research.
* * *
Child Pornography
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals with child pornography. The people who signed this petition believe that the creation and use of child pornography is condemned by a majority of Canadians, and that the courts have not applied existing laws so that every case has stiff penalties for child exploitation. They call upon Parliament to outlaw materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities with children.
* * *
Immigration
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the residents of Surrey to present this petition signed by around 6,000 people. The petitioners draw attention to the sad story of Komagata Maru, a vessel carrying 376 passengers of Indian origin, mostly British subjects, that arrived in Vancouver Harbour on May 23, 1914. When the freighter anchored, Canadian immigration officials refused to allow the passengers to disembark. After two months of detainment the Canadian navy forced the ship out of Canadian waters under threat of violence and 19 of 352 passengers were massacred by the British government of India and others were arrested and imprisoned.
The petitioners contend that this incident was a result of a racist, discriminatory and exclusionist Canadian immigration policy. They ask that Parliament issue an apology to correct the wrong that remains a black scar on Canadian history, and hurts the community. Justice delayed or forgotten is justice denied.
* * *
(1050)
Child Pornography
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central concerning child pornography. The petitioners ask that Parliament protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that the material that promotes pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children be outlawed.
* * *
Marriage
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of my constituents signed by 165 people. The petitioners call upon Parliament to affirm the opposite sex definition of marriage in legislation and ensure that marriage is recognized as a unique institution.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of tabling three petitions today. The first one is from the Olds and Bowden district. Several hundred petitioners are asking the government to bring in legislation, and use the notwithstanding clause if necessary, to preserve and protect the current definition of a marriage between one man and one woman.
* * *
Age of Consent
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from the Strathmore area and Calgary region is from a group of petitioners that call on the government to immediately raise the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16.
* * *
Child Pornography
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the third petition is from the Strathmore region. Approximately 3,500 people in my riding are calling on the government to do something about the legislation protecting our children regarding pornography, indicating that there is no public good, no artistic merit, no value whatsoever in child pornography, and it should be abolished in total.
* * *
[Translation]
Government Contracts
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table two petitions signed by close to one hundred residents of the riding of Verchères—Les-Patriotes and of greater Montreal.
They note that the report of the Auditor General to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services on three contracts awarded to Groupaction points out that all the contracting rules were broken in this affair; that none of the investigations currently underway focus on shedding light on the ties between government suppliers and the various departments; and that the ethics counsellor is appointed by the Prime Minister, and acts exclusively in his interest.
Therefore, the petitioners are asking Parliament to enact a public inquiry, the only way to get to the bottom of the close ties that exist between the Liberal Party, its ministers and certain advertising agencies that received millions of dollars in government contracts from the Liberal government in recent years, as well as on the entire federal government contracting system.
* * *
[English]
Stem Cell Research
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present two petitions. The first one is signed by a number of Canadian residents on behalf of hundreds of thousands of Canadians who suffer from debilitating illnesses.
The petitioners would like Parliament to send a message to Health Canada to ensure that research is conducted with respect to ethical stem cell explorations. They call upon all of us to encourage research that would find cures and therapies necessary to treat illnesses and diseases of many Canadians.
* * *
Health Care
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is a very important and timely one and it concerns the Canada Health Act. The petitioners indicate that this legislation is the foundation of medicare and that the federal government ought to preserve and enforce this act.
They call upon Parliament to enshrine the Canada Health Act and the five principles of medicare in the Canadian Constitution to guarantee national standards of quality publicly funded health care for every Canadian citizen as a right.
* * *
Marriage
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from over 300 people of the wonderful city of Powell River who ask Parliament to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
* * *
Member for Richmond
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by more than 4,000 people calling on Parliament to request that the member for Richmond resign and run for re-election. Unfortunately, the clerk of petitions determined that the petition did not contain a clear and respectful--
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker:
Order, please. The hon. member cannot stand and say this kind of thing in the presentation of petitions. He can only present ones that have already been certified. I am sure he is aware of that. I am glad he has one that has been and I am sure he will proceed with that at once.
* * *
Members of Parliament
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, since I cannot present the one with 4,000 signatures, I will present one with 48 signatures which basically says the same thing but in slightly different words.
The petitioners point out, as the member for Burnaby—Douglas did, that it is a violation of the intention of voters when a member of Parliament changes parties. Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to enact legislation that would require all members of Parliament, who wish to change their official party designation in the House of Commons, to resign and run in a byelection.
* * *
(1055)
[Translation]
Government Contracts
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am presenting three petitions, with a total of 681 signatures. They state the same facts as those of my colleagues' petitions.
The petitioners are calling on the government to enact a public inquiry, the only way to get to the bottom of the close ties that exist between the Liberal Party, its ministers and certain advertising agencies that received millions of dollars in government contracts from the Liberal government in recent years, as well as on the entire federal government contracting system.
* * *
[English]
Coast Guard
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from over 400 people on the west coast of British Columbia. The petitioners are concerned that the government has not funded the Coast Guard adequately. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans chronic underfunding and lack of resources has resulted potentially in the loss of several lives.
They call upon the government to remove the Coast Guard from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and a separate department be adequately funded so lives can be saved. They also call upon the government to ensure that a new and adequate hovercraft is available for lifesaving purposes.
* * *
Child Pornography
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise to today to present a petition on behalf of over 100 Alberta residents calling upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pornography involving children are outlawed.
* * *
Iraq
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition from numerous people who are very concerned about the possibility of war with Iraq and also about the sanctions against Iraq. The petitioners include people who, for more than two years, have demonstrated publicly every week against the sanctions in Iraq and have done so often in times when their position has been very unpopular.
They point out that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs has reported that economic sanctions on Iraq are not accomplishing their objectives and that Canada's policy should be based on international law.
They say that Canada should not join a war against Iraq in any event and should leave regime change to the Iraqi people. They say that Canada should increase humanitarian aid to Iraq in the form of civil society partnerships and should stop supporting the sanctions. They also say that Canada should re-open its embassy in Baghdad.
The Speaker:
I am afraid the time for presentation of petitions has expired. Fifteen minutes is the limit under the rules and the Speaker has to enforce the rules in every respect, as the hon. member from Peace River knows. He is rising on a point of order.
Mr. Charlie Penson:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask if you would seek-unanimous consent that the time be extended because members will be out of the House for quite a period of time?
Hon. Don Boudria:
Mr. Speaker, it could be extended for five minutes and perhaps members could rush this so we could get on to the important budget consultations.
The Speaker:
Is it agreed to extend for five minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Peterborough has the floor. He will be prompt I know with the rest of his petitions.
* * *
Child Pornography
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I present a petition from people in Peterborough who are concerned about the use of child pornography. The petitioners call upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials that promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.
* * *
Kidney Disease
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions which I will present together from people concerned about kidney disease.
The petitioners admire the work being done by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for those suffering from kidney disease. They call upon Parliament to encourage the Canadian institutes to explicitly include kidney research as one of the institutes in the system to be named the institute of kidney and urinary tract diseases.
* * *
[Translation]
Rural Route Letter Carriers
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition in the House signed by more than 300 persons in support of rural route letter carriers. The petitioners are from Chertsey and Lanaudière.
Letter carriers on rural routes are calling on Parliament to repeal one paragraph of the Canada Post Corporation Act, which prevents them from bargaining collectively to improve their pay and working conditions.
The petitioners believe that this denial of a fundamental right allows Canada Post Corporation to maintain salaries and working conditions at a level that is unfair and that this constitutes discrimination against rural workers. They hope this situation will be rectified.
* * *
[English]
National Defence
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the people of Killaloe, Wilno, Gordon Lake and Douglas in the riding of Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke recognize the importance of continuing training for first responders by the experienced instructors and in the unique environment that the Arnprior College provides. The petitioners request Parliament to recognize that the Canadian Emergency Preparedness College should stay in the town of Arnprior.
* * *
(1100)
Religion
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions on behalf of my constituents calling upon Parliament to protect the rights of Canadians to be free to share their religious beliefs without fear of prosecution.
* * *
Stem Cell Research
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first deals with stem cell research. The petitioners call upon Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research.
* * *
Child Pornography
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the second petition has hundreds of names on it. The petitioners call upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to prevent pornography as we now have it.
* * *
Kyoto Protocol
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I have over a thousand petitions asking the government not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol from residents of Calgary and from the riding of Perth--Middlesex, which currently does not have a member of Parliament.
* * *
Marriage
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of residents in my riding calling upon Parliament to take all necessary steps within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to preserve the definition of marriage in Canada as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
* * *
Child Pornography
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions to present today. The first petition has 50 signatures. The petitioners call upon Parliament to protect our children by taking steps to outlaw all materials promoting and glorifying pedophilia.
* * *
Stem Cell Research
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the other three petitions have over 150 signatures combined. The petitioners call upon Parliament to focus its legislation support on adult stem cell research to find cures and therapies to treat illnesses and diseases for all suffering Canadians.
* * *
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 40 could be made an order for return, the return could be tabled immediately.
Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 40--
Mr. Pierre Paquette:
Can the government indicate: (a) what studies,
reports and analyses have been carried out or ordered since January 1, 2001, by
the Department of Finance or the Queen’s Privy Council, on the issue of fiscal
imbalance and/or on the Quebec government’s “Commission sur le déséquilibre
fiscal”, whose report was released on March 7, 2002 and; (b) what
long-term (two years or more) forecasts have been made or ordered since January
1, 2000, by the Department of Finance or the Queen’s Privy Council, on Canada’s
financial situation?
Return tabled.
[English]
Mr. Geoff Regan:
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker:
I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, government orders will be extended by 24 minutes. Hon. members can be thankful that they are not extended because of Speaker's ruling because I am about to give one of those.
* * *
Privilege
Goods and Services Tax--Speaker's Ruling
[Speaker's Ruling]
The Speaker:
I am now prepared to rule on the matter raised by the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast on December 9 concerning the alleged failure of the government to report on cases of fraud related to the goods and services tax. The hon. member charged that the Minister of National Revenue should be found in contempt for failing to table a full accounting of cases of theft, fraud and losses of tax revenue in the Public Accounts of Canada as required by the Financial Administration Act.
I would like to thank the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast for raising the question and the hon. government House leader for his contribution on this matter.
Referring to Sections 23 and 24 of the Financial Administration Act relating to the remission of taxes, the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast cites Section 24(2) which states:
|
|
Remissions granted under this or any other act of Parliament during a fiscal year shall be reported in the Public Accounts for that year in such form as the Treasury Board may direct. |
While it is a longstanding practice that the Speaker does not interpret matters of law, I suppose one could question whether the funds paid out by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency in response to fraudulent applications qualify as “remissions” under this section. In this respect, I must note for the sake of precision that a “remission” is not the same as a loss.
The Chair finds more enlightenment by considering the issues raised by the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast in the context of the provisions of Section 79 of the Financial Administration Act. I will return to this in a moment.
(1105)
[Translation]
The hon. member also cited a National Post article on Saturday, December 7, 2002 alleging that, since 1995, the government has failed to report on the loss of public money due to fraudulent claims for GST refunds
[English]
Through a written submission to the Chair, the hon. Minister of National Revenue has confirmed that following a 1995 agreement reached between the Department of National Revenue and the Treasury Board, her department ceased reporting fraudulent losses in the Public Accounts on a year by year basis. According to the hon. minister, virtually all such confirmed losses were the result of court decisions rendered some months of years after the original losses were detected.
Explaining that items included in the Public Accounts of a given year must have occurred in that year, the hon. minister argues that the time delay between the discovery of a loss and its confirmation by the courts made the timely inclusion of the losses in the public accounts impossible. The minister notes that her department, now an agency, addressed this quandary by addressing the Treasury Board. She reports their conclusion that the requirements of the Financial Administration Act could be met through the aggregate information on tax write-offs included in the Public Accounts, and through media bulletins issued at the time any “loss” was confirmed by a court decision.
[Translation]
In short, the minister contends that the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is in full compliance with the Act, by virtue of the Treasury Board having agreed to this manner of reporting.
[English]
It is not of course for the Speaker to decide if the agency is acting in compliance with the law. As I have had occasion to mention in several recent rulings, it is a long-accepted principle that the Speaker does not pronounce on points of law.
There is clearly a difference of opinion between the hon. opposition House leader and the hon. minister concerning interpretation of the legalities flowing from the facts of this case. That is a matter for debate and a variety of different opportunities are available by which the matter can be raised in this chamber or in committee. There is no procedural issue here and so I need not elaborate on that further.
However, there is another aspect of this case that gives me pause and that will, I think, pose difficulties for members on both sides of the House. We are all aware that hon. members cannot carry out the important task of holding the government to account unless they are provided with complete, accurate information in a timely fashion. For much of this information they must depend upon the government through such documents as the public accounts.
The Chair is troubled that although Revenue Canada recognized that it had a reporting difficulty and rightly sought the advice and approval of the Treasury Board as to how best to rectify the situation, no effort was made to consult Parliament.
As the minister herself points out in her written submission:
|
|
Section 79 of the Financial Administration Act (FAA) provides regulation-making authority to prescribe, amongst other things, the manner by which losses of public funds should be reported in the Public Accounts. The Treasury Board has chosen to prescribe these requirements by way of policy rather than regulation. |
There is little doubt that the Treasury Board's decision to proceed by policy rather than by regulation grants it greater flexibility in dealing with the cases that arise, but that decision does not obviate the responsibility for remaining accountable to Parliament. Put another way, had the Treasury Board chosen to avail itself of its authority to make regulations in this regard, at least the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations might have detected any changes in approach by the government with regard to the reporting of such losses.
As it stands, not only was the advice or agreement of members not sought to the reporting solution agreed to by the department and the Treasury Board, no indication that the change had been made was included in the public accounts or in any public accounts document.
Information that was available in one year simply vanished the next without explanation. It is surely disingenuous to suggest, as does the minister in her submission, that aggregate information on tax write-offs in the public accounts and media bulletins on court decisions are adequate or sufficiently evident for parliamentary requirements.
[Translation]
As I said, this is not, strictly speaking a procedural issue but it is an issue that directly affects the rights of hon. members to timely and accurate information. It is a matter that members may wish to pursue in a more appropriate forum, possibly in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, whose chair, an opposition member, is very competent.
[English]
I thank the hon. House leader of the official opposition for having raised this matter. While there is no basis for finding a procedural irregularity here in the strict sense, it does raise an issue of concern to all hon. members.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Government Orders]
* * *
(1110)
[English]
Prebudget Consultations
The House resumed from December 10 consideration of the motion.
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
This is a very important debate. I had a chance to participate in some of the prebudget hearings in Toronto. Submissions were made by a number of different witnesses. There were discussions among members as well as discussions in general about how to go about financing the nation's business plan in terms of spending and more important, in terms of developing our nation's resources.
It is important to look at the opportunities that the nation has, the resources and income coming in, what will be used and how it will be used and managed. Unfortunately, we have seen recently some terrible situations with regard to the use of tax dollars which have given Canadians a sour taste and which really affect our prebudget considerations and our budget process.
I have been in the House for several months now. I am very disappointed with the lack of accountability of where our tax dollars go. The actions of the government, its different departments and that which drives public policy should be transparent. That is important to note because there have been situations.
For example, over the last 10 years there has been an $80 billion surplus in the employment insurance fund. It might be okay for Arthur Andersen or Enron to be out $80 billion but the government says it is a great thing that it has been off in its financial forecasting. Canadians cannot make educated decisions about where they want their money to go. The government says that it is the government's money and it will put it toward the debt or whatever projects it wants and that should be good enough for Canadians to accept. Well, it is not because employment insurance premiums cannot be used as a slush fund. Canadians need to make educated decisions.
It is also very important to recognize that the government is robbing workers and employers. It becomes particularly problematic when there are some businesses that do not even report their taxes. When there are businesses that do not contribute their fair share, it means the rest of the population is picking up that cost. More important, those businesses in effect are getting a subsidy and honest businesses cannot compete. It is pretty easy to have a competitive advantage when a business is not paying its taxes but its next door neighbour is. It is no wonder that business has lower costs, greater profits, all those things, if it is not contributing to the economic well-being of our country.
A number of different issues were raised regarding the taxation process and the budget, where the money is being spent, and more important, what we can do for Canadians.
One piece of legislation that has caused concern in my riding is with regard to the taxation of U.S. social security benefits. The government has been on the record to study and to get rid of the terrible regressive policy that punishes retirees who have worked hard for their income and have planned for their retirement. The government has usurped their income from them through additional taxes. That shameful practice has to end.
The government could change it through treaty negotiations. It is a simple process. The government has talked about it in the past. The former finance minister has talked about it. Former members of Parliament have talked about it. The government continues to say it is studying it. I do not know how long it needs to study the issue, but it should come up with something.
The treatment of those citizens has been absolutely abominable. They have worked hard for their income and have planned for their retirement. They are not getting the services nor are they living out their retirement as they had planned because the government has moved in with regressive actions.
We heard from many different delegations with regard to specific issues. It is hard to comprehend the logic of some of the members opposite on certain issues. It was good to see the whole House finally agree on the disability tax credit, except for the Minister of Finance, had to leave to be somewhere else. During the debate he was not present and during the vote on the disability tax credit in terms of the NDP's subcommittee amendment addressing that issue, he got up and left. We are talking about $960. The government was moving to cut off the ability for people to use the resources that are necessary for them and to offset some of their increased costs.
(1115)
It is important to note that Community Living identified persons it supports and what the tax credit means to them and their families. The minister still could not stay to vote and after that, he ignored the vote. I had to continue to press the issue and I am still waiting to see some final results. It is shameful conduct. I hope that other members from all parties who are participating in this debate address that because it is one of the things in the budget.
The government claims it cannot afford to give persons with disabilities a $960 tax credit. That is absolute nonsense and it is unacceptable. The government had $1 billion for gun control and it did not even bring the issue back to the House so members could understand what was happening with regard to the expenditures. At the same time the government hammered down on persons with disabilities and claimed it could not afford to help them. That is unbelievable and shameful and it is wrong.
I would like to note a couple of points with regard to the Auditor General's report. We are talking about having funds to move forward on progressive issues.
We heard about the concern of the universities regarding innovation and research and their ability to work with the government to plan some changes but at the same time the government is not addressing the accessibility of education in our country.
Students are coming out of universities with larger debts. They have a delayed entry into the workforce; they are entering later in their life. They also switch careers more often. All of those things lead to concerns about long term employment stability.
One of the interesting things to note is the millennium scholarship fund. Education costs have skyrocketed by up to 140% in terms of actual tuition. The cost of living has gone up as well. The millennium scholarship fund has $2.5 billion to hand out to students but has given away only $282 million. What is the government waiting for? There are students who need support now. What is the problem? We have paid for it with our tax money. The government created an agenda. What is it waiting for? The government could release those funds to students and be a little more progressive with it thus ensuring that people get the support they need right now.
The Auditor General said that employment insurance premiums are more than double the amount that is needed. If it continues like that, it will not be able to provide the other relief necessary for growth. Taxing people through a regressive tax will not lead to transparency in the budget process. The problem is that people do not understand where their money is going. They do not understand how employment insurance premiums can be used for different things when it should be going to a specific program.
People are asking for transparency. We have heard that transparency is supposed to be coming with the gun control registry. What is transparent about it is that it is basically a sieve for money. It may shuffle right through the whole thing and it is not going to a clear objective.
There are many wonderful opportunities to work on as a country. There are particular assets that can be used to achieve some of our objectives.
The government has introduced an urban task force initiative but it does not have any resources available for it. It has some suggestions and some summaries with regard to municipalities, but it does not have any practical ability to fund them. That has to happen. There cannot be any more reports. There are some reports like the first nations report where they have to go through a reporting process. These reports are not read. This is yet another report. If some resources were put toward it, we could achieve some beneficial objectives for municipalities, urban infrastructure, all of those things.
There is wanton waste which must be stopped and plugged and the money used toward something. With regard to the Canada pension plan, in the last six months there has been a loss of $4 billion, a negative 20.5%. It is interesting to note that John McNaughton, the chief executive officer, said that these wide swings in performance in terms of the stock market are expected to continue. Why not use that money right now? Since the government has lost billions of dollars already, why not use that money for infrastructure in the meantime? The government could get a lower rate of return from municipalities, perhaps 2% or 3%, so some revenue could be guaranteed for the Canada pension plan but at the same time use the difference to build the nation's infrastructure.
(1120)
Things can be done. We do not have to put it through the process where we lose billions of dollars. How much more do we have to lose before we get it straight? We have some incredible opportunities but the government continues to squander them.
Conservation Ontario has put forth a wonderful program that will cost about $100 million. The program could actually be a great legacy for Ontario but if we continue to waste billions of dollars it makes that $100 million unattainable. This has to change because Canadians want transparency. They do not want games being played with their money.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the gentleman across the way and I want to clarify, in particular, the issue of the disability tax credit. It is a tax credit that since 1996 has provided more than $1 billion in assistance and $4 billion in programs.
The member more than suggested that the minister did not listen to the House in terms of the New Democratic Party's motion with regard to the disability tax credit. That is utter nonsense.
I want to refer the hon. member to a November 29 press release from the minister in which he clearly said that the issue was off the table in terms of the proposals of August 30. The minister has now instructed the department to go back for further consultations with the affected groups. I want to make it very clear to the member that in fact the minister has been very supportive and did in fact support it by taking it off the table. I responded to that at an earlier time in the House.
The member talked about urban issues. As he knows, this government was the first, 10 years after the national infrastructure program sat and languished, to endorse it in 1993, a proposal that the parties on the other side did not support. I would like his comments on the funding issue.
Mr. Brian Masse:
Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the hon. member with regard to the disability tax credit. The motion was to go back to the actual subcommittee recommendations. It was not just about a repeal. It was a specific motion that was not followed by the minister in subsequent discussions, and debate ensued on it in the House. It was not until after continued debate that we were able to get at least some acknowledgement that it was going in the wrong direction.
I can tell the House that there are still many persons in the disabled community who are concerned about this. If we are talking about 1996 and all the programming for a billion dollars, I would suggest that the former finance minister changed the capital gains tax for last year. There was a billion dollars in terms of capital gains difference.
The member can throw out all kinds of numbers and use semantics but we need to go back and stick to the recommendations of the subcommittee.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, since this may be my last opportunity to speak in the House before rising for the Christmas break, I want to give you my best wishes for the holiday season. I also want to say a special thank you to everyone who has made our jobs easier this past session: the table officers, the pages, the interpreters, the security personnel, the messengers, the food providers and everyone who made it possible for us to do our jobs.
Those thanks are particularly in order since this has been such a raucous session, with so many uncertainties about the legislative agenda of the government and with so much division and conflict around deepening scandals and information about fiscal mismanagement.
We have expressed in the past and we will again today our concern with the government's ability to manage fiscally and to provide a meaningful legislative agenda for Parliament and for the country. To use an old expression, I think it can be said that the debates this session have been a bit like the mating of pandas. There has been a lot of commotion but not much has happened.
It is very important, in this period of prebudgetary consultations, that we discuss the question of accountability and transparency. It is very hard to give concrete suggestions around budgetary alternatives if we know before we even start that so many of our recommendations will be disregarded, and where there are so many questions and doubts about how the government is actually spending the money that we authorized in the Chamber in the past.
In the last few weeks we have had ample evidence from the Auditor General, through the media and from other sources indicating that the government is suffering from three phenomena that are very worrisome.
First, there is clearly a culture of secrecy that runs rampant through the government.
Second, there is an arrogance of power that makes the government believe it can keep important decisions away from Parliament.
Third, there also is evidence of rotten management of public funds, of taxpayer dollars, whether we are talking about the Auditor General's revelations with respect to the billion dollar gun registry; or we are talking about the billion dollars plus in terms of GST fraud; or we are talking about the Auditor General's revelations pertaining to the corporate use of tax havens, which has cost millions of dollars; or we are talking about the recent news of a $20 million expenditure to build a refugee jail or a fortress for people coming into Canada seeking immigration status or refugee asylum.
Example after example reveal that the government is secretive, unaccountable to the public and disrespectful of Parliament.
I hope, as we lead up to the process of the next budget, the government will take those concerns very seriously, start acting on those concerns and will truly try to find ways to become accountable to Parliament and transparent with the public.
The Auditor General made a suggestion that the problems were not all a result of government mismanagement, that MPs themselves were derelict in their duties in terms of active scrutiny of government expenditures. I think the Auditor General has a point but only to a certain extent. That argument only holds true if members of Parliament and the committees of the House are given the opportunity and the information to adequately scrutinize government expenditures.
I know of numerous standing committees of the House that were not given the opportunity to scrutinize the supplementary estimates. As per our rules, those estimates were deemed accepted and approved even though there was no debate and no scrutiny by the many committees.
(1125)
That is not a problem of individual members of Parliament. That is a result of a government that wields authority throughout this place and which has very cleverly managed to ensure that by controlling the membership and the actions of its own members on committees it makes it impossible for us to do our jobs.
I want to say that was absolutely the case in terms of both the health committee and the immigration committee, two committees of which I am a part. Neither of those committees studied the supplementary estimates and therefore no recommendations are coming forward, even though we are talking about two large areas of government expenditure and two areas where there are questionable practices on the part of government.
I will reference the health committee. This is a committee that ought to be having a say in this prebudgetary period and ought to be discussing the implications of the royal commission by Roy Romanow on the future of health care, and yet our committee adjourned yesterday immediately upon completing the study of Bill C-13. No attempt was made to schedule meetings pertaining to Romanow, despite a motion being passed at that committee to do just that.
We did not have a chance to scrutinize the department's budgets, even though we heard, through media sources and community activists, that the government was up to some dubious practices. I want to reference for the benefit of the House some evidence suggesting that the Minister of Health is planning to raid tobacco control funding to pay for other health initiatives. It would appear that the Minister of Health is preparing to take $13 million out of the anti-smoking initiative and putting it, as we understand it, into her study on obesity to meet her requirements to study the issue of obesity in Canada today.
No scrutiny in this place occurred around those initiatives. I would suggest that the problem rests with the secrecy and manipulation of the government and not with the integrity and hard work of individual members of Parliament on all sides of the House.
I also want to reference the immigration committee where we also did not deal with the supplementary estimates. We learned through the media that the government has proceeded with tendering for a contract worth $20 million to build a detention centre in the vicinity of Pearson airport. The detention centre has specifications that appear to make it a fortress and a jail for refugees, not a low risk security centre.
At the same time that we hear of the government proceeding with that with no accountability to our committee, we know the minister of immigration is saying that he does not have the money, the courage or whatever to implement the refugee appeal division aspects of the immigration and refugee legislation passed by the House. We have legislation passed by the House and the minister says that he cannot proclaim parts of the bill to ensure due process and rights for refugees because he does not have the money, yet he has the money for a prison for refugees.
It also should be noted that there are many areas where the immigration minister should be spending money to ensure family reunification in this country but he has failed to do that. I want to reference in particular the fact that the immigration department has tremendous backlogs in many areas, particularly in terms of family reunification and sponsorship of spouses. We know that the waiting time for just basic acknowledgment and initial approval used to be 90 days. It is now well over eight months or even up to a year.
Here we are talking about prebudgetary consultations when the government is not prepared to be forthcoming. It is ignoring the wishes of Parliament.
Finally, with respect to health care, it is clear that the government has the resources, the latitude and the will of Canadians to move forward with the expenditures recommended by Roy Romanow. We are talking about a reasonable proposal that will ensure stability in our system. It will give the kind of involvement by the federal government to ensure that the provinces and the federal government can participate on a cooperative basis for the future.
I would suggest that the government has no legitimacy in suggesting that the cupboard is bare and that it cannot address the number one priority of Canadians. I would suggest to the government that it commit today to including in the next budget the expenditures recommended by Romanow so we can ensure a sustainable future for medicare.
(1130)
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in this prebudget debate one cannot help mentioning the massive yes vote in the House the other day on the Kyoto protocol and the decision, therefore, of Parliament to support that initiative. With that vote, parliamentarians have indicated that the vast majority in the House understands an issue of global governance, supports an issue of global security and sees, through energy efficiency and conservation, an important solution in order to achieve that goal.
There are two ministers who will have to play a key role in the implementation of Kyoto. One is the Minister of Industry and the other is the Minister of Finance. I will briefly outline in my intervention what they could do.
First, it seems to me that the Minister of Finance has an important role to play in determining the Kyoto orientation of the next budget. One could even call it the Kyoto budget because of the vote we just had and because of the long term commitments Canada is making in order to achieve specific greenhouse gas emission reductions.
The first step that the Minister of Finance could examine is that of the elimination of counterproductive subsidies, which one could even call perverse, which actually increase Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. It requires the gradual elimination of the preferential tax treatment given to the fossil fuel industry and in particular the oil sands industry, specifically the elimination of the current exploration, development and operating write-off provisions of the Income Tax Act accorded to the fossil fuel sector.
Second, the Income Tax Act provisions for the mining write-off assets used for in situ projects for oil sands development need to be dealt with.
Third, the tax expenditures resulting from these subsidies, I would like to bring to the House's attention, could amount to anywhere from $75 million to $600 million, as estimated by Don Drummond, the then senior assistant deputy minister of the finance department , when he testified before the environment committee on November 27, 1997. That estimate by now may be larger.
I will indicate that I am sharing my time with the member for London West.
The second area for the Minister of Finance to examine is the establishment an investment environment and preferential tax treatment to strongly encourage the renewable energy sector. It is still handicapped because it does not have the general exploration, development and operating write-offs currently available to the non-renewable energy sector.
With the removal of the perverse subsidies I mentioned earlier and of the preferential tax treatment to the fossil fuel industry currently available, it is necessary to take a concurrent step to establish a preferential tax treatment for the renewable energy sector, which would include the an increase in the 1.2¢ per kilowatt hour current incentive for wind power production. This increase has been recommended by Benign Energy Canada, a member of the CARE Coalition and the e-mission 55 group.
A major shift in government support, an estimated $2.9 billion to $3 billion over five years, from the fossil fuel and nuclear energy industries to the renewable energy sector is desirable, so as to provide a foundation for a strong Canadian renewable energy industry.
(1135)
Furthermore, an accelerated tax write-off regime is desirable for investments in the renewable energy sector, coupled with a preferential tax treatment for renewables other than wind, such as landfill gas, solar, biogas, et cetera.
Finally, a program to encourage and increase the use of ethanol and other less polluting fuels is desirable, as outlined in the report of the member for Halton, which is entitled, “Unlimited Potential: Capitalizing on Canada's Untapped Renewable Energy Resources”, a fine report with which I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you are very familiar.
Next, we recommend to the Minister of Finance to launch a strong public education program to promote energy conservation, energy efficiency and careful consumption.
The next area is a measure that would also highlight a paragraph in the Canadian plan on Kyoto, which does call on individual citizens, consumers, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Time does not allow me to go into greater detail on this, but one should mention the desirability of a considerably improved fleet performance in the automotive industry and a taxation of gas guzzlers.
This brings me now to the other minister I mentioned earlier in my preface, namely, the important role to be played by the Minister of Industry since it is desirable that the next budget ensure the investment in innovation to meet the Kyoto target.
I submit that innovation is one of the most fundamental determinants of economic growth and competitiveness, and energy innovation will play a central role. The Technology Partnerships Canada annual report that was tabled in the House last month, entitled “Investing in Innovation”, recommends advancing environmental solutions, which I would love to outline for members were it not for the time limitation.
Second, there is the $3 billion invested by the government, and quite rightly so, in the Foundation for Innovation, which is a tremendous source of funds to implement environmental initiatives that will help to meet the Kyoto target.
In conclusion, I would say that the Prime Minister, in Chicoutimi, made a very strong commitment to the Kyoto accord. His statement was followed by his announcement in Johannesburg on the ratification of the Kyoto accord, as ratified by a vote the other day. One can only express the following thought: that the Minister of Finance is likely to be swamped with demands and requests for funds from a number of very legitimate demanders, so to say. They could be in development aid, in human resources, in social programs, in agriculture, in immigration services and so on. Thus, the task of rearranging priorities may be a very difficult one for the Minister of Finance so as to produce the funds requested from him.
I submit that there is a solution to this problem and that would be to rescind the tax cut announced in the last budget. Canadians, I submit, are likely to accept such a decision as a necessary one in order to meet far-reaching obligations, to improve the quality of life and to strengthen government services at home and abroad.
(1140)
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member in addressing the prebudget debate has chosen to talk about Kyoto. We certainly respect his concern for the environment and we share many of his concerns. I wonder if we might ask him about his estimates of what this program will cost to implement.
There are no estimates on the cost to industry. There are no estimates on the cost to consumers. Some of the estimates say that it could cost consumers up to $2,700 a home to comply, and my riding in British Columbia has been very hard hit by a downturn in the economy. We do not know what the costs will be.
My concern is with job losses, because of the huge border we share with the United States and because 85% of our trade is going south of the border. The estimates are that maybe it will be $10 a tonne for carbon reductions, but the government admits it could be $15 or $30 a tonne. What will the costs be in agriculture and in human resources? What are the costs going to be in jobs lost to the United States? I wonder if the hon. member would like to comment.
Hon. Charles Caccia:
Mr. Speaker, a debate on costs would be meaningless unless accompanied by a debate on benefits or unless accompanied by a debate on the cost of inaction.
I can fully understand the concerns of the member from Nanaimo. Nevertheless, I would urge him also to look at both sides of the ledger. We cannot continue to express just one side of that ledger, hoping that we can arrive at a satisfactory conclusion, unless we also examine very carefully the benefits to be derived by any action on Kyoto.
We have seen already the damage that has been caused to the agricultural industry, for instance, as a result of climate change. Nobody knows exactly what amount is to be attached to that. We are told by those in the fisheries that the patterns of movement of salmon and cod have changed because of the changes in temperature of the water.
We have signals from the insurance industry, which is very much under pressure because of rising insurance rates caused by weather extremes. We also have signals from the shipping industry about lower water levels that preclude heavier liners from entering the Great Lakes, and so on. We can see that this debate is a complex one.
The hon. member made a reference to job losses. There may be, but there also may be job increases in the renewable sector. Of course we will have to manage properly the transition from the fossil fuel era to another era, and of course the workers engaged in the fossil fuel industry will require assistance from society in that transition, as we have done for the fishermen who have been cut off from cod on the east coast and who have received assistance in order to remain in their villages.
These are very complex and difficult issues. I welcome the member's question.
(1145)
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member and I know that he has concerns about the environment. When he talks about the difficulties in agriculture, though, I suggest to him that he is over his head in this area.
When a great explorer in Canada, Mr. Palliser, explored the Canadian west in about 1860, he found a tremendous drought. He said that there should never be agriculture in part of that area. In the 1930s that same area went through 10 years of drought and the same thing is occurring now.
The member suggests that global warming is causing this. There were not many CO2 emissions in the 1930s to cause 10 years of drought on the prairies. I think he had better check things a little further. He may be well meaning but he is very misguided in this area.
Hon. Charles Caccia:
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member's comments. It may not be the first time in my life that I have been misguided, so a reminder like that is always very healthy.
I would, however, indicate to him that meteorologists have told us that in the last 10 years we have had weather performances of a nature whereby we have had less precipitation and higher than average temperatures than ever before.
Second, I must draw to the member's attention that I draw my guidance from a Swedish scientist, Mr. Arrhenius, who 100 years ago had already detected the impact of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions on the atmosphere. Therefore, this phenomenon is not something that can be attributed to a just few years ago.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and honoured to rise in this debate. I was also honoured to table earlier this month the report from the Standing Committee on Finance, as its chair, called “Canada: People, Places and Priorities”.
The report gained its substance from Canadians from coast to coast to coast who submitted evidence before the committee as it travelled. I would like to thank the 18 committee members from the five parties of the House who worked very hard and other members of Parliament who participated in our hearings throughout the country, as well as those who held prebudget consultations in their home ridings. All that information helped us build a report. The report is reflective of the ideas, the concerns and the input by Canadians as the committee did its work.
We heard from 437 witnesses, which included 279 national organizations. We sat many hours and worked in a very tight timeframe at the end to put the report together. I am very proud of the work members of the House did together. We hope it impacts on the budget. That is important. These are the words but the ideas must come to fruition in the budget document that will be tabled in the House, hopefully late February or early March. That is where we want to see the results of this type of input because just writing about it is not enough.
Canadians come before us year after year. The Standing Orders of the House demand that the finance committee table the report before the end of the Christmas hearings, before we go home for our Christmas break. We have done our job. What we ask, and why we have these types of consultations, that the actions be followed through.
In the report there are six priority areas about which Canadians are very concerned. They want prosperity and growth, tax reduction, healthy, sustainable communities, health care priorities, assistance to vulnerable people and productivity and innovation.
These are not disparate areas. In fact, social and economic policy merge. This is a discussion of the people's wishes and the people come from very disparate regions. The concerns of rural Canada are different than the urban economic engines of the country. We can have economic development in our northern and remote communities but the government has to focus the priorities and the investments. They have to be strategic. They cannot be sprinkled little sums all over the country.
At the same time, we are not a bottom line business, we are a government concerned with people. That is why we have a priority to help vulnerable Canadians. We have segments of our population, whether it be recent immigrants to Canada or aboriginal communities, that need different types infrastructure and levels of assistance to catch up to a quality of life enjoyed others.
We want a Canada that is prosperous but we want that prosperity shared. We want an inclusive Canada that speaks to the aspirations of not only the newcomer but the founding peoples and to all age groups.
All of us want to make a contribution to society. All people share the desire to be productive in their lives. This includes people with disabilities and those who have greater challenges. When new immigrants comes to Canada, they will need education and second language training. Our students and young people need access to higher education. For our economy to be as productive as it must be, we need increased research and development.
On that point, I come from London, Ontario, where we have medical and industrial research. It is about time our granting councils not only get further increases to their research budgets. The indirect costs of research, which were made as part of a one-time allocation last year in the budget, need to be a permanent part of our assistance. This would allow our granting councils and researchers to do the work that would help our economy to grow. They would not have to steal from undergraduate students who suffer when the infrastructure at our universities or hospitals have to share those soft costs.
(1150)
It is important that we be responsible in the way that we manage our finances. We cannot go back into deficit. We have worked too hard, individual Canadians, corporate Canada and everyone, to get to where we are now. We are very pleased that we have the contingency reserve and that $3 billion per annum will be used to pay down the market debt.
Paying down the debt is an aggressive policy recommendation in this document. There are 49 recommendations. Not all of them are monetary. Some of them cannot be accomplished tomorrow. Some of them may take a couple of budgets to accommodate them. However we have to be strategic with our dollar investments.
We cannot build up increased spending. One recommendation suggest that we should look at increasing our spending as a combination of population growth and inflation which is roughly 3%. In the past couple of years spending increases have gone up, even though overall expenditures have gone down as a percentage.
It is important that we have debt reduction, tax reduction and expenditures in balanced budgets over time with a continuing decrease on the debt to GDP. When we started we were at 70% debt to GDP. Now we are 49.1%. That is wonderful. However the members of the committee believe that we should even be more aggressive. We even looked as far ahead as 2011 and thought a debt to GDP of 30% would be attainable.
Members of the committee brought forward this idea, debated it and we included it with our discussion in the report because we felt that it would be attainable through a reallocation of resources that would be available to the government. As we know, just under $170 billion worth of spending goes on by all the various departments.
Health care is a huge priority, let there be no mistake on that. Time and time again Canadians came to us with their vision. As we held our consultations, we were very conscious of the fact that the Romanow consultations were also being held. We were also conscious of the urban agenda and the needs of infrastructure in our urban and rural landscapes. We were also very conscious that those processes had to be put in place. Sometimes they were very small suggestions like establishing a commercialization group inside Industry Canada so the research being done would make it to market, that people would not spend a lot of time going through the wrong channels and that we could help, whether it be in patent areas or by smart regulation.
The government has to work in a number of fields. Even though the actual spending will be done in an incremental manner over time, we have to know where we are going. We should not just spend for spending's sake. We know we will have greenhouse gases and we know that there are alternate sources of energy. However we also know we have productive current sources of energy which help for instance with the capital cost allowance in many of our industries.
That was an important recommendation. It is something that has to be looked at by the Department of Finance. The capital cost allowance regime is out of date because of the increase and rampant change, whether in information technology, or in machinery or in the needs of our railways.
I encourage Canadians to either go on the finance committee's website or to get a copy of the report entitled “Canada: People, Places and Priorities”. I was honoured to work with the colleagues in the House who worked hard to bring these ideas before Parliament.
(1155)
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I compliment the member for London West on her chairing of the finance committee. I was at some of the hearings across the country. I know at one particular meeting she had some family issues to deal with but did her job before she left and we appreciated that.
However the committee has made some recommendations to the government that have been recommended in the past. One is the issue about the capital gains tax. We certainly applaud the recommendation that government spending be tied to the size of the economy, the size of inflation and the growth of Canada. That is important.
Most people who appeared at the committee asked for more money. It was quite unusual for me to see. No one came forward with suggestions on how to pay for it. There was no suggestion about what could be done here or there to loosen up some funds but everybody wanted more. That is the challenge we face.
My question to the chairman of the finance committee is this. One thing the Canadian Alliance would like to see is a re-evaluation of all existing programs to ensure that they are still on target and that the dollars are being spent wisely. We have seen in recent days that some of this has not happened. How much emphasis will be placed on that aspect in her report?
(1200)
Mrs. Sue Barnes:
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's attendance and work at the committee. I point out recommendation 2 of the 49 recommendations in our report. I will read directly from the report because it is exactly on the point on which he has spoken. It says:
|
|
The federal government continue to focus on a balanced budget, with any surplus used to pay down its market debt. The government should consider the extent to which savings realized as a consequence of lower debt-interest costs should be spent on existing or new programs that have been identified as priorities for Canadians. Moreover, the government should undertake an ongoing review of federal expenditures with a view to monitoring continuously the activities that are priorities for Canadians in order that appropriate reallocation of spending occurs. Finally, spending increases should be limited to the rate of inflation and population growth. |
Various departments have budgets and they spend. They hold onto programs that maybe are not as efficient. There needs to be new areas of spending because the priorities of Canadians have shifted.
Right now I would think that money gets taken away if they do not utilize it. We have to change that philosophy. If it is not efficient, if it is not producing results or if it is a lower priority and we have higher priorities, then we have to change that. We have to spend smartly. We do not just get to add and top up.
Two of the chapters at the beginning of the report did not contain recommendations. The first one was on the demographics of the country. With an aging population and looking forward into the future, we were trying to make short term and long term recommendations for the government because we will need either productivity gains or get resources in a smarter way, for instance, maybe encouraging Canadians to help save today for their retirements.
We know we will have health care for older populations down the way. The only way we will get the resources to pay for that is if we prioritize spending now and we start paying down debt so that when we do not have the $37 billion a year interest payment, we will be able to finance some of these very needed social programs.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I know the finance committee has given some thought to health care spending in the future and obviously committee members examined Kirby and Romanow, maybe not at the committee level but I know that as individual members they have.
Let us put the Kirby and Romanow reports in perspective and remember some of the commitments we made to health care back in the seventies. We were caught up in slow growth in the economy. There was stagflation. We had rising costs, inflation out of control, unemployment at very high levels, no growth in the economy and some of the predictions of growth in the economy simply did not materialize.
Has the committee, and has she as committee chairman, considered some of the options that the government must consider when we examine health care in the future? It is one thing to suggest--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt but there is no more time on the clock. I will allow the member for London West answer the question.
Mrs. Sue Barnes:
Mr. Speaker, I should state for the record that the Romanow report was tabled the day before we tabled our own report. We did not have access to the Kirby and Romanow reports during our deliberations.
We certainly received evidence from people across the country that this was a high priority. What we did glean and put out was that the Canadian Institutes of Health Research was supported by Canadians. We also felt in our recommendations that it was important to support the program. I will direct the member opposite to the recommendations in this chapter that is specifically focused on health care.
(1205)
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to join in the prebudget debate.
I would like to wish my colleagues in the House a Merry Christmas and all the best in the new year. Sometimes we cross swords in this place, but at the end of the day we can still all be friendly, if not friends. At any rate, a Merry Christmas to all.
I want to address my remarks primarily to the Auditor General's report and how it relates to the prebudget report produced by the finance committee. In particular I want to talk about the employment insurance program and especially I want to talk about the employment insurance fund.
Over the last number of years there has been a lot of concerns raised about how money that comes into the EI fund is used. Right now the actuary of the fund tells us that we have a surplus in the employment insurance account of about $40 billion.
We are told that even in the most difficult recession we would only need a surplus of about $15 billion. Many people are rightfully asking why we are running a $25 billion surplus over and above what we would need in the event of a recession. It is a very good question. In order to address it we must go back in time and ask ourselves how did this come to pass? What is the purpose of this account and therefore what are some of the solutions?
If we were to go back and revisit some of our history, we would remember that the employment insurance account was set up to provide insurance for people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own. If a company closed down and people were thrown out of work, employment insurance was there to provide a safety net for them. The way that was funded was that people paid premiums out of their paycheques as did employers. Employers also kicked in premiums.
That system worked quite well up until about 1996. At that point the former finance minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, disconnected the premiums from the payouts. In other words, up to that point the premiums were established based on the expectation of the payouts, so if we had just gone through a recession and perhaps we had a deficit in the account, the premiums would have been a little bit higher. If we had a period of low unemployment, the premiums could go down. That system worked very well.
However in 1996 the finance minister at the time decided that he wanted to change the purpose of the employment insurance fund so that it was no longer just an insurance fund for workers. He turned it into an account that became essentially an insurance fund for the government. Year after year the government used the excess that was paid into the employment insurance fund to fund other programs, things for which the account was never intended.
Now we are in a situation where this year alone the government will take about $4 billion extra out of the employment insurance account and put it into general revenues to pay for all kinds of things for which the money was never intended initially.
Over the years this has become a real problem. It undermines the credibility of the government. This is not the first time we have seen funds misallocated from an account and used for purposes other than for which they were originally intended.
I will give many examples. The Canada pension plan, way back when it was brought into being, was set up to provide pensions for people upon their retirement. The idea was that people would pay in premiums, the government would invest the money and get the best possible return. It turns out that it did not do that.
The government used that money to curry favour with the provinces and lent it to them at below market rates of interest. It ended up running a deficit where we now have a huge unfunded liability in CPP. The government then had to hike the premiums through the roof. That is one example of how governments can misallocate funds that have a specific purpose and then use the money for some political reason that has nothing to do with the original intent.
(1210)
Another example which we referred to yesterday was the GST. People were paying the GST with the understanding that it would go toward paying down the debt. Rather obviously, if it had gone toward paying down the debt, we would not have much of a debt today instead of the $540 billion debt that we do have.
My point is that often governments covetously eye these big pots of money and start using them for things other than what they are intended for and always with an eye toward currying some kind of political favour. There are many other examples.
About a year ago the government raided the public service pension plan which was running a surplus. It does not matter what government is in office, but whenever there is a pool of money it starts to look at that money trying to figure out how it can get its hands on it and use it for things other than what those funds are intended for. In the end the federal government took about $10 billion out of the public service pension plan fund.
In the private sector, whenever there is a surplus in pension funds, a judge would determine how much money workers had put into the fund, how much the employer had put in, how much interest was earned, and then he would come up with a formula for dividing it up. Usually it would be a fifty-fifty split. In this case the government took $10 billion and used it for whatever it wanted to.
The excise tax on fuel is another example. People rightfully expect that when they pay excise tax on gasoline it should go into repairing infrastructure and repairing roads for instance. However it does not. The government puts it into general revenues and uses that money for whatever it wants. People are concerned about that because they believe that if they pay for a particular thing then that is what that money should be used for. In not doing that trust is undermined. We see that over and over again. It is a real problem.
I want to talk about what we can do to fix this problem. The first thing we can do is start listening to the actuary of the fund. The chief actuary of the employment insurance fund said that premiums could be reduced by about 40¢ per hundred to bring the fund into balance. Right now we are running a surplus of about $4 billion a year. The overall surplus is $40 billion. That is about $25 billion more than we would need in the event of a recession.
Not only does the chief actuary say this but the Auditor General herself drew attention to this in her last report. The finance committee also drew attention to it. They are arguing that we should balance the fund over the course of a business cycle. That would suggest that we need to start lowering those premiums more dramatically than the government is doing. When we raise the issue the government says it is lowering the premiums, but it is missing the point and missing it on purpose I am afraid.
We are arguing that if we do not give back all of the money we owe it is like bank robbers telling the judge they are pleading not guilty because they did not take all the money. That is exactly what the government is doing. It says it is lowering premiums although it is not giving all the money back. It should be giving all the money back. It is time for the government to be straight with Canadians and acknowledge the fact that it is using the employment insurance account for purposes other than for what it was originally intended.
I have another interesting point about the EI fund because we do not actually have the money in the fund. If a recession were to happen tomorrow as a result of a terrorist attack somewhere which shook the U.S. economy and our economy, what would happen? Obviously people would be laid off. They would seek their benefits. We would have to pay those benefits by borrowing the money because the EI fund is a notional account. In other words it is a bookkeeping entry and the money is in general revenues, which as we know is quickly spent.
(1215)
If we went into a recession, we would have to go out and borrow perhaps as much as $15 billion just to pay for employment insurance benefits. There are many problems with the EI fund as it is structured today. We need to make some real changes to how it works.
I will say one more thing with respect to employment insurance. I think there is a real desire among people who have a vested interest in the employment insurance fund to see it returned to its original purpose.
Tonight we will be debating a private member's bill that has to do with using the employment insurance account to provide up to 52 weeks of leave for someone who wants to look after an ill relative. That is a noble idea, but the problem is the employment insurance account is becoming another form of social program for the government. I should say that it is becoming several forms of social programs. We have maternity benefits out of it now. We have all kinds of training. We have the employment insurance account itself used for people who are laid off. Now a member from Nova Scotia is proposing that we use it for something yet again, sort of a home care program.
I think a lot of people would like to see it returned to its original purpose, which is to make it an insurance account for people who are thrown out of work through no fault of their own. If we did that, and the premiums paid for the benefits and it was strictly monitored, perhaps even had the fund run by employers and employees themselves, I think people would have confidence in that fund again. It would not be a political football like it is every election, especially now when the government is in the habit of running out and changing benefits, either increasing them or decreasing them depending on the political situation in the country. That is all I am going to say for the moment about employment insurance.
I want to talk about other things that relate to the economy and some of the things that came up during the debate yesterday after my friend from St. Albert stood up and asked for concurrence in his public accounts report. There were a number of comments during that debate that had to do with employment insurance specifically, but in general with respect to the economy.
The member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot argued that EI premiums are a tax that benefits the economy. That is what he said. I wish he were here because I want to explain this to him. Taxes are a price that is levied on particular types of activity. When there is a tax on work, which is what an EI premium is, it tends to decrease the amount of the quantity, in this case of people who can be employed.
Someone once gave me this example and it is a very good one. Say that someone has $200 to spend on a microwave oven and the seller is willing to sell a microwave oven for $200. In that situation, obviously a sale can be made. If all of a sudden the government comes along and levies 7% GST, then there is a situation where the person still has $200 to spend, but the microwave oven now costs $214. In that case the sale can no longer be made because now the microwave oven is beyond the reach of the person who has the money.
In a situation where an employer wants to hire someone and has a budget of $30,000 to do so, and all of a sudden the government comes along and places some kind of tax on that employment, whether it is an EI premium or whatever, in some cases that extra cost will mean that the employer can no longer afford to hire someone. When there are these premiums and taxes of various kinds, what we have is a price increase on a particular kind of activity that will ensure that the activity does not occur as frequently. In this case it would be the activity of hiring people.
When my friend says that employment insurance is a good tax, he is sadly mistaken. When there are high premiums it effectively ensures that some people will not be hired. People who would have been hired otherwise will not be hired.
(1220)
I just wanted to make that point for the benefit of my friend from Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot who made that crazy statement yesterday that it is a tax that benefits the economy.
He also said that Canada is leading the United States in economic prosperity. I want to throw cold water on that idea. Right now, between Canada and the United States there is a 19% productivity gap. It was 14% in 1993. That is important because productivity is the key to rising standards of living.
A generation ago Canada and the United States had very much the same standard of living. We had virtually equal dollars. We could move back and forth between Canada and the United States. There was really no noticeable difference in standards of living. It could even be argued that Canada may have had a higher standard of living.
Because of a lacklustre economic performance in Canada over the last generation and poor public policy that contributed to that, we now have a situation where that 19% productivity gap between Canada and the United States has led to a 29% standard of living gap according to the government's own statistics. Canada now has a standard of living that is only 71% of that of the United States.
Again, I point out that at one time this country had the same standard of living as the U.S., perhaps even greater. When we think about the great resources that Canada has, to me it is very disturbing that we would allow our country to slide into that kind of situation where our country has become poorer and poorer relative to the United States.
We see it reflected in the falling Canadian dollar. Our dollar is now about 36¢ or 37¢ lower than the United States dollar. We could consider the dollar to be a pretty good barometer of the health of the economy.
My friend from Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot was wrong on that count as well. Even this last year where our economy has done mildly better than that of the United States, the productivity performance of the United States was superior, which means that over the long run the U.S. continues to outpace us with respect to standard of living.
I want to prescribe some possible solutions to get us out of the situation that we are in today in Canada. The first thing the government must do is make the economic performance of Canada its top priority. I do not believe the government has done that. The reason I say that is we have seen example after example of how wasteful the government is with taxpayers' money, money that could be used to lower taxes, pay down debt, or put into education, things that actually improve the performance of the economy. Instead, we see it being extraordinarily wasteful when it comes to things like the firearms registry, that $1 billion boondoggle.
We see the government engaging in awful economic planning with respect to Kyoto, a situation where it has come to the people of Canada, said it is going to ratify Kyoto but it has no plan. Already there is an investment chill simply because of the ratification. We see it in my province.
Right now in the oil sands, we see all kinds of companies cancelling projects even in the little town I live in. I live in a group of 13 acreages and six of the families in those acreages get their employment directly from the oil and gas industry. There is a chill running through my community because of Kyoto. People are very concerned about what it will mean. They are sitting on their wallets and not spending their money. They are concerned that if they spend their money they may lose it because of Kyoto and of how it is implemented.
I am arguing that the government has not made the economy a priority. It has not made increasing the standard of living a priority. It has not made improving productivity a priority. It has to do that. It cannot continue to wander down the middle of the road left, right, left, right. It needs to be single minded and focus on improving our economic performance. There are a number of ways to do that. I do not have time to get into them all, but suffice it to say that it has to make lowering taxes a priority. It has to make paying down the debt a priority. It cannot continue to engage in this frivolous spending.
(1225)
I will simply wrap up by saying merry Christmas to my colleagues across the way and on all sides of the House. I wish everyone a very safe holiday season. I look forward to seeing everyone in the new year.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments. He mentioned that because of the ratification of the Kyoto protocol there already has been a chill on investment in parts of the country. Just the other day I was talking to a friend of mine who works in the oil patch. He told me the same thing, that things are on hold because of that. That was at a time when it had not been ratified. Now that it has it certainly will have some effect.
With some of the promises in the throne speech and some of the things we have heard since then, people have projected over the next five to eight years that it will cost the government $37 billion to implement some of those issues. That is not counting Kyoto and that is not counting what we have heard recently from the Romanow report on health care.
How does my colleague feel that some of these issues should be handled? How will we ever stay with a balanced budget, pay down our debt and do all the things that need to be done when some of these things are looming over the taxpayers of this country?
Mr. Monte Solberg:
Mr. Speaker, the first answer is we could afford a lot more things if we had a stronger economy. If we had a broad tax base we could have much lower taxes and still have more revenue than we would have if we had a narrower tax base and higher taxes. The government has to focus on productivity and have a more productive economy. Even if we did that, it would not excuse sloppy spending and going out and spending away every bit of the surplus on every imaginable thing.
As my friend has pointed out, the government has planned to spend tens of billions of dollars over the next number of years. We are projecting a surplus of only about $14 billion over the next couple of years, but the government's plans go well beyond that. That does not include Romanow, which will cost about $15 billion to enact. It does not include Kyoto, as the member mentioned, and who knows how much that will cost not just directly in the form of expense to the government but also in the form of lower performance in the economy? We are quite concerned about all of these things.
The answer is to focus on getting the economy moving and to focus on looking after the core issues. The government must do the things that only government can do and do them well. It must ensure that all the other things are left to the private sector to the greatest degree that we can and also to the other levels of government which may have more competence in running some of these programs than the federal government does.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, for a number of years the member has worked as one of our main critics in the finance area and has done an outstanding job.
What we are doing today is discussing the prebudget report and listening to what the government is coming back with in terms of all its consultations that are taking place across Canada. After being here nine full years, I am familiar with some of the consultations that it has taken in regard to agriculture, for example. I know what kind of recommendations came out of the committee and which were totally ignored by the government.
Many Canadians, including myself, have the impression that the upcoming budget is pretty well already set by the Prime Minister's Office and a few of his cronies. We are going through the motions of seemingly doing a democratic thing. The government is going through the motion of consulting when it really does not matter because the Prime Minister and his cronies and friends already know what they intend to do. We are really wasting our time in trying to convince the government of what is the right thing to do.
(1230)
Mr. Monte Solberg:
Mr. Speaker, we had evidence of that just recently. A good example is with respect to the committee on the decriminalization of drugs. The committee was still in the middle of its hearings when the minister was already coming out saying that he thought we should start to decriminalize marijuana. The conclusions had not even been formed yet by the committee and already the ministers were out stating what exactly they were going to do. This is a very common thing and we see it all the time. Certainly finance is no stranger to this. We have seen it at many points in the past.
I expect what we will see is that the government will come along and cherry-pick from the report. It will say that it will do this and that but it will not respect the intent of the report. In many ways that is regrettable because, although I have not gone through the entire report, I do know that there are many good things in there and they do reflect in many cases exactly what people are thinking. However a lot of it will not get enacted because the government has no respect for the democratic will. It does not care what the public thinks. If it did, we would not be in the situation we are in today with Kyoto.
In the little town of Brooks, Alberta, where I live, we have over 200 companies related to the oil and gas industry. People out there are concerned to the point of being panicked about what Kyoto could do. They have gone through the national energy program and many of them lost their homes and businesses because of that.
I want to argue that if the government respected people it would not rush ahead with these things. It would listen to people, try to understand their concerns and at least, if it is going to go ahead with it, answer their objections, but in this case it is not doing that. It is just barreling ahead and, I would argue, putting the people of Canada at risk.
I agree with my friend. There is no question that the government does cherry-pick when it comes to these reports and forms conclusions independent of what these reports say.
Mr. Myron Thompson:
Mr. Speaker, I have one more short question. I just completed a fairly extensive survey this week of 3,000 respondents in my riding concerning the Kyoto agreement. The question put to them had to do with whether they approved of the ratification, yes or no. Four per cent said yes, they approved; four per cent said they were not sure, and of the 3,000, which I think is an excellent return on a poll of that nature, 92% of my people in Wild Rose said no to the ratification of Kyoto. I know the people in my neighbouring constituency think very much the same as most of the people in my riding.
I would like to know if the member can explain to the world how on earth the Liberals can continually rise in their seats and say that they are moving ahead with that particular thing because they have a huge majority of people behind them when that simply is not true.
Mr. Monte Solberg:
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work my friend has done on that; 3,000 responses is a fantastic response.
I have to point out that as people learn more about Kyoto their support for it drops. That has been the record so far. The more that people learn about Kyoto, the less support there is for Kyoto.
This is so typical of how the people in my riding feel. The other day I was going to the post office to grab the mail. A woman approached me, grabbed me by the arm and said, “You cannot let them ratify Kyoto”. She and her husband draw their living from the oil and gas industry. These people do not want pollution in the world. They do not want to see the earth destroyed, but they want the government to be sensible about its approach to the environment. This woman and her husband were deeply concerned about what Kyoto would do to their livelihood, and that is a common theme throughout, not only in my riding but throughout Alberta, and I think increasingly so in the manufacturing belt of southern Ontario where we will see steelworkers and autoworkers profoundly affected by Kyoto.
As people learn more about Kyoto, there is less and less support for the whole proposal. I urge the government to listen to what the public is saying, to make sure they are adequately informed and to provide all the facts on both sides before it proposes to steamroll this thing through this place.
(1235)
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity, as others have, to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and to also extend best wishes to all members of the House present today.
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate in terms of the prebudget, the prebudget consultations that are occurring and to put a few comments on the record with respect to my views and the views of my constituents.
There are a number of issues that the government has to consider as far as the budget is concerned. Many of the issues, which affect Canadians from coast to coast to coast, have to be addressed in the budget exercise. Frankly, from that standpoint I do not envy the role of the Minister of Finance. There are many competing priorities and a lot of demands to fulfil.
The issues that I think have captured the attention of most Canadians are health care, our urban environment, the environment itself, the quality of our water and the quality of the air we breathe. The issues of defence and security have also been of concern to a great many Canadians.
On the issue of health, a great deal of concern has been expressed by the people in my own riding. As the member of Parliament for Nepean—Carleton, I initiated a couple of exercises which I thought were very successful in terms of getting out to the community and talking about the Romanow commission and the views of constituents on health issues. I say they were successful because each meeting attracted probably over 100 residents. We also surveyed the residents on health care issues and received between 2,000 and 3,000 responses. I cannot remember the precise numbers but it was very significant for the number of questionnaires that were sent out.
What came back from that exercise was a number of recommendations which we put together in a report and sent off to the Romanow commission. My staff, who were kind enough to look at the Romanow commission report and at our own report, came to the conclusion that there were some similarities between the two reports. I can actually say that there were quite a few similarities, certainly in terms of the issues that Canadians are thinking about these days, in particular the people of my riding.
On the issue of health promotion and healthier lifestyles, both reports were virtually the same in drawing attention to the matter of public health, occupational health and safety, and disease prevention versus medical care. These are I think very important to most Canadians.
There is the issue of nurse practitioners and the need to dramatically increase the number of nurse practitioners. The Romanow report says something that is fairly similar.
The changing composition of health care workers and the fact that we have more women doctors these days than we had in the past is another issue. We know that women doctors are in a very difficult situation in terms of trying to balance the needs of the home with the needs of a professional medical practice. That means that they are, by necessity, spending less time in the medical practice in terms of trying to juggle their responsibilities. That in itself presents some significant challenges that we have to recognize.
One of the things we noted in our report was the morale of nurses right across the country. We had nurses speak to us from national associations, as well as nurses who have worked in various parts of the country, even nurses who have worked in the United States. What they said was that the morale of nurses in Canada was certainly low. They said that nurses were feeling undervalued and that governments across the country would have to deal with that.
(1240)
I do not want to go into too much detail on that aspect of things, but I can say that health care remains a key priority for the government to address.
I was only one of about six MPs to do a consultation and produce a report for the Romanow commission on the state of local health care in my riding. I am very pleased with the extent to which Mr. Romanow reflected those concerns in his report.
We have had, in terms of the debate, two major reports, the Romanow report and the Kirby commission report. Ultimately the government will have a pretty tough job of balancing both, especially in terms of the cost. I certainly wish the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Health, the Prime Minister, and all those who will be responsible for the negotiations that will have to occur with the provinces in terms of making some tangible improvements to our health care system, which is something that everyone recognizes has to be done.
On the issue of cities, I served as a municipal councillor for nine years with the City of Nepean and subsequently with the regional municipality of what was then Ottawa-Carleton. The challenges faced by our cities is something that we have to recognize as needing federal attention and support. We have recognized that in the past by virtue of our infrastructure programs, but there is a lot more that can and should be done to improve the functioning of our cities, to improve our cities as engines of economic growth and to ensure that the quality of life in our cities is maintained to the point where we continue to have, in my view, some of the best, most livable cities in the world.
What do we need to concentrate on in that respect? We have to concentrate on things like transportation systems. We have to concentrate on waste disposal, certainly from an environmental standpoint. We have to concentrate on how our cities are designed in terms of ensuring that the quality of life within communities is such that they continue to be great places to live. That will, I believe, require federal support in some measure.
I served with the board of directors of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. From my standpoint, the FCM is one of the leaders working nationally and internationally on quality of life issues relating to urban areas. We would do well to continue to listen to groups like the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in terms of designing federal policies that really have an impact.
I would be remiss if I did not say a few words with respect to the defence budget. As chair of the defence committee it is incumbent upon me to make a few comments with respect to the sort of support that many of us hope will be in the next budget coming down in February.
With respect to the recommendations that we made last May in our report, “Facing our responsibilities: The state of readiness of the Canadian Forces”, I have to go back to one of the primary recommendations, which says that Canada has to get its defence spending off the bottom of the major NATO countries. We are at a level of 1.1% of GDP right now. The feeling of the committee was that we have to move that figure up to approximately 1.5% to 1.6% of GDP over the next the next three years.
Before I forget, Mr. Speaker, I did want to make note of the fact that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Durham.
(1245)
There have been some suggestions, especially in a recent report, “Breaking Rank: A Citizens' Review of Canada's Military Spending”. It is probably one of the most disappointing reports I have ever read in terms of its suggestion that really all of the push for more defence spending is coming from a bunch of retired generals and a couple of parliamentary committees.
I think the push for more defence spending is coming from the people of Canada, who are recognizing, and who have recognized over the course of the past few years, that we have been working the men and women of the Canadian Forces too hard, that there have been too many deployments, that we have sent them on many difficult deployments over the last number of years, and that some of the equipment that the Canadian Forces is using is well past its prime.
Some of the equipment is good, there is no question about that, but we do have to make substantial investments in equipment replacement. I cite as an example that we are going to have to replace our supply ships in the navy and we are going to need to replace our destroyers, which are almost 30 years old.
My time has expired, but I am hoping that there might be some questions, especially on the defence issues so I can talk about the defence budget a bit more.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the hon. member's comments and I would like to pose two questions.
First, I listened to his comments about the Romanow commission and the fact that the member had worked with his constituents and had feedback. It seems to me that in this report Mr. Romanow came to two very critical conclusions. One is that there must be public financing for health care services in Canada, and the second is that there must be public delivery. I think this is something that Canadians are very concerned about. There are issues around the length of time that it takes to go through diagnostic services and so on, but I think Mr. Romanow provided a blueprint and really strengthened the values that are there. Would the member agree that the public delivery of health care services is something that is very important in stopping this creeping privatization?
Second, in terms of defence spending and the report he refers to, which I believe is the one from the Polaris Institute that came out yesterday, he may be disappointed because it dares to go against the general prevailing view of just throwing more money at defence. I think that what the report said, and I will add that the author, Steven Staples, is a very credible person, is that Canada's defence policy is still rooted in the cold war and that we have made all kinds of expenditures like, for example, $750 million on a bunch of used subs, that really do not serve us today in terms of Canada's contemporary needs around defence.
It seems to me that this report is actually providing a very important perspective that we do not hear very often, because there is a very strong mainstream view from the defence department, from the Liberal government, and from retired generals and so on who simply want to put more money into defence. I would ask the member to reflect on the fact that it has more to do with priorities for where that money goes.
Mr. David Pratt:
Mr. Speaker, let me deal with the second question first. The hon. member has made reference to the report. One of the things I was most concerned about in relation to the report was quite frankly the distortion of the position that had been taken by the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs. It is a position, by the way, which was supported by the NDP member on the committee.
The report states, for instance, that the standing committee was looking to raise the defence budget. It states:
|
|
...the committee’s recommendation would more than double Canada’s military spending before the end of the decade, putting it at nearly $28 billion--higher than it has ever been in history. |
Quite frankly, the defence committee recommended no such thing. It is not in our report. I challenge the hon. member to find that recommendation in our report. This is simply not factual. When I look at the selective use of some of the facts related to the defence debate, I frankly throw up my hands and wonder where these people are coming from. They seem to be so far out in left field that they are not even close to being on the radar.
As well, in the report there are other statements related to other aspects of defence spending, for instance, statements about the cold war mentality. The original white paper was not written with a cold war mentality. It was written in 1993-94. The world had changed significantly from the cold war. We were facing new problems, new challenges, in the former Yugoslavia. Canadian troops were engaged there very heavily. What the white paper did say was that we needed a multi-purpose, combat capable force, which in my view, and I would dare say in the view of many members of the defence committee, is still very relevant.
No one is questioning the fact that we need a review of defence policy to reflect some of the new challenges we face, especially in terms of terrorism. However, the basis of our defence policy, as many of us on the committee believe, is still very solid, but it does need to be updated.
Another question the hon. member raised was about the whole issue of submarines. Right now in the world there are roughly 500 to 600 submarines. There are diesel submarines that are generally referred to as being conventional diesel submarines, and there are nuclear submarines that typically are possessed by some of the larger powers. Submarines continue to be, for a G-8 country like Canada, a vital component of a naval force, because typically naval forces have capability under the sea, on the sea and above the sea.
I think that the fact we bought four submarines and got a great deal on those submarines is an important thing that Canadian taxpayers should know.
(1250)
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to enter the debate on the budget, which we hope will be presented in the House some time in February.
I want to keep my comments to three issues. The first one is the debt. This is something that I find we all too often seem to forget about around this place. Everybody has an agenda here. They want to increase defence spending, medical health research and whatever.
Everybody has a lot of good ideas for spending, but the reality is that our debt is still substantial. The government has made substantial strides in reducing our debt. Indeed, from 1996-97 we have reduced it by $46.7 billion. The reality is that back in 1993 the debt was approaching the $600 billion mark. Today that debt stands at $536.5 billion, which is still very substantial.
We often refer to the relationship of the gross domestic product, that is, all the business activity going on in Canada at any one time, to the debt. That has dropped from 71% to 49.1%. Basically this means the capacity of the economy to sustain the debt, but even so, this is still a lot higher than that of our American counterpart.
I would like to talk briefly about why that is important. Because we have these debt obligations, there is a certain portion of our budget that is automatically dedicated to interest payments. That at one time was somewhere around $40 billion. When we talk about health care spending of an additional $15 billion, we can see that if we did not have this $40 billion expenditure over our heads, which we are committed to paying every year, we would have tremendous flexibility in our choices. It would be easier to make some of the choices that we are debating in the House today.
When I talk about fiscal capacity and this 49% figure, I am talking only about the federal debt. I have with me some figures from the OECD countries. They take in all public sector debt, whether it is the federal government, the provinces, or the municipalities, for that matter. It takes in the total debt related to our GDP, because after all there is only one taxpayer. Whether the taxpayer pays federal, provincial or municipal taxes, we have one person to work with. It is interesting to note those statistics, because while we talk about 49% of GDP relating to our debt, in fact if we take in all of the debt and look at the OECD countries, we see that Canada's debt ratio is well over 100% of our gross domestic product.
I will give some comparisons. The United States is 52%, so there is half of that GDP ratio in the United States compared to Canada. We still are significantly in debt. As a matter of fact, of those OECD countries, we have a better performance than only Japan, Italy and Belgium. All other countries in the OECD exceed Canada's ratio of debt to GDP.
The reality, and it is what I am suggesting for the budget coming up, is that we have to continue our commitment of paying down the debt. We have to resist the concept that we will have a balanced budget and simply spend all the money that comes in the door. We have to resist that. We have to park some of that money so that we allocate it to debt reduction. I would very much encourage the government to plan for that. We have been very fortunate in planning spending levels and surpluses and then exceeding them. We may well be entering a time when that is no longer the case.
I now would like to speak a little about health care, because of course that is very much on our minds. The Romanow commission report is before us. While Mr. Romanow has very many positive things to say, and I was very pleased to make a proposal to the Romanow commission myself, I must say that I was very disappointed in some aspects of Romanow report.
(1255)
The disappointment I have is that the Romanow program basically builds on a structure which is inefficient, and that is the current public health care system.
I believe in the core values of a publicly funded health care system and the five principles of the Canada Health Act. Indeed, the proposals in the Romanow commission expand and clarify them. The Canada Health Council was very positive in moving the debate about health care spending away from politicians and putting it somewhere else where it would have some positive focus. We must demand accountability in health care.
The thing that disappointed me was this $15 billion bill being sent to the federal government. I am convinced that the $15 billion, if we decide it is a good thing to do, is already in the existing health care system. There is so much inefficiency within the existing system. Where, one might ask? We can talk about what health care workers do and do not do. We can talk about the structure of medical practices in the country which are expensive based on the actual resulting product.
Mr. Romanow's expenditure by the year 2004-05, disregarding Iceland as a comparison because Iceland's population is only about 247,000, would make Canada the third largest spender in the world on health care. We all know that we lag significantly on the quality of the health care that we are delivering so there is something wrong with this picture and it does not have to do with spending.
I would like to caution the government to resist spending more money on health care before we have the accountability right and we must also ask the provinces to clean up the health care system so that they become more efficient and effective.
Finally, I have my own little wish list about spending, and it seems somewhat inconsistent with my opening remarks about reducing deficit. I would like to visit one area which we do not talk about very much here and which has always bothered me and that is the guaranteed income supplement for seniors. The reason I got involved in this issue was that many years ago I used to do tax returns. People in my province of Ontario had to file tax returns to get a tax credit. At that time all of these people were coming to me to file their tax returns, which I never charged them for because their incomes were so low. Their income consisted of the old age pension and the guaranteed income supplement.
Today the guaranteed income supplement and the old age pension amount to about $998 a month, or $12,000 a year. If we think about that, that is a profound statement, that we actually have people in the country living on $12,000 a year. What is even more retrogressive is that our income tax system cuts in at around $7,400 or $7,500. So in other words, those people, a high percentage of whom are women, are also subject to taxation which is a terrible tragedy.
The United Way made a statement that something like 54% of all people over the age of 65 in the greater Toronto area are living below the poverty level. At this time of the year when we are talking about getting our families together, about kindness and the bonds that we share with each other, it would be appropriate to revisit the whole concept of the guaranteed income supplement to see if we could not find ways to put a little bit more in the pockets of these people.
These people do not stand out here on Parliament Hill with placards. They rarely write us or come into our offices and pound on the desk to say they have been mistreated. They are the silent poor of our society and yet I see them from time to time. It is a great tragedy that these people, through no fault of their own, have ended up in this situation. Often a spouse, a husband has died, his pension collapsing on his death and for whatever reason the wife did not work so she is not eligible for the Canada Pension Plan. She is required to live on a thousand dollars a month which cannot be done.
(1300)
Talking about child poverty, we have put a lot of money in to the child tax credit, as well we should, to bring more life into those family units. We have children at risk, but we seem to be forgetting this other silent group of people at risk in our society.
My suggestions for the budget would be to raise the income cutoff as it hits taxation and, in addition, to raise our commitment under the guaranteed income supplement so we put more money into the hands of these people. This would allow them to live in dignity and self-respect as they wait out their years and would recognize the great commitment they have made to our country during that period of time as well.
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the comments made by our colleague opposite, particularly when he talked about paying down the debt. We have not heard about that lately and we appreciate that on our side of the House.
He mentioned that the debt is currently around $536 billion, with the estimated surplus in coming years being about $14 billion. However Mr. Romanow, if all of his recommendations were implemented, has asked for about $15 billion of increased spending on home care, pharmacare and diagnostic services, all of which there is a perceived need for.
The failed long gun registry program was estimated to cost $2 million and is now up to about $1 billion. With Kyoto coming up who knows what liability will be put on the taxpayer? The Kirby report recommended increasing the GST as a dedicated tax, as if there was such a thing. The Romanow report recommended gobbling up what surplus there was. Which of the recommendations from the two recent reports would the member favour?
I noticed that the member mentioned efficiencies in health care. The member before him spoke about disease prevention rather than treatment. A doctor in my riding while speaking to a rotary club mentioned that doctors were tired of being accused of not being more proactive in treating wellness and prevention. He said they were not trained for that. However, there is an abundance of research indicating, for example, that mechanical low back pain alone could be treated by chiropractors. Health care economists tell us that would save up to $2 billion. Drugs and surgery are a last resort in this area of care.
About 6,000 chiropractors are out there who are quite able to help and about a third of the cases are going to physicians for this type of treatment, which they are not as qualified to deliver. Does the hon. member think that there are health care efficiencies to be found in the system if we could find a better way to administer primary health care? There are about 1,200 naturopathic doctors as well who would be very glad and able to contribute if the public had better access.
(1305)
Mr. Alex Shepherd:
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his comments. I am aware he is a chiropractor by trade so I can understand his interest in expanding the health care envelope.
As members may know I am hearing impaired. I discovered that in my province audiologists had to come under the auspices of doctors, which is totally ludicrous in my mind. I always went to audiologists because they did a good job, they provided a good service, and I could not be bothered with the waiting lists that doctors had. This is the clout that the CMA has in this country and, quite frankly, someone has to take them on. The ones that have taken them on, unfortunately, are the provinces. When they do not want to take them on, they send the bill up here and we are supposed to just write a cheque. That creates profound problems.
We have hospital administrators in this country that are paid $250,000 a year. They switch jobs, take buyout packages and start again at $250,000. These are all huge costs to our health care system.
The member talked about choices in delivering health care as opposing to delivering financial benefits to a few people. We must deal with that.
The member talked about the infamous gun registry system. Let me first say to members opposite that the reality is that money has not disappeared. People want to call it a boondoggle. The fact of the matter is these were costs that were involved in implementing the system. No one has walked home with bags of money in his or her pocket. It has been spent on lawyers, advertising, and so on. The technical requirements were also put into the system. The money has not disappeared.
If we get into the question about choice and whether this is a rational allocation of expenditures, sure, we all have questions about that. I think that is fair enough. The Auditor General has done a great job in ringing some of the alarms. I have some suggestions as to how to correct that too.
Getting back to the allocation of resources, we should not be spending any more money on health care. I believe there are tons of money in the health care system now. We must sit down and find ways to extract the efficiency out of that system. That is why for me Romanow disappoints. He has a lot of positive ideas that we should move ahead with, but we cannot build on a system that is currently dysfunctional in my mind.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure to rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in the prebudget debate.
In September's throne speech the Prime Minister outlined plans for his remaining time in office. It was a blueprint for his so-called legacy. The speech was short on innovation and long on recycled promises which were broken before, and definitely will be broken again.
The throne speech is supposed to be a vision of the government, but it turned out to be an old and tired vision, or I should say, it lacked vision. The budget will undoubtedly reflect its misplaced priorities. The only legacy of the Liberal government is a story of nine years of mismanagement, waste, scandals, cronyism, patronage, corruption and boondoggles.
Over this period of time the Liberal government has become weak and arrogant. It consistently refuses to take responsibility for its actions. Cabinet ministers caught in corruption have been replaced so fast that the Prime Minister should recommend installing a revolving door at Rideau Hall.
We have been bombarded almost daily in the news with further stories of fiscal mismanagement and cost overruns. The billion dollar boondoggle at HRDC, the gun registry, GST tax fraud, and sponsorship scandals are examples of Liberal mismanagement. No wonder Canadians are losing faith and trust in the federal government to manage their money. Canadians deserve better. This week the noted Canadian historian Michael Bliss wrote that “the Government of Canada is hopelessly incompetent”. It is true.
It has become evident that the gun registry is nothing more than a fiasco, another billion dollar boondoggle. The Auditor General said the firearms program is the worst example of government overspending that anyone in her department had ever seen. This is a program that the government claimed would break even.
When unveiled in 1995 Canadians and the House were told that it would cost only $2 million, revenue minus cost. Instead, by the end of this year, the registry will have cost nearly $1 billion. That is 500 times more than originally projected and still counting. Liberal government spending has gone wild many times before. It shows the Liberal government is the worst money manager in the history of this country.
Who can forget the HRDC boondoggle? The government used job creation programs as a means to throw cash around like drunkards. More recently there was the Groupaction affair in which the government gave sponsorship funds to its Quebec friends in the name of national unity. This included $500,000 for non-existent or missing reports.
Since 1993 it has become clear that the Liberal government only admits wrongdoing when confronted by media reports or is caught by the Auditor General. During question period we will see the government defend itself for nothing. No one on that side ever takes responsibility. Liberals do not know the words accountability and transparency.
Where was the former finance minister, the hon. member for LaSalle--Émard, when spending on the gun registry started running amok? I will tell the House where he was. He was writing the cheques. We know there are cheques but no balances on that side of the House.
The question is, how many other spending fiascos have remained hidden? With the government's history of mismanagement, are we not justified in worrying about the cost to the Canadian economy if the Liberals go through with their foolhardy plan to implement the Kyoto protocol? Kyoto has never been about science. It is about politics. The only thing that it would change would be the economic climate. Implementing the treaty would result in massive job losses of about 500,000, loss of productivity and wealth.
(1310)
Domestic emission reductions alone would cost as high as $45 billion according to some estimates, which is 4.5% of our GDP. It will unfairly affect some regions of the country far more than others and devastate communities in this process. Our national competitiveness will be hurt. The Kyoto protocol is unfair to Canadian industry and will put us at a competitive disadvantage internationally, particularly with the U.S. Businesses may simply move across the border to avoid the cost of Kyoto. With no public benefits or even global ones, we are in a lose-lose proposition.
Canada has a government that thinks nothing of putting farmers in jail for driving a truckload of their own wheat across the border, yet this same government does nothing to stop gang murders on the streets of Surrey or the exploitation of children by predators.
The RCMP has seen its budget slashed, its forces reduced by about 2,200 since the Liberals took office in 1993. A further 2,000 officers have now been reassigned to the war on terrorism. The ratio of police officers to population is at the lowest point since 1972. The Canadian Police Association tells us that the RCMP needs an immediate infusion of at least one quarter of a billion dollars.
The RCMP's need for increased resources is clearly evident in the riding of Surrey Central and in the lower mainland where gang violence has been continued over the last decade. Nearly 70 young men died in the violence. The government should hang its head in shame.
The defence committees of both the House and the other place, tell us that our Canadian forces need an immediate infusion of money. The military has been using the same Sea King helicopters for nearly 40 years. The government's actions are nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to the unfortunate event, which is a security concern.
The Prime Minister loves to talk about how he will help first nations. The money spent by Indian Affairs, without transparency and accountability, is going down the drain. Canada is one of the richest countries in the world yet first nations people live in third world conditions. It is a shame.
The pride of the first nations is a painful embarrassment to Canada. The life expectancy of Indians is seven to eight years shorter than the national average. Suicide rates are twice the national average. Aboriginal people have an average income 75% less than the national income. Unemployment rates are 10 times the national average. School dropout rates are higher and educational attainment is lower than that of any other ethnic group in the country.
First nations reserves are rife with violence, physical and sexual abuse and suicide. Unhealthy living conditions and overcrowded housing with inefficient heating and inadequate water supplies are all too often a fact of life. First nations people are caught in a cycle of dependency and poverty. The federal government spends some $7 billion annually on aboriginal people yet their living conditions fail to improve. This is completely unacceptable. After all the billions of dollars spent over the years, most natives still live in poverty and poor living conditions, as I mentioned. It is a big problem in this country.
Reserves suffer from a lack of infrastructure. In Surrey Central the reserve on Barnston Island, next to the industrial complex, has no access to the mainland except for a ferry. Now the government has decided to start charging fares. There are dozens of other communities located on islands, served by bridges or tunnels, none of which have tolls. Why should my constituents on Barnston Island be singled out for a toll to have access to their homes? No one appears to be listening.
(1315)
The government is trying to sell a bitter immigration policy with sugar coating. Front doors are completely closed and back doors continue to be open, while the revolving door installed in between continues. The pipeline is clogged with the casework of prospective immigrants. There are unreasonable delays, excuses, confusion and mismanagement. Frontline officers like custom officers need proper training and adequate resources to do their jobs effectively.
The government's priorities are wrong. Canada has continued to slip under the Liberals. The Canadian dollar has dropped by 20% since 1993. Our labour productivity, relative to the United States, has fallen by 7% since 1993 when the Liberal government took over.
According to the OECD, Canada's standard of living now ranks seventh. We are going down the road in the wrong direction. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the OECD countries at over 42%. We have the highest personal income taxes among the G-7 countries, over 21% higher than the United States. Today, Canadians are only about 70% as well off as our neighbours to the south.
While other countries race ahead, Canada is left behind in the global race in almost all major categories. The Liberals have failed to improve our economic competitiveness. They have failed to spur investment. They have failed to invest in research and development and job growth. They have failed to improve our standard of living since they took office in 1993. Why? Because they do not have a particular vision. They have misplaced priorities. They are the worst money managers in history.
The Fraser Institute highlighted another hidden tax in the form of exorbitant compliance costs to the tune of $103 billion which Canadian businesses face in terms of regulatory burden. As co-chair of the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations, I attended a conference of regulatory reform and red tape. I found out that almost all provinces were well ahead of the federal government. They are light years ahead of the federal government on regulatory reform.
This hidden tax or red tape stifles innovation, investments, productivity and thus our standard of living. Therefore we need regulatory reform. Many provinces have formulated red tape commissions. Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario and Nova Scotia are well ahead and have effectively pursued red tape reduction.
A lot needs to be done. We need to harmonize the regulations which are overlapping from department to department and government to government, in all three levels of government. We need to eliminate the duplication of regulations. It seems that the issue is not on the radar screen of the Liberal federal government. When will the government move from red tape to smart tape and from smart tape to smart government?
While talking about the economic priorities of the government, I should highlight the messed up priorities in the following areas. I know my time is short so I will just list them.
One area is infrastructure and highways. The government is raking in a huge amount of taxation on gasoline but it is not reinvesting in infrastructure development. We invest something less than 4% of the total revenue from gasoline taxes on infrastructure development. Whereas the United States invests 95% of the revenue from gasoline taxes in infrastructure development.
Another area is the mismanagement of natural resources, including minerals, oil and gas, softwood lumber, fisheries and agriculture. Our natural resources are exported as raw material. Why do we not add value to those goods? Value-added goods will create more jobs. We can finish products here and then export finished products, but it seems that the government is not concerned about these things.
Another area is the development of industry, technology and skilled labour. It has been a long time since the government has paid any attention to these things. The priorities of the government are misplaced.
(1320)
Right now we have two prime ministers in the country, one by virtue of his political mandate and the other by virtue of his political muscle. As a result the Liberal caucus is split. Consequently, the government cannot make or implement plans for the country. Its policy remains vague and we continuously see flip-flopping and backtracking on major issues.
During this part of their mandate, the Liberals have clearly become preoccupied with infighting over the issue of leadership. The last budget was influenced by the leadership aspirants. I am quite sure the forthcoming budget will also be influenced by the leadership aspirants. They do not look at the priorities and needs of the country. They satisfy their own Liberal needs. As a consequence the country is suffering.
The Liberal leader in waiting has consistently stolen Canadian Alliance policy that he has half-heartedly or partially implemented. We have had the elimination of the deficit, debt reduction, tax cuts and democratic reforms. These have been on the agenda of the Canadian Alliance, and prior to that the Reform Party of Canada, for a long time. He wants to be on all sides of all issues but has no position of his own on any issue.
The government's vision is not there. Its priorities are misplaced. Money is being spent on less important projects or low priority projects. The high priority projects or those of a higher priority to Canadians, such as defence and security, are being ignored. In particular, in the month of March, the government is quite expert in throwing out money. It is called March-mania. When the budget is about to expire, the government spends as much as it can. It shows that the Liberals mismanagement and their priorities are the root causes of the problems in the country.
Therefore, I recommend that the government have real prebudget consultations with Canadians in all parts of the country. It is time the Liberals listened to Canadians and do what Canadians want, instead of what is in the best interests of the Liberal Party.
My constituents tell me that we need a complete overhaul of the government. There is serious rot in the Liberal cabinet, starting from one end of the frontbench to the other end. There is a lack of talent, a lack of ideas and a lack of vision.
Either the Liberals must listen to Canadians and do what Canadians want or get out of the way for someone else who will. Canadians certainly deserve better.
(1325)
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the hon. member for York West.
It is an honour to rise on the prebudget consultation debate to look at what the government has accomplished to this point and where we may go in the future.
Looking into the past it might be relatively easy for someone like myself to say steady as she goes. The previous finance minister set up a system of two year rolling targets which resulted in balanced budgets. We are headed toward six consecutive balanced budgets for which I am sure the people of Canada are quite grateful. We have been able to make a substantive dent in the national debt and to certainly free up a great deal more revenue that can be used for worthwhile purposes.
Some changes have entered into the picture this last year that cannot be ignored. However they can be complemented in the budget that is to be put before us, possibly in February.
One is health care which Canadians consider to be the single most important social issue that we have to deal with. It is one of those wonderful elements that sets us apart from our cousins to the south. In the past it has proven to be an excellent program.
Physicians who deal internationally tell me that if we want to compare Canadian medicare with other countries all we have to do is to travel to every other country in the world. We would find with all of its weaknesses that medicare in Canada still holds its own at the top or close to the top of the heap. It is not that we cannot improve, but we must improve. We must meet the needs of Canadians in the future.
We must remember that when medicare came into existence people's expectations and the technology to treat people were very different from what they are today.The cost per citizen is a very different issue than it was in the 1960s. There are things like heart bypass operations now, which almost seem like getting a wisdom tooth extracted. After five days a patient is transferred to a rehab hospital and then is back on his or her feet. The vast majority of those surgeries are very effective.
That kind of medical procedure did not exist when medical care came into existence. We have to be cognizant of that. We get far better service than we did years ago. Our physicians know more and their practices are constantly improving. We are grateful for that but we have to find the resources to match the need. That is relatively new in the system, although it has been coming on over recent years.
The other element we are going to deal with for the first time is the commitment we made with respect to the Kyoto accord. It commits Canada to lowering greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels over the next 10 years.
(1330)
It is interesting to observe that when it comes to health care and the Kyoto accord, the two of them have somehow come to fit together. The elements that Canada is challenged, in the view of this humble member, seem to have been opened up and positively exposed with the passage of the Kyoto accord. I will try to detail that as best I can.
I feel that when the new budget comes out, however we call it, whether we call it a health budget, a green budget, a Kyoto budget or whatever, a lot of the elements will be tied together. This should help to make a budget that is more efficient. It will strengthen Canada's financial position rather than weaken it.
I think of Kyoto and health, for instance, as that part of the health system that we consider preventive health rather than clinical treatment. According to the Ontario Medical Association there are about 1,800 to 2,000 premature deaths in Ontario every year because of dirty air and there is a huge escalation in the incidence of childhood asthma. In Alberta's oil patch, the information I have is that the incidence of respiratory ailments is three times higher than it is in the rest of the province of Alberta.
Surely those things should say something. They should make us conscious of the fact that when we think of the need for an improved health system, we should also think of the need for improved preventive measures. One of those preventive measures will be manifested in our setting on a journey of 1,000 miles, the first step of which was the endorsation of the Kyoto accord. Therefore it is a health issue.
Kyoto also is an agriculture issue. When we think of the potential to augment our fossil fuel supplies with biofuels that can be added to the existing fossil fuels and very much reduce emissions into the atmosphere as a result, Kyoto becomes an agriculture issue. It encourages markets for farmers who have really been suffering in the last few years because of the incredible agriculture subsidies in Europe and the United States. That is another plus. Perhaps we could call it an agriculture budget.
We could call it a transportation budget because one of the objectives is to reduce emissions.
When the budget comes down, I think a lot of these issues will converge. It will allow us to bring in a budget that will strengthen all the sectors of the economy.
(1335)
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that the member really believes that Kyoto will result in a net increase in jobs in Canada.
The statement the Liberals keep making is that it will create jobs. I do not think one could argue with that. However, the number of jobs lost will be much greater than the few jobs created. There will be a net loss of jobs which I think will be rather substantial. This is based on not a very controversial premise at all, which is that businesses will go where they can make a reasonable profit and not experience a loss.
With the recommendations that we see as to the implementation of the Kyoto protocol, it appears to me that many businesses, manufacturers, chemical plants, and the petroleum industry will move south of the border where they would not face the same onerous regulations and higher costs. With that the jobs will flee. That is inevitable.
The member may want to rethink and restate his position on that.
Mr. Julian Reed:
Mr. Speaker, I remind my hon. friend that in 1994 when I co-chaired a task force on ethanol, one of the great naysayers at the time, a senior bureaucrat in the government, told the task force that there would be a loss of 4,000 jobs if 10% ethanol went into gasoline across Canada. What he failed to tell us was the rest of the study which showed that there would be a gain of 6,000 jobs.
I say to my hon. friend with great respect that the naysayers can say what they like but they are not looking at the positive side. It does take a little vision, it does take a little innovation, it does take a little imagination, but we are on our way.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments made by my colleague from Halton. I know that he was about to expand on how this could be a transportation budget.
If we look at greenhouse gases, 28% of greenhouse gases or thereabouts come from the transportation sector. There are many challenges. There is the need for more public transit. There are cities like Toronto with urban sprawl. There are trucks that are getting new engines that will reduce smog but will actually be less energy efficient, which runs counter to the Kyoto convention. There are a number of challenges in the transportation sector.
I wonder if the member would like to expand on why this could be a transportation budget.
Mr. Julian Reed:
Mr. Speaker, we are all aware that a large percentage of emissions into the atmosphere are as a result of all sorts of combustible fossil fuels in our transportation system. When that traffic is reduced and changed into other modes of transportation, naturally the emissions are reduced.
Intermodal freight traffic, in the view of this humble member, is one of the keys to the future. It will get long distance trucks off the highways and move them on to rail. I have talked to people in the trucking industry who are so enthusiastic that this be expanded. Southern Ontario has some intermodal traffic now and it will have more in the future, wherever they are located. I would say to my friend that these kinds of techniques are the way we must go.
I see an increase in urban transit and an increase in intercity transportation of people on rail particularly. We have allowed our rail system to decline in recent years. It is undergoing a revival. In the higher population areas it will revive even more quickly. I think we are making great progress.
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned that health care in Canada was one of the best systems in the world. The Romanow report requests up to $15 billion in new spending and Romanow suggests we take it out of the surplus. There are increased costs coming with Kyoto. Mr. Kirby on the other hand is saying that we should increase the GST or increase the personal income taxes to pay for increased health care costs.
On health care in Canada where there is a single payer and a single service monopoly, there are no incentives for efficiency. I want to ask the member a question about that.
In Toronto, the cancer services at Sunnybrook Hospital could not get people to work in the evening. Finally the dreaded private sector stepped in. It used the same equipment and the same services and treated 1,000 patients for the same cost that 600 could be treated, but the patients got in within a week instead of waiting for six to eight weeks.
I wonder if the hon. member would not suggest there are efficiencies that can be captured by looking at how we deliver services.
(1340)
Mr. Julian Reed:
Mr. Speaker, there are efficiencies of course and every area must be examined. What registers with me most strongly is the area of accountability. When we transfer funds to the provinces, we do not want them spending medical transfers on lawnmowers.
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have a few minutes to enter into the prebudget debate today.
I would like to address a number of important areas but I will focus my remarks on the issues I feel are critical for the future of Canada and for all Canadians. I am speaking, of course, for those who know me, about the urban regions, about our cities and about investing in programs that will help to build a solid economic foundation for the future and will provide sustainability in key areas.
Budgets are about choices, about investments, about people and about choosing priorities. The choices we make will determine how well and how wisely we should build a country of the future. The budget and the work we do in the House is also about nation building, about working together to secure our future and the future of our children and grandchildren. It is also about the values and principles that we share as a nation and about Canada's place in the world.
As many in the House know, the Prime Minister's caucus task force on urban issues released its interim report in May and the final in November. In those reports we called for a national urban strategy for Canada. Members may want to know why.
Urban regions are often referred to as the economic engines of our country and we must ensure that they maintain that position. The pressures on our urban regions are enormous. To name a few: housing, transit, an aging infrastructure, pollution, the need for safe drinking water, job skills and training. The Government of Canada currently invests billions of dollars already in those areas but clearly there is a need for more investment.
I was delighted when the Standing Committee on Finance in its report acknowledged the work of the task force and recommended a long term, adequately funded infrastructure program with an initial focus on transportation, water and sewage deficiencies.
Both the task force and the standing committee agree that infrastructure funding must be allocated on a strategic, as needed basis, not on a per capita basis. We have to look at the needs in all communities, whether they are large or small, rural or urban. Requirements differ as do priorities in regional development.
I understand the many pressures we have on our budget. We continually hear about health care issues, the need for more money to go into defence, Kyoto, support for our universities, early childhood education, demands for increased pension support for those who are the working poor and our seniors who are in difficulty. Balancing the pressures that we have to face as a federal government, we also have to look at the equal pressures of the provinces and the cities. We are all trying to make the tough decisions that ensure that political accountability is there at the same time that we are investing in ways we think are the priorities for the country to build and be strong and healthy.
I believe we must start with investing in our social infrastructure and human capital. In our reports we recommended three national programs: housing, transit and infrastructure. We believe these three programs are vital to the sustainability of our urban regions.
Let us take housing first. We committed $680 million over five years to an affordable housing program, cost shared with the provinces. The throne speech also announced an interest in an extension of the program in areas where the needs are the greatest. What we believe as a task force is that we need to have a national permanent affordable housing program, one that is more sustainable and more strategic, one that explores all possibilities. There are far too many families in too many cities in Canada waiting for affordable housing. Here in Ottawa we know that more than 15,000 families are on a waiting list and in Toronto there are over 50,000 people on a waiting list.
We all have a responsibility to ensure that we have affordable housing for people in this country. Many families in the country earn $20,000 to $22,000 a year and if they have to pay 50% to 60% of that just for accommodation alone it clearly leaves them in a constant level of poverty.
We would like to see some tax changes and incentives from CMHC to include the private sector, particularly in seniors housing where the real needs are very critical. Our current legislation is falling short in many areas when it comes to the issues of seniors.
(1345)
Seniors living in Toronto can wait up to 10 years for affordable housing. There are currently 647,000 seniors across Canada who are living below the poverty line. We simply cannot allow that situation to continue. Again, we go back to having to establish priorities, to live within our budget and to ensure that we do not find ourselves going into debt again.
Another area in which we must continue to invest is transit and transportation. In our reports we show what the government is currently doing. I want to acknowledge that the Government of Canada is doing good things in those areas; important investments in highways and border crossings and railway infrastructure.
The throne speech acknowledged the need for a safe, efficient and environmentally responsible transportation system within the 10 year infrastructure program. That is another good positive. However all of this will have to be established against the dollars that we have, the needs that are there and how much we can do within our own budget.
However, I am concerned that we need to find ways to overcome some of those roadblocks. Transit and transportation is the lifeblood for urban regions and indeed the thread that links this country from coast to coast. About one-half of Canada's economy comes from agriculture to manufacturing to tourism. It all depends on transportation. It is a huge figure we cannot ignore.
We are the only country in the G-7 without a national transportation program. If we do not establish those kinds of programs in the good times, how will we do it when the times get tough? That again is another priority pressing on our budget.
We must make sure we move goods and people efficiently, safely and comfortably, connecting regions and rural areas to the urban centres and the downtown cores. It will take much more investment on the part of this government, as well as provincial and municipal governments, to ensure Canada's transportation systems are sustainable.
The third program is to address urban infrastructure. Our report highlights the government's investment through Infrastructure Canada, the strategic infrastructure fund and others. These are important, successful and necessary programs, but again, we need and can do much more.
Investing in roads, water and sewage treatment plants, bridges and physical infrastructure will improve the quality of life in our urban regions as well as assisting our municipal governments. As the throne speech stated, infrastructure is the key to prosperity in urban Canada. These include investments as well in looking at brown field remediation, restoration of heritage properties and a number of other land use and fiscal measures.
My final point is to touch on education, skills and learning, another integral part of nation building. Forty per cent of adults are currently functionally illiterate in Canada. In this knowledge based economy we must attract the brightest and the best to where the jobs are, so urbanization is a 21st century reality that we need to address.
Nation building involves investments in many areas but is a collective responsibility for all of us in government in Canada to ensure that those needs are met, for instance, in health care, in education, in Kyoto and in the quality of life for Canadians. All of these are areas that will bind our country together, that will allow us to express the values in which we believe, how we see ourselves and how we can show ourselves to the rest of the world. I hope we are prepared to make the right choices.
(1350)
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to what the hon. member had to say. I know she has done lots of work as the chair of the Liberal task force on urban affairs. I am glad to hear her talk about the need for a permanent affordable housing program in this country. I am glad to hear her speak about the need for infrastructure funding for our municipalities and for public transit funding.
The concern I have is that, although I have heard this many times before from the task force, from individual government members and even from ministers, it never translates into the kind of funding stability on which our municipalities can rely.
One of the problems is that there is no minister who is actually responsible for urban affairs. It is scattered all over the place, partly through infrastructure, through crown corporations, through housing and so on. If this is seen as an issue where the federal government needs to take leadership in working with the provinces to provide the funds, then it seems to me that there needs to be a minister who has clear responsibility and a mandate for urban affairs, because 80% of Canadians live in the urban environment.
I wonder if the hon. member would comment on whether she would agree with that and whether she would agree with funding for public transit. One of the things that is really an outrage is the amount of money that the federal government takes out of gasoline taxes and does not put back into funding public transit. In my own city of Vancouver we have had terrible problems with financing public transit because so much money is going out in gasoline tax and is not coming back into the local community. I wonder if the member would comment on those two things.
Ms. Judy Sgro:
Mr. Speaker, the whole issue of dedicated taxes is something that I believe most of our provincial governments and, clearly from what I have heard, at the federal government level, are cautious about getting into. One of the arguments I have heard is that if we started dedicating a certain amount of taxes to go into one area, for instance transportation, we could end up with a huge war chest in transportation. In the meantime, our medical system, our hospitals and so on, which is crying out for money, would not get the money it needed.
My understanding is that finance ministers throughout the country want that flexibility. I tend to agree with them. We do need the flexibility to move money around to where it is most needed within the certain priorities of a government.
At the end of the day what our cities need is money. Whether they get it in the dedicated form of a gas tax, all that money comes into the government and we have to reallocate it out there. It is not that it is not going back, it is just not going back in a specific area that they would like to see it go into. A lot of money that is going into the transportation programs that we currently have, is going into those very areas to which the hon. member has referred.
I would suggest to the member that our report covers a variety of the issues that she mentioned. She can download it from our website or call the office and I would be glad to ensure that she gets a copy of it.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member, who has just addressed urban issues at the request of the NDP member. I would just like to point out that the municipalities fall under provincial jurisdiction.
I would, however, take advantage of this opportunity to ask her whether she agrees with the federal government's reinvesting in health at the level recommended by Mr. Romanow, that is a minimum of 25%, or some $6 billion.
Does she agree with this?
(1355)
[English]
Ms. Judy Sgro:
Mr. Speaker, I might reiterate that throughout our report and all the work we do when we talk of urban issues, we constantly respect jurisdictional issues and our Constitution. We try to work together with the provinces and cities as partners to deliver the services that we need.
With regard to his question on the Romanow report, we would all like to see as much money as possible go into health but I go back to the issue of having to balance our priorities. If we were to relate that to our own house, we know how much money we have coming in during a year and we know our expenditures. What we have to figure out is how to balance them off.
We do not have a big war chest full of dollars that we can pump into one area or the other. We have to be responsible in how we recognize our priorities, how we allocate the funding and how we work these issues out together.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made some interesting comments. Being from Toronto, she will know that Canada's productivity versus that of the United States has slipped very badly in the last 25 years. Twenty-five years ago the United States was number one in terms of productivity and Canada was number two. We have now slipped to eighth place. In other words, our standard of living has dropped significantly. That is a factor because not only are we trading partners but we are competitors with the United States.
I want the hon. member to take into account the border security issues. If a new automotive plant was about to locate in Canada and it was looking for a place to locate and make a big investment, it would take into account things like border slowdowns. Some 80% of automotive production goes into the United States. They would also take into account whether it could get a return on investment here. What would the energy costs of Kyoto would be. If the United States is not a part of that plan and Canada is, then energy costs could be higher in Canada. How does that serve us to increase investment in Canada, try to get back some of the competitive edge, if we are moving in the opposite direction to the United States in terms of things like Kyoto which will impose huge costs on Canadian industry in Ontario?
Ms. Judy Sgro:
Mr. Speaker, we can look at our innovation agenda and the work we are doing on moving forward to ensure that we have the skills necessary in our country to prepare for the future. We can talk about the quality of the workforce, and many U.S. based companies currently in Canada often tell us that the workforce here is excellent, that it has the skills they need. When we are talking about the differences between U.S. and Canada, we have to take into account health care costs. When they measure it up, it is better for them to be doing business here with the kind of health care program we have rather than trying to pay for it in the U.S., where it is a huge cost to have health care.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[S. O. 31]
* * *
[English]
Public Transportation
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the vote on the Kyoto accord is behind us. It is now time for immediate action to improve public transit across Canada.
All forms of public transit deserve support. The support can be in the form of municipal decisions to, for example, designate bus only routes, or special breaks for passes which involve bus and train use. It could also be in the form of tax breaks for long term public transit passes.
However, in the vicinity of our major cities Kyoto means a much greater emphasis on rail transportation. I urge the federal government to throw its weight behind improving passenger rail service across the country. In particular, I urge that we move now on returning passenger rail service along the Peterborough-Oshawa-Whitby-Pickering-Toronto route.
The studies have been done. Public and municipal support is there. Let us act now.
* * *
Forest Industry
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance):
Mr.Speaker, since the expiry of the softwood lumber agreement last year, forest industry employment has been slashed by 25%, throwing over 20,000 Canadian forest workers out of work.
In Okanagan Falls, recently announced prolonged layoffs affected hundreds of families in my riding. In the Nicola Valley, where unemployment is already at 40%, a further 163 hardworking constituents have been laid off in the past month at two sawmills and a construction forestry company.
The softwood lumber dispute is not the only disaster facing the forest industry in B.C. The mountain pine beetle infestation is the largest and most severe epidemic of its kind in Canada's history, and there is still no realistic involvement by this federal government, only misguided and delayed actions affecting a province which is going to be losing approximately one billion cubic metres of infested wood by next year.
Now more than ever it is time for the federal government to understand the problems faced by British Columbians and work with us on meaningful solutions. Let us give our citizens some reason for hope this Christmas season.
* * *
(1400)
Western Economic Diversification
Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about the great success of our regional economic corporation, Western Economic Diversification Canada.
Regional economic development has proven to be extremely effective in achieving its objectives. The program is delivered throughout western Canada by community led and community based organizations, for instance, Canada Business Service Centres, Community Futures Development Corporations, Women's Enterprise Centres and, for the francophone community, the CDEMs.
Western Economic Diversification has been successful in leveraging substantial amounts of funding from provincial and municipal governments as well as the private sector. It is a valuable tool that provides a focused economic development strategy based on actual community needs and strengths.
WD is strengthening and diversifying the western economy through programs and services that inspire innovation, encourage entrepreneurship and build sustainable communities. The success stories are too numerous to count.
I encourage all members of the House to continue to support this excellent initiative. Western Canada is much stronger because of it.
* * *
Sex Offender Registry
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the announcement of the development of a national sex offender registry is good news. I applaud the Solicitor General and federal, provincial and territorial justice ministers, whose cooperation has made this happen.
This registry will improve upon the Canadian Police Information Centre by providing a special new sex offender database. CPIC is accessible by only accredited law enforcement agencies and serves over 60,000 law enforcement officials in every province and territory.
This new legislation will provide police with a new investigative tool to help them quickly locate known sex offenders living near the location of a sex crime. Under the proposed legislation, convicted offenders will have to register within 15 days of being released from incarceration. Re-registration will be required annually and within 15 days of a change in residence. Penalties will be provided for failing to comply with a registration order or for not giving truthful information.
This is part of the ongoing commitment by this government to reform the Criminal Code and protect the safety and security of Canadians.
* * *
Canadian Forces
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the sacrifices members of our Canadian Forces and their families make for us, especially at this time of year.
While most of us are gathering with our families for Christmas, Hanukkah, Ramadan or other celebrations, our military personnel serving overseas will be far away from their families back home.
The special challenges to family life for our service people should not be overlooked. As much as we appreciate our troops, we also are thankful for the support of those they leave at home.
On behalf of my constituents and, I am sure, on behalf of all members of the House and all Canadians, I want to wish our Canadian Forces members and their families all the best of the holiday season and a Happy New Year.
* * *
Peace Award
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the South Asian Studies Program at the New College, University of Toronto, is awarding the International Acharya Sushil Kumar Peace Award to Nobel laureate Professor John Polanyi, a very distinguished Canadian scientist.
Professor Polanyi is a professor of chemistry at the University of Toronto and president of the Canadian Committee for Scientists and Scholars. He is a member of the Queen's Privy Council of Canada and a Companion of the Order of Canada. Professor Polanyi's awards include the 1986 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, the Royal Medal of the Royal Society of London, and some 30 honorary degrees from six countries.
The award is named after a most revered and respected Jain teacher, the late Acharya Sushil Kumarji, who spent his life promoting peace and harmony in the Indian subcontinent and the world.
On behalf of the South Asian community and the Canadian Alliance, I would like to congratulate Professor John Polanyi on winning this award.
* * *
Mothers Against Drunk Driving
Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the festive season is upon us. I would like to remind all Canadians of MADD, Canada's annual red ribbon campaign against impaired driving.
MADD Canada raises awareness about the dangers of impaired driving and continues to make a difference in the lives of many Canadians.
I ask all members of the House to join with me and the many Canadians who support MADD Canada's red ribbon campaign against drunk driving. If by displaying the red ribbon on our vehicles we can prevent one death or one injury this season, we will have helped save a life.
* * *
(1405)
[Translation]
François Saillant
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse presented its Droits et Libertés award to François Saillant of FRAPRU.
As a coordinator, communicator extra-ordinaire and educator, Mr. Saillant has been working for over 20 years to improve the living and housing conditions of low-income earners. Recognized for his generosity, his constant presence and his proven leadership skills by FRAPRU, a community organization for urban renewal, Mr. Saillant is always there to defend and debate fundamental issues related to housing as well as social policy.
The Bloc Quebecois wants to pay tribute to the excellent work done by this individual, whose passion and perseverance attest to his desire to fight for access to decent housing for everyone.
Bravo, Mr. Saillant, and congratulations for those many years dedicated to community well-being.
* * *
Literacy
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Maison des mots des Basses-Laurentides will receive $15,000 for its realizing intellectual potential project in order to develop educational activities tailored to each literacy group with which the organization works.
The Maison des mots will provide training to teachers, educational materials, and tools for evaluation. The project began October 21 and will continue until March 31, 2003.
I would like to congratulate all those who believe in the cause of literacy and wish a merry Christmas to all the associations working to improve the well-being of the voters of the Mille-Îles area and also to all the residents of Laval.
Merry Christmas and all the best in 2003.
* * *
[English]
Multiculturalism
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Christmas is around the corner and Canadians are ready for the festivities. Christians should be proud of their religion. It is a time for giving and helping those less fortunate, but the spirit of the season has been bruised by unnecessary political correctness.
The Royal Canadian Mint replaced the 12 days of Christmas with the 12 days of giving. Toronto city hall replaced its Christmas tree with a holiday tree. Statistics Canada speaks of the December experience. Canadian Heritage removed Easter and Christmas from its calendars. The PMO interfered by removing references to Jesus in the memorial service for the Swissair tragedy at Peggy's Cove.
I am a non-Christian and a visible minority. I am not in any way offended when Christians celebrate Christmas. Cultural tolerance and ethnic equality should not mean diluting anyone's faith.
It is time we moved from tolerance to acceptance. We should mutually appreciate and respect each other's traditions, and I wish to say Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to everyone.
* * *
Canadian Space Agency
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the presence of Canadian Space Agency astronaut Dr. Dafydd Williams in Ottawa today. It gives me great pleasure to announce that Dave Williams has been selected for a mission to the International Space Station in November 2003, which will closely follow Steve MacLean's mission in May.
Dr. Williams will perform a series of space walks, assisting in the construction of the station and positioning of solar panels critical to powering the microgravity science laboratory.
Canadians are proud of Canada's continued excellence and leadership in space science and technology and innovation.
The selection of Dr. Dave Williams is recognition of his dedication and contributions to the space station program and of his achievements as the first non-American to hold a senior position at NASA in Houston.
It is also recognition of the work of our astronauts, engineers, scientists and researchers of over 250 companies throughout Canada who are contributing to enhancing global recognition of our vibrant Canadian space program.
During their space walks and space adventure, let us think of them as dancers with our northern lights.
* * *
(1410)
[Translation]
École de médecine vétérinaire de Saint-Hyacinthe
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, on the issue of the accreditation of the École de médecine vétérinaire de Saint-Hyacinthe, we really should give credit where credit is due.
As a tribute to the work done by my colleague, I would like to quote the radio commentary by the editorial chief of the Courrier de Saint-Hyacinthe, Jean Vigneault.
|
|
This is a great victory for the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and the coalition he organized. He is the one who fought virtually day and night for the school to get its due from the government. |
His comments were less congratulatory of the member for Shefford, and I quote:
|
|
The Liberals had nothing to do with this. I think that in the beginning, the Liberals did not even know there was a school of veterinary medicine and that it was in need. |
On this issue, as in many others, the member for Shefford waited until the Bloc Quebecois did the work, then stepped in and took credit for it. This type of behaviour is shameful and petty.
* * *
Hon. Member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I was dumbfounded upon reading the householder of the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, entitled “The Communicator-Fall 2002”.
In a message that defies comprehension, she had the audacity to invite her francophone voters to obtain a French version of her householder. I will not repeat the content of the message, but I would like to express to my hon. colleagues my indignation over this type of behaviour.
If the hon. member needs help translating her messages to her voters, which seems evident, the House of Commons has an excellent translation service available to all members. Perhaps the hon. member is simply unaware that this service exists or perhaps it is her lack of regard for her francophone voters that led to her communicating with them in a manner unworthy of our fundamental Canadian values.
The hon. member's behaviour is indicative of the despicable views of Alliance members toward francophones outside Quebec. I hope the hon. member will apologize to this House and to her voters in the next issue of her householder.
* * *
[English]
Peacekeeping
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the following is an excerpt of a poem written by one of our peacekeepers:
T'was the night before Christmas,
He lived all alone,
In a one bedroom house,
Made of plaster and stone.
I had come down the chimney,
With presents to give,
And see just who,
In this home did live.
I looked all about,
A strange sight I did see,
No tinsel, no presents,
Not even a tree.
No stocking by the mantle,
Just boots filled with sand,
On the wall hung pictures,
Of far distant lands.
With medals and badges,
Awards of all kinds,
A sober thought ,
Came through my mind.
For this house was different,
It was dark and dreary,
I found the home of a soldier,
Once I could see clearly.
The soldier lay sleeping,
Silent, alone,
Curled up on the floor,
In this one bedroom home.
I realized the families,
That I saw this night,
Owed their lives to these soldiers,
Who were willing to fight.
I couldn't help wonder,
How many lay alone,
On a cold Christmas Eve,
In a land far from home.
The very thought brought,
A tear to my eye,
I dropped to my knees,
And started to cry.
The soldier awakened,
And I heard a rough voice,
'Santa, don't cry,
This life is my choice'.
I fight for freedom,
I don't ask for more,
My life is my God,
My country, my corps.
Then the soldier rolled over,
With a voice, soft and pure,
Whispered, “Carry on Santa,
It's Christmas Day, all is secure.”
One look at my watch,
And I knew he was right,
“Merry Christmas my friend,
And to all a good night”.
* * *
Queen's Jubilee Medal
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on Monday next, December 16, I will be presenting the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal in a ceremony on Parliament Hill.
My congratulations go to: Marc Arbour, Harvey Barkun, Georges Edouard Bourgoignie, Pierre Choquette, Robert Charles Day, Jeffrey Docksey, Jennifer Eastham, Sharon Evans, Timothy Graham, Christopher Jackson, John Hadwen, Norman Lafrance, Jack Lee, George Lindsey, Ian Morgan, Faye Morgan, Mario Denis Paillé, the late Joan Robinson, Renald Paquette, Paul de B. Taillon and Philip Whitehead.
I also had the privilege of presenting a posthumous medal to the late Fred Shortt at a commemorative evening held in his honour on Monday, December 9, at the Canadian Aviation Museum. I will also have the honour of participating tomorrow afternoon in the ceremony honouring the National Research Council's outstanding employees.
A well deserved honour to all.
* * *
[Translation]
Emily Poupart
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, allow me to recognize Emily Poupart from Jonquière, who will have the honour of attending the prestigious University of Oxford, in England, to pursue graduate studies.
The Rhodes Scholarships, worth approximately $50,000, allow ten Canadian students, including two from Quebec, to go to England for two or three years.
Emily Poupart is currently completing a masters in conflict resolution in Victoria, B.C. While in Oxford, she will have the opportunity to embark on either a second masters program or a doctorate project on an international development issue, an area she is fond of and in which she has some experience.
In addition to working on her academic achievements, Ms. Poupart will get to develop her rowing skills with the Oxford team and could even take part in the 2004 or 2008 Olympic Games.
We extend our congratulations to her and wish her the best of luck in England.
* * *
(1415)
[English]
Davis Inlet
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Christmas is a time for family and friends to be together, but the community of Davis Inlet is being pulled apart by the government's mismanagement. The new community is nowhere near completion and the hopes and dreams of many families for a new home and a new future will just have to wait.
The first time Canadians saw the tragic images from Davis Inlet we all wanted to help. Millions have been invested, but the new town is still under construction. Expectations were high. Parents had hopes for a better future for their children. Now they are being told to take a number. Some families will be lucky and will move, while others will stare across the water and see the flicker of lights, the flicker of hope, on the other side.
Despite saying that money is no object, the mismanagement and bungling by the government has divided this community and turned its dreams into nightmares. How about a Christmas present for the folks of Davis Inlet? Tell them when their homes will be ready so they can move to a better future. They have waited long enough.
* * *
Member for Halifax
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I rise with great pleasure to pay tribute to one of Canada's most committed social activists and one of the House's best parliamentarians, Alexa McDonough who sits for the last day today in the House as leader for the NDP.
Born in Ottawa, Alexa grew up in Nova Scotia and, like so many New Democrats, her activism began early. At the age of 14 she helped initiate, through her church youth group, an outreach and day camp program for children and families of African Canadian families who were struggling with racial barriers and exclusion in her own province of Nova Scotia.
In 1980 Alexa became the first woman elected to lead a major party in a provincial legislature when she became the leader of the Nova Scotia NDP. In 1995 she took over the reins of the federal NDP and triumphantly brought the party back to official party status, electing the NDP's first MPs ever from mainland Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
She has worn many different hats over the years and she has met all the challenges with grace, fierce determination and unwavering commitment to building a social democracy in Canada.
It has been my pleasure to serve under her leadership. Her support and encouragement since I first decided to run in the byelection earlier this year have been valuable and for that I am deeply grateful.
We would like to recognize and thank her family, David, her sons Justin and Travis and their families, right down to the newest addition to her family, granddaughter Abbie Jean, for sharing her energy and talents with us for all these years.
On behalf of my caucus colleagues and the New Democrats across the country, I would like to thank her for her incredible and tireless efforts as our leader for the past seven years fighting for a better, more democratic and just society that we know Canadians want.
Our thanks to Alexa, we look forward to the inspiration and dedication we know she will bring to the House as the member for Halifax.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[English]
Firearms Registry
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister apparently admitted to his caucus that he knew of cost overruns on the gun registry for years. This is just one more piece of evidence that the government, in the words of the Auditor General, “kept Parliament in the dark” about spending on the registry.
Will the government now come clean and admit when it first became aware of the billion dollar cost overruns on the gun registry?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the report on spending is available through the estimates over and over. The Prime Minister has made it clear, as all of us have, that we remain committed to the gun registry.
I was looking at the statement of policy of the Canadian Alliance Party, article 31, where it says:
|
|
We are committed to keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals as a necessary part of making our communities safer. |
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
(1420)
The Speaker:
Order, please. The Deputy Prime Minister has the floor.
Hon. John Manley:
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, it deleted that part from its statement of policy in 2002. It is gone.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker:
Order, please. I have to remind hon. members that Christmas is coming and Santa Claus will reward the good and the virtuous. We are hoping that everyone will be quiet today so they will be well treated when Santa appears. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I will remind the government that violent criminals do not register their guns.
We obviously will not get a straight answer to that question, so let me just follow up on the minister's statement this morning. He admits that the gun registry is running at minimal levels. Gun owners across the country are trying to register by the year end deadline but they cannot get through on the 1-800 number and they cannot get forms.
Will the government announce a general amnesty for gun owners who cannot register by the January deadline?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have said many times, and I repeated it this morning, that the deadline of December 31 is still there and has to be respected. Canadians have known this for a long time ago. Two weeks ago we announced an amnesty for those who would act in good faith respecting the deadline.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the government has been unable to respect its own deadlines. It has bungled the system. There has been no accountability for minister after minister who has screwed up the system. Now today it has announced that it will have a general amnesty for the bureaucrats who screwed this up, so why not a general amnesty for the gun owners who cannot meet the deadline?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer them to the press release which has been issued regarding the question of the deadline. The deadline remains. People were aware of that deadline a long time ago.
As well, regarding the numbers, the Auditor General has stated that all the spending was approved by Parliament. That is quite clear.
* * *
Airport Security
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance believes that the air tax should be scrapped immediately, but at minimum the government could reduce it immediately as we go into the holiday season.
To that end, yesterday the transport committee recommended unanimously that the government “implement an immediate and substantial reduction of the air tax”. Will the government do it? Yes or no.
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the tax will be reviewed based on the numbers we are generating in response to it and also the expenditures that are being made. We believe that the charge will need to continue to pay for the necessary security enhancements that are being implemented.
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we have heard this promise of studies before. In May the government said it was going to study it and report to the House in September. It failed to do so. It is now December and it still has not studied it.
The transport committee took it on and studied the tax ourselves. We could not find a single witness to say that the air tax as it stands is tolerable. We recommended unanimously that it be substantially and immediately reduced. Will the government do it, yes or no?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it would not be prudent and responsible to do so. We believe in running a balanced budget. We believe in retaining the flexibility based on the amount of revenues that we will receive. Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence that the fee has reduced air travel.
* * *
[Translation]
Natural Resources
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, Quebec will have to move on oil and gas exploration in the Gulf of St. Lawrence as early as next year. There are major reserves representing thousands of jobs, particularly for the Gaspé, where they are sorely needed.
Premier Landry today called for Ottawa to conclude an agreement with Quebec. This is urgent and needs to be done before Christmas. The National Assembly is unanimous in calling for such an agreement.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us why Ottawa has so far not managed to sign an agreement with Quebec? This is urgent and involves thousands of jobs. We do not understand the delay.
(1425)
[English]
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, both Quebec and B.C. have indicated their interest in taking advantage of offshore development in both areas.
As Minister of Natural Resources, I am happy to work with them. I think all members and Canadians will want to ensure that we look at the environmental concerns, that we do it in a socially responsible way and that we have an appropriate regulatory framework. Once we are able to do that, we can move forward, both for B.C. and for Quebec to take advantage of the economic opportunities that may be there in oil and gas exploration.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, all this is well under way. An agreement could be signed by Christmas. It has been done with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. I wonder why it is taking so long with Quebec, when it went ahead much faster with Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.
Why is it that it always takes longer to reach agreements with Quebec, when it would be easy and in the best interests of Quebeckers? Ottawa would even collect taxes from it. Why is it that it works for some, but not for Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to meet with the minister of energy from Quebec on two occasions. Our officials have been meeting regularly.
We are dealing with Quebec on this issue in the same way as we deal with any other province that wants offshore development but we have to be responsible both environmentally and socially. The hon. member should know that all Canadians, including Quebeckers, want to make sure we have the proper regulatory framework and that we respect the environment and do it in a socially responsible way.
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, senior officials in Quebec City and Ottawa agree in principle on an agreement for oil and gas exploration in the Gulf of St. Lawrence as early as spring 2003.
Now that everyone agrees, what is keeping the Minister of Natural Resources from signing this agreement in principle before Christmas, as called for in a unanimous motion by the Quebec National Assembly?
[English]
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member obviously had a misunderstanding in terms of his information. There is no agreement that exists. Our officials have been meeting to look forward as to how we can cooperate on this request by the Quebec government.
We will move forward but we will move forward in a responsible way that Canadians expect. We will make sure that we have the appropriate regulatory framework, that we protect the environment and that we do it in a socially responsible way. That is the way we are going to operate.
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec is responsible for the environmental aspect. It wishes to see an agreement in principle signed by the end of December 2002, with a final agreement by March 31, 2003.
Does the Minister of Natural Resources not understand that Ottawa's attitude is preventing the creation of many jobs and much-needed economic development in this region?
[English]
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are very happy to move forward on this. If the Quebec government really wants to move as quickly as it says it does, all it has to do is accept the federal regulatory framework that already exists. If it wants to do that, it would help us. If it wants to get involved and play a role, all these things take time.
We have to be responsible. I can assure the House and Canadians that we will be very responsible as we move forward on looking at new opportunities for economic development whether it is on offshore British Columbia or whether it is in the St. Lawrence.
* * *
Foreign Affairs
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Seventy-six days ago, 32-year-old Canadian citizen Maher Arar, husband and father of two young children, was returning to Canada through the U.S. from a family vacation. He was apprehended, interrogated and deported without legal counsel first to Jordan and then to Syria, a country he left at the age of 17.
These actions violate international law and they violate his rights as a Canadian citizen. Still there is no explanation for Arar's plight, not from the American government, the Syrian government nor our own government.
When can the wife and kids of Maher Arar expect him home in Canada?
(1430)
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member and the House that we are remaining in constant contact with the Syrian authorities to ensure that we have consular access to Mr. Arar. Our ambassador has met with him. We will continue to make sure that he receives consular access. We are making all representations possible to try to get the return of Mr. Arar to his family and to Canada as soon as possible.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, this young family does not want consular access. They want their husband and father home in Canada.
We are talking about a young wife who has received no explanation for the disappearance of her husband, no explanation for what he is suspected of and no explanation for why the government cannot do anything about assuring his safe return to Canada. He is languishing in a Syrian jail without legal counsel, without medical care and without even being permitted to make a phone call to his family.
Why has the foreign affairs minister not met with this woman as--
The Speaker:
The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, consular cases are always extremely complicated. I want to assure the hon. member that the government is doing its best in the interests of Mr. Arar and his family to get him back. We should not engage in politics in the House about the matter, which may or may not be productive in that respect.
* * *
Firearms Registry
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister now admits that he was both aware of and complicit in the cover-up of the gun registry costs that are climbing to $1 billion.
Canada has a system of responsible government. That means that when something goes seriously wrong, a minister or the Prime Minister must have the courage and the honesty to accept that responsibility.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us, does the Prime Minister intend to hold any minister responsible for this $700 million mistake?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, what we have now is an obligation to ensure that the registry system that we committed to and that we put into place by Bill C-68 works and is up and running in the appropriate way.
Clearly, the Auditor General has had some criticisms about how the administration of the program was done. It is our obligation and our commitment to improve it.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the obligation is to hold accountable the minister who let $700 million and counting of Government of Canada money be wasted. This is not something the Deputy Prime Minister can shift off to officials. If responsible government means anything, it means that a minister has to carry the can.
Is it the policy of the government that no minister was awake, no minister was watching, no minister was responsible for this terrible and unacceptable waste?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I understand to a certain extent the hon. member's bloodlust in this, but I think what Canadians want is a gun registry. They believe that it will improve safety. It is a policy that we have advocated for and argued for over a number of years. And yes, they expect us to do it in a fiscally responsible manner. We will do that. We will see that it is done responsibly.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, rhetoric does not save lives.
This morning the justice minister in his statement said he will pull money out of other programs to fund the gun registry. Parliament demonstrated its lack of confidence in the registry by removing $72 million from the scheme last week. Now the minister will be using sleight of hand to keep it on life support.
What programs will he take the money from to fund the registry?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have been talking about transparency. I made my statement this morning because I respect this parliament and as well, the notion of transparency. It is important as well to inform the Canadian population.
As I have said many times, we believe in that policy. The policy is working. The gun registry is up and running. Of course we will keep proceeding at low cost. As I said this morning, there is still funding in the program. Of course at one point we will have to proceed with the same cash management as departments are doing on a regular basis.
(1435)
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Parliament is still being kept in the dark. The minister could not make it work when he spent $1 billion. Logic tells anyone that it will not work when it is funded at minimum levels.
Today the justice minister once again refused to extend the gun registration deadline and as a consequence will criminalize one million law-abiding Canadians. The Auditor General reports a 90% error rate in the registry. Only one-third of the guns are registered. Gun owners cannot register their guns even if they want to.
One more time, Mr. Speaker, will he please tell us how much it will cost to complete and how much will it cost to maintain?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has to understand that there is a deadline. Actually I would like to report that 70% of the guns have been registered at this point in time.
The policy works. The program is up and running as well. We will keep proceeding at low cost, as I said. This morning my statement was about transparency, telling Canadians that we are proceeding and at one point we will have to proceed with cash management. As I said, this is done on a regular basis by most of the departments.
* * *
[Translation]
École de médecine vétérinaire de Saint-Hyacinthe
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, unlike the other schools of veterinary medicine in Canada, the École de médecine vétérinaire de Saint-Hyacinthe has never benefited from major financial support from the federal government in the past. It is now required to invest $100 million to regain its full accreditation from the American Veterinary Medical Association.
Since the Government of Quebec has already covered its share of the $100 million, which amounted to $41 million, can the federal Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tell us if he intends to contribute the federal government's full share, which comes to $59 million, and not $35 million, as he said earlier this week?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I said to the hon. member in the House yesterday, this is an area that the federal government has never been involved in before. However, we recognize the importance of veterinary colleges for animal health and human health. We made a contribution of $113 million to assist all of our vet colleges to maintain their accreditation, and $35.46 million of that went to the college at Saint-Hyacinthe.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the minister is wrong, because in the past, the three other schools of veterinary medicine in Canada, the ones in Saskatoon, Prince Edward Island, and Guelph, benefited from up to 50% of the construction and modernization costs in the 1980s, yet Saint-Hyacinthe got nothing.
Does the minister fail to understand the problem is not solved by a partial payment, that there is still a $24 million shortfall, and that this money needs to come from him, and him alone, if he wants to treat Saint-Hyacinthe the same as the other veterinary schools in Canada?
Will he understand this and will the federal government, for once, contribute its fair share for the construction and modernization costs of the École de médecine vétérinaire de Saint-Hyacinthe?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, technically this is an area of provincial jurisdiction and the presidents of all the four universities asked the federal government to contribute. Based on their request to us we are contributing 60% of what they said was required. The provinces will therefore have the opportunity to provide the other moneys that are required.
In reference to the comments the member made about other colleges, they receive money through the Canada Foundation for Innovation but that is a totally different situation.
* * *
Firearms Registry
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, a six month grace period will not solve the massive backlog of registrations or fix the problems facing those currently trying to register firearms. Phone calls go unanswered and registration forms are hard to find. Government mismanagement has made registering nearly impossible. In the end it is the gun owners who will pay for the government's incompetence through fines and jail time.
The Liberal government is spending $1 billion to make one million criminals. Why will it not just scrap the registry?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the comments of the hon. member. When we are talking about the registry, as I said, it is a policy that is working. It is about public safety. It is about protecting the Canadian population. On this side of the House we do believe in public safety.
Having said that, the gun registry works well at this point in time. We will be proceeding at minimum costs, as I said. It is important to respect the legislation and therefore to respect the deadline.
(1440)
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the registry is not working well. Last week Parliament said no to additional money for the firearms registry. This morning the minister said he would find additional money from other resources.
What part of no does the minister not understand?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about here is transparency. We have frozen all major spending in regard to the program, but we will keep proceeding with the registry. It is up and running. We have legislative obligations and we will meet those obligations.
* * *
[Translation]
Iraq
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, we parliamentarians voted for the ratification of the Kyoto protocol by the government. It was essential that we do so. So what about the possible involvement of Canadian troops in a conflict against Iraq, which may result in young Quebeckers and Canadians getting killed?
Does the Prime Minister recognize that if he sought the approval of parliamentarians on the ratification of Kyoto, it is no less essential that he give them a say in any plans for Canadian participation in a war against Iraq?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is no doubt aware that each time troops were deployed in the past, Parliament was consulted and debates were held in this House.
Should she wish that a parliamentary committee sit during the break, I am prepared to discuss this possibility with her House leader and the other leaders.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in the same way that prior approval by the Security Council alone can confer international legality on any military action in Iraq, only a vote by Parliament can ensure that the participation of Canada's armed forces in a conflict in Iraq is legitimate.
Will the Prime Minister promise to convene the House of Commons to allow parliamentarians to take a vote before getting Canada involved in Iraq, as his own party requested at the time of the Gulf war, in 1991?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the precedent was used on several occasions. There is even a procedure recognized by all the parties for consultation among them. It normally takes the form of a debate in this House.
There have even been precedents where, between sessions, committees met to discuss such issues. As I said earlier and at the risk of sounding repetitive, I am prepared to have discussions with her House leader and all other leaders.
* * *
[English]
Justice
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the government forced innocent firearm owners to register millions of firearms retroactively at a cost of $1 billion, yet it has failed to allow for retroactive registration of convicted sex offenders.
My question is for the Solicitor General. Why the cop-out? Why would all convicted sex offenders not be registered?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there was consensus that when the legislation was brought in it could not be brought in retroactively because it might not stand up to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This sex offender registry will certainly help make our streets safer and be an investigative tool for police forces in terms of solving sex crimes.
I would think the hon. member opposite would be more supportive of us taking these steps and moving forward.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, failure to register a firearm can end up with a prison term of 10 years. Failure to register as a convicted sex offender is punishable by only six months in prison. Firearm owners who provide false information are liable for up to five years in prison. Convicted sex offenders who provide false information are liable for up to six months in prison.
Does the government really believe that innocent firearm owners are a greater threat to public security than convicted sex offenders?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that the legislation has had first reading in the House. We must debate this issue further.
I would think the hon. member would be getting up and thanking us for coming forward with this forward looking initiative. We have consensus from the provinces to move forward with this initiative. We intend to bring it forward so that it will stand up to any court challenges in the future. The bottom line is, we will have a better investigative tool for the police to do its work.
* * *
(1445)
Aboriginal Affairs
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, three weeks ago there was a breakthrough on the residential schools file through an agreement on liability with the Anglican Church. At that time the government indicated that it was having discussions with other denominations.
With the House about to take a break could the minister responsible for residential schools bring us up to date on this matter?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, for the second time in three weeks the Government of Canada has settled with another church on sharing compensation to victims of abuse at Indian residential schools.
I am pleased to say that last month it was with the Anglicans, today it is with the Presbyterian Church in Canada. Now, rather than debating legal points, we can all focus on humane solutions for the 100% compensation to victims for validated claims.
I wish to commend the Presbyterians as I did the Anglicans for their courage and moral leadership on this file.
* * *
Tobacco Industry
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, over a year ago the then minister of health promised to ban light and mild labels on cigarette packages. Since then big tobacco companies have threatened to sue the government under NAFTA's chapter 11 if the ban goes ahead.
I want to ask the Minister for International Trade, when will the government finally stand up for the health of Canadians, ban these deceptive labels, and get rid of NAFTA laws that allow big corporations to threaten to sue the Canadian government under chapter 11 for protecting the health and environment of Canadians? When will the government finally act?
[Translation]
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this is a very important question and I thank my hon. colleague for having raised it in the House. It is also a very complex question.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: It is clear that in deciding whether or not to ban the term “light” from cigarette packages, we will have to make sure that the decision is not made in isolation but in a global context to reflect the overall complexity of this issue. This is what we will do.
* * *
Highway Infrastructure
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the leader of the Liberal Party of New Brunswick moved a motion in the Legislative Assembly to compel the federal government to respect the commitment of the Minister of Labour, responsible for New Brunswick, regarding highways 11 and 17. The motion received the unanimous support of all parties. The minister promised an additional $90 million, but she now says that this is not new money.
Can the Minister of Transport indicate if the federal government will honour its initial commitment and provide the additional $90 million for highways 11 and 17, and bring closure to this matter, which is becoming increasingly—
The Speaker:
The hon. Minister of Transport.
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked this very same question yesterday and I gave an answer. In case the answer was not clear I would direct his attention to Hansard and perhaps he will be edified.
* * *
Transport
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC):
Mr. Speaker, earlier in question period I gave notice to the transport minister concerning the closure of the Oshawa marina due to an adjacent contaminated site. Residents of the marina, moreover the municipal government, are distraught by the closure. The Oshawa MP will not even meet with council on the matter and relations have broken down with the port authority.
Would the minister commit to having his officials meet with council and other stakeholders in Oshawa to seek and facilitate a solution to this acrimonious situation?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this matter a number of times with the mayor of Oshawa, Nancy Diamond. She understands the federal government' s position.
The Oshawa Harbour Commission has jurisdiction over these lands and has come to the decision that the contamination is such that it is unsafe to continue the marina operation. It is hoped that the matter can be resolved over the winter months with the restoration of marina services next year.
This issue is proceeding in a normal way and I have hope that the marina will once again be open.
* * *
National Defence
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has stated that he did not believe the retired generals who called for increased defence funding.
Last month the minister himself stated that we needed to put more money into the military. He said that Canada cannot sit at the G-8 table and go to the bathroom when the bill comes. The defence committee, the defence minister and the officers of the armed forces have all said we need more money.
What happened in the past month to make the minister flip-flop and why is he going back to the bathroom to hide?
(1450)
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it was my privilege as foreign minister to see members of the Canadian Forces in action on the ground in various parts of the world. In every case I was proud of them, their capability, and their skill at what they were going. I am sick and tired of listening to people like that member get up and rip them to pieces.
Either this is an excellent organization that deserves increased funding or it is as bad as she and others on that side say it is, in which case maybe it should have less money.
* * *
Justice
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the proposed sex offender registry is a puff of wind in a tornado of crime. It exempts all currently convicted sex offenders while future convicts are provided the tools to tie up the courts and frustrate the police. Canadians want a registry where convicted sexual predators are automatically registered.
Will the minister promise Canadians today that registration for convicted sex offenders will be automatic?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as a former provincial attorney general the member should know that the previous crimes of criminals are in the CPIC system. They are there so police can find information rapidly. The sexual offender registry will be an addendum to the CPIC system. It will give the police the tools to investigate quickly and prevent future crimes.
The member should be congratulating us. As a former attorney general I believe he was one of the ones who wanted it.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General thinks that the charter only protects the rights of criminals and that is why he brought in this faulty registry. What about victims? Instead of zero tolerance for sexual predators the Liberal minister has shown zero respect for the victims of crime?
Why will the minister not stand up and say that he will automatically register sexual predators?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as opposed to members in the opposition, this Solicitor General in this government believes in the rights of all Canadians. That is why we established the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Maybe the opposition critic does not believe in the rehabilitation of people who have done something wrong in society, went to prison as a result, and did their time. Maybe he does not believe they should have the right to exercise their full human potential. I do, and we will do the right thing here.
* * *
[Translation]
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Journalistic Standards and Practices of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are clear. They stipulate, and I quote:
|
|
The CBC must not only be impartial, it must also project an image of impartiality. |
In this context, how does the Deputy Prime Minister justify the fact that Claude Beauchamp, anchor of the RDI program Capital actions, is on the Board of Governors of the very federalist Canadian Unity Council?
[English]
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows, being a member of the heritage committee, the role that the CBC plays in this country. The committee has been studying, for almost two years now, the role of the broadcasting industry and looking at renewing the act.
If the member is concerned, as we prepare our report, may I suggest that she bring those things to the committee so it can be tabled in the House where we can all look at it.
[Translation]
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, that is not the issue. Not only must the CBC be impartial, but so must its employees.
The Journalistic Standards and Practices of the Crown corporation stipulate that hiring persons identified with political parties or pressure groups may only be authorized if the person concerned has refrained from public activity in the party or group for at least two years.
As Claude Beauchamp is on the Board of Governors of the Canadian Unity Council, will the Deputy Prime Minister finally denounce the CBC for failing to comply with the rules that stipulate—
(1455)
The Speaker:
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
[English]
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which I have said time and time again in the House of Commons, is an independent agency of the crown.
We will not influence the hiring of people. We do not get involved in union negotiations nor contracts. The CBC is independent from the government, and rightly so. It is our national broadcaster. It is not a nation owned broadcaster, so I do not understand the member's concern.
* * *
Agriculture
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the government has done nothing to address the situation many of our farm families are facing as result of this year's record drought and disastrous growing conditions.
And now a lack of will by the government to deal with harmful trade policies and an inefficient transportation system has further compounded an already critical situation.
Why has the minister abandoned his commitment to support all sectors of the industry by allowing the importing of butter oil sugar blends and allowing domestic policies that are hindering the flow of grain?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the concern of the dairy industry with regard to butter oil sugar blends has been taken before the CITT here in Canada. The government did that. The CITT ruled on that and, of course, as the government does, we will abide by the ruling of the CITT.