38th PARLIAMENT,
1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 095
CONTENTS
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
|
 |
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Government Response to Petitions |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Foreign Affairs and International Trade |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.) |
|
|
Public Accounts |
|
|
Mr. John Williams (Edmonton—St. Albert, CPC) |
|
|
Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics |
|
|
Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC) |
|
|
Canada Labour Code |
|
|
Mr. Robert Vincent (Shefford, BQ) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development |
|
|
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC) |
|
|
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC) |
|
|
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Penson |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
(Division 79) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act |
|
|
(Bill C-45. On the Order: Government Orders:)
|
|
|
Hon. Albina Guarnieri (Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed)
|
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Richard Harris |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Middle East |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) |
|
|
Water Chlorination |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC) |
|
|
Criminal Code |
|
|
Mr. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.) |
|
|
Carley's Law |
|
|
Mr. Randy White (Abbotsford, CPC) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Randy White (Abbotsford, CPC) |
|
|
Carley's Law |
|
|
Mr. Randy White (Abbotsford, CPC) |
|
|
Ambassador to UNESCO |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC) |
|
|
Questions on the Order Paper |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
|
|
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Randy White (Abbotsford, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Hon. John McKay |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Penson |
|
|
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC) |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Richard Harris |
|
|
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Richard Harris |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
|
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Jack Layton |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP) |
|
|
Mrs. Joy Smith |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
|
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
|
Hon. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Richard Harris |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, CPC) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
|
|
Asian Heritage Month |
|
|
Ms. Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Lib.) |
|
|
Sutton Fair |
|
|
Mr. Peter Van Loan (York—Simcoe, CPC) |
|
|
Thunder Bay Bombers |
|
|
Mr. Ken Boshcoff (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.) |
|
|
Pay Equity |
|
|
Ms. Paule Brunelle (Trois-Rivières, BQ) |
|
|
Family Expo |
|
|
Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.) |
|
|
Lupus |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC) |
|
|
Conservative Party of Canada |
|
|
Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Dominique Chevalier |
|
|
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ) |
|
|
Grenada |
|
|
Hon. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.) |
|
|
Calgary International Airport |
|
|
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Centre, CPC) |
|
|
Cité étudiante de la Haute-Gatineau |
|
|
Mr. David Smith (Pontiac, Lib.) |
|
|
Dairy Industry |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) |
|
|
Prescription Drugs |
|
|
Mr. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC) |
|
|
Government of Canada |
|
|
Mr. Robert Vincent (Shefford, BQ) |
|
|
Minister of Public Works and Government Services |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC) |
|
|
VE Day |
|
|
Mr. Lloyd St. Amand (Brant, Lib.) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
The Budget |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Sponsorship Program |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Government of Canada |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
House of Commons |
|
|
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Standing Committee on Public Accounts |
|
|
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. John Williams (Edmonton—St. Albert, CPC) |
|
|
Sponsorship Program |
|
|
Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Justice |
|
|
Mr. Peter Van Loan (York—Simcoe, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Van Loan (York—Simcoe, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Peter Van Loan |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
The Budget |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Economic Development |
|
|
Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Jacques Saada (Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister responsible for the Francophonie, Lib.) |
|
|
The Environment |
|
|
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Maher Arar Inquiry |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
The Economy |
|
|
Mr. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
The Budget |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Ms. Denise Poirier-Rivard (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Denise Poirier-Rivard (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
Social Development |
|
|
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
Justice |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Government of Canada |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Housing |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Joe Fontana (Minister of Labour and Housing, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Points of Order |
|
|
Oral Question Period |
|
|
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Presence in Gallery |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Points of Order |
|
|
Division List No. 79 |
|
|
Hon. Carolyn Bennett (Minister of State (Public Health), Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Privilege |
|
|
Citizenship and Immigration |
|
|
Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Judy Sgro |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Franking Privileges |
|
|
Mr. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC) |
|
|
Franking Privileges--Speaker's Ruling |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
|
|
Hon. Tony Ianno (Minister of State (Families and Caregivers), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
|
Hon. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments |
|
|
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Joe Fontana (Minister of Labour and Housing, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Pallister |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey |
|
|
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey |
|
|
Hon. Joe Fontana (Minister of Labour and Housing, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
|
|
Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
|
|
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments |
|
|
Hon. Joe Fontana (Minister of Labour and Housing, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
|
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Mr. Christian Simard (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Ianno (Minister of State (Families and Caregivers), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
|
Quarantine Act |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
(Division 80) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Amendments read the second time and concurred in)
|
|
|
Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 81) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Routine Proceedings
|
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Public Accounts |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 82) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 83) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Private Members' Business
|
|
|
Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act |
|
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
|
Mr. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Bev Oda (Durham, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Amendment agreed to)
|
|
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC) |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
|
Hon. Bryon Wilfert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Bev Oda (Durham, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Message from the Senate |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Canadian Heritage |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell |
|
|
Human Resources |
|
|
Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Mark Warawa |
|
|
Hon. Peter Adams |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
(1000)
[English]
Government Response to Petitions
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the government's response to five petitions.
* * *
(1005)
[Translation]
Committees of the House
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade on the ongoing tensions along the Eritrea-Ethiopia border.
* * *
[English]
Public Accounts
Mr. John Williams (Edmonton—St. Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts concerning governance and the Public Service of Canada, ministerial and deputy ministerial accountability.
In accordance with Standing Order 109, your committee requests a government response within 120 days.
* * *
Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics
Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
* * *
[Translation]
Canada Labour Code
Mr. Robert Vincent (Shefford, BQ) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-380, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (pregnant or nursing employees).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce my first bill in this House, a bill to amend the Canada Labour Code for pregnant or nursing employees.
This bill amends the Canada Labour Code to allow the employee to avail herself of provincial legislation on preventive withdrawal from work.
This bill has earned the support of the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, the Bloc Québécois labour critic.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
[English]
The Speaker: The Chair has indications that two members wish to move motions. Could the hon. member for Nunavut tell us which motion on the order paper she wishes to propose to the House?
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Motion No. 26, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I will be endeavouring to move the motion which I have tried to move for a week or more now. It is Motion No. 36 dealing with restoring an opposition day on May 19.
The Speaker: The hon. member has probably realized the bad news from his point of view. We will go with the one that is higher on the list.
* * *
Committees of the House
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I move that the third report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, presented to the House on Friday, March 11, be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to split my time with the member for Yukon.
As we know, this report from the aboriginal affairs committee presented to the House on March 11 concerns the Inuit sled dogs and the request to have a judicial inquiry.
We heard from different witnesses who came before the committee of how important this was for the people of the north. It not only concerns people from my riding but it also concerns people from northern Quebec.
We are known as one group of people under, as I like to say, the umbrella of aboriginal people of Canada who are recognized by the Constitution. We are one of the three groups, which is the first nations, the Inuit and the Métis, who are recognized by the Constitution of Canada.
The Inuit have always considered themselves as one group of people, even though we are in Labrador, northern Quebec, Northwest Territories and Nunavut.
We know that our history is very recent. In the 1950s and 1960s people were still living out on the land and were very reluctant to move into the communities. They feel that one of the ways that the Government of Canada tried to get them moved to the communities was to get rid of their transportation, which is the reason for the motion. The people of the north feel there needs to be a judicial inquiry into exactly what the motivation was behind the Inuit dogs being slaughtered in the 1950s and 1960s.
We have firsthand interventions and firsthand witnesses who went through that and they would very much like the government to appoint a judge to look into the slaughter. People need the chance to tell their stories and find out exactly what the reason was behind doing this and whether there can be some reconciliation between themselves and the Government of Canada.
I would like to give the member for Yukon an opportunity to speak.
(1010)
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I heard the member talk about the motion that the government wants to debate today, or maybe not.
I would ask the member whether her heart is really into debating this motion or whether this is just another attempt to shut down the motion that our House leader is trying to put forward and have a vote on.
This has been going on for far too long. I think it is becoming quite obvious to Canadians that the constant actions of the Liberal government in putting forward motions such as this is nothing more than an attempt to suppress democracy in this House. I would like to ask if this is another attempt.
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to say that I am splitting my time with the member for Kitchener Centre.
I think most of the members in this House of Commons who have been here in the almost eight years that I have been a member know that I do not get up to do a lot of trivial debate. I think my record speaks for itself. If there are issues that are very important to the first peoples of Canada I will take the opportunity to stand and be their voice in the House of Commons.
I think members can count the number of times that I have stood to debate in this House of Commons and it will only be on issues that are felt strongly by the people who I represent. I think my record will speak for itself.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I do not want to, in any way, downplay the seriousness of the hon. member's issue that deals with the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development's study on the slaughtering of Inuit sled dogs in the north between the years 1950 and 1970 and requesting that the government appoint, before April 15, 2005, which, if memory serves me right has already passed, a superior court judge to inquire into the matter.
That is not the issue here, as my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George said. The issue here is shutting down democracy in this place.
If the member is serious about having a debate about this issue then I would assume that when she called this issue today it was not a stalling tactic to prevent the opposition from having an opposition day, which was my motion.
I see someone running over to apprise the hon. member from Nunavut as to what she should say when she rises. However if she is serious about this issue then I am sure the Liberals will not be planning to adjourn the debate on this. If she is serious about this issue and they called this concurrence motion, then we should debate it for the three hours, as the opposition would want to do.
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Mr. Speaker, I find it quite amusing in a way that in the eight years that I have been here we have never had debates lasting three hours on any concurrence of any report that I know of in the numbers that we are doing it in this session.
If the party across the way is as serious about aboriginal peoples as they say, they would have supported the Tlicho land claims agreement that was before the House in December. To this day, in the eight years that I have been here, I have never seen the party under all their different names support a land claims agreement.
Also, in this very committee the members opposite from the Conservative Party were told and requested by the Assembly of First Nations, AFN, not to go ahead with the motion. In a way I can honestly say that we are the people over here who speak for the aboriginal people of Canada. The Conservatives do not support even the direction given by the Assembly of First Nations when they are requested to do so.
Again, we see that as they know best what is good for us as the people of Canada. Frankly, I do not agree with that.
(1015)
Hon. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I move:
|
That this question be now put. |
The Deputy Speaker: The motion is that this question be now put.
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have been around here for about 12 years and have never seen a performance like this. When the first member spoke on this motion, we asked if this was just a ploy to block the putting forward of a motion by our House leader. She assured us that it was not. We thought that perhaps we were going to have some debate on it.
Our House leader again asked the question of that member and she assured us that this was a legitimate motion. Then the first thing that happened when the time switched over to the government whip was that she stood up and made a motion that the question be put.
I feel as if my parliamentary privileges are being usurped by the government whip. I was prepared to debate this motion on aboriginal affairs--
Hon. Karen Redman: Then debate it.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Go ahead.
Mr. Richard Harris: --and we will be, Mr. Speaker, if we are allowed to.
Mr. Jay Hill: Why isn't she if it's serious?
Mr. Richard Harris: I would like to ask the government whip, is she serious? Is this going to be a motion that we will have an opportunity to debate in the House right now for the full period of the debate?
Hon. Karen Redman: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly happy to get up and respond to that. Less than a year ago, Canadians sent a minority government here with the understanding that they wanted us to make this government work. There is no doubt that for the vast majority of people in this House this is a new experience. The Standing Orders changed about the middle of March. That was done very much the way it has been done historically in this place. It was done with consultation of all parties.
Up until about three weeks ago, I would speak daily to my whip counterparts of all parties. We would have a House leaders' meeting once a week where we would talk about how many speakers were coming forward. We would talk about legislation, legislation like the budget. The budget that this government has put before the House is an excellent budget. It responds to the priorities of Canadians. It is a new deal for cities. It invests in child care--
An hon. member: Employment insurance improvements.
Hon. Karen Redman: It invests in employment insurance improvements, which are very important for some of my colleagues. They championed that.
We have allowed a place at the table without giving up the fiscal imperatives that have been the absolute defining character of this Liberal government. There is fiscal balance. We will continue to stay out of deficit. We will continue to pay down the debt. We will continue to bring about tax relief for the lowest income earners in Canada while attending to the small and medium sized business sector, which is the engine that runs the economy, but--
(1020)
Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. How is this relevant to the question that is being debated?
An hon. member: The Inuit sled dogs.
Mr. Charlie Penson: Yes, the Inuit sled dogs. I think, Mr. Speaker, you should shut down the current speaker because this is not relevant at all. If she wants to debate the motion, and a question was asked about it--
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure the hon. whip is going to get around to that although she is responding to a question about the timing of the debate. She is responding in trying to answer that. I would urge her to wrap that up. Maybe we will get one more question in.
Hon. Karen Redman: Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the members opposite. My point is that we have had changes to the Standing Orders. Part of those changes was being able to put forward concurrence motions which would then have three hours of debate.
The Conservatives, the members opposite, took that rule and tried to be sneaky with it. They tried to bring in a motion that would have them decide when opposition days occur. That is the purview of the government and that has always been the purview of the government.
As a result of being able to bring in concurrence motions, the members opposite have chewed up roughly 20% of the time in the House that the government has to talk about important issues such as the budget bill and such as the companion piece which will be introduced in this House.
They are so embroiled in procedural gerrymandering and sneaky tricks that they are not allowing us to talk about things like the relationship this government has forged through several pieces of legislation with our aboriginal communities.
I can look to my tenure as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment and to the pieces of legislation such as species at risk, which was held out as a best practice because we invited aboriginals to the table. We acknowledged their intellectual property, community values and the patterns of wildlife, which was very necessary so that aboriginal community knowledge could be incorporated into legislation.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be drawn into this debate. I think is unfortunate. The House--
Mr. Jay Hill: If you are not going to get drawn into the debate, why did you stand?
Mr. Charlie Penson: Then sit down.
Mr. Paul Szabo: I am not going to be drawn into this debate. The record will show which parties have moved concurrence motions which are by backbenchers who have important issues.
This one came a long time ago. I do have to say that the member for Nunavut has been one of the strongest voices we could ever wish to have on behalf of our first peoples.
An hon. member: That's right.
Mr. Paul Szabo: She is an honourable member of Parliament. I believe that all members in this place would certainly want to give her all of the recognition for her defence of the first nations people, for the land claims and for the rights and the privileges that we should accord to our first nations people; similarly, the member for Yukon.
These are not motions that were put in frivolously. These motions are put in by members because they are important to them. Who better than this member to move this motion?
The House leader for the Conservative Party just yelled over to the whip of the Liberal Party and asked, “What are you doing now wasting time when we could be doing other business?” I believe the point has been made by the hon. member about the importance of this issue and that we should move forward, and I am sure that we will.
With regard to the request of the opposition House leader that we should get on to other business now, I tend to agree. We should start debating the budget. Therefore, I move:
|
That the debate be now adjourned. |
(1025)
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
* * *
(1105)
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
|
(Division No. 79)
|
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson (Victoria)
Angus
Augustine
Bagnell
Bains
Barnes
Bélanger
Bell
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Boivin
Bonin
Boshcoff
Boudria
Bradshaw
Brison
Broadbent
Brown (Oakville)
Bulte
Byrne
Cannis
Carr
Carroll
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Christopherson
Coderre
Comartin
Comuzzi
Crowder
Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley)
Cullen (Etobicoke North)
Cuzner
D'Amours
Davies
Desjarlais
DeVillers
Dhalla
Dosanjh
Drouin
Dryden
Easter
Eyking
Folco
Fontana
Gallaway
Godbout
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
Holland
Hubbard
Ianno
Jennings
Julian
Kadis
Karetak-Lindell
Karygiannis
Khan
Lastewka
LeBlanc
Lee
MacAulay
Macklin
Maloney
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca)
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Martin (Sault Ste. Marie)
Masse
Matthews
McCallum
McDonough
McGuinty
McGuire
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
McLellan
McTeague
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Myers
Neville
O'Brien
Owen
Pacetti
Paradis
Patry
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Powers
Proulx
Ratansi
Redman
Regan
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rota
Savage
Savoy
Scarpaleggia
Scott
Sgro
Siksay
Silva
Simard (Saint Boniface)
Simms
Smith (Pontiac)
St. Amand
St. Denis
Steckle
Stoffer
Szabo
Telegdi
Temelkovski
Thibault (West Nova)
Tonks
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Valley
Volpe
Wappel
Wasylycia-Leis
Wilfert
Total: -- 132
|
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Allison
Anders
André
Asselin
Bachand
Batters
Bellavance
Benoit
Bergeron
Bezan
Bigras
Blais
Boire
Bonsant
Bouchard
Boulianne
Bourgeois
Breitkreuz
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brunelle
Cardin
Carrie
Carrier
Casey
Casson
Chong
Clavet
Cleary
Côté
Crête
Cummins
Demers
Deschamps
Desrochers
Devolin
Doyle
Duceppe
Epp
Faille
Fitzpatrick
Forseth
Gagnon (Québec)
Gagnon (Saint-Maurice—Champlain)
Gagnon (Jonquière—Alma)
Gallant
Gaudet
Gauthier
Goldring
Goodyear
Gouk
Grewal (Newton—North Delta)
Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells)
Guay
Guergis
Guimond
Harris
Harrison
Hill
Hinton
Jaffer
Jean
Johnston
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Kotto
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Laframboise
Lalonde
Lapierre (Lévis—Bellechasse)
Lavallée
Lemay
Lessard
Lévesque
Loubier
Lukiwski
Lunney
MacKenzie
Marceau
Mark
Ménard (Hochelaga)
Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin)
Menzies
Merrifield
Miller
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Nicholson
Obhrai
Paquette
Penson
Perron
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Poilievre
Poirier-Rivard
Prentice
Preston
Reynolds
Ritz
Roy
Sauvageau
Scheer
Schellenberger
Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country)
Simard (Beauport—Limoilou)
Skelton
Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul)
Sorenson
St-Hilaire
Thibault (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques)
Thompson (Wild Rose)
Tilson
Trost
Tweed
Vellacott
Vincent
Warawa
Watson
White
Williams
Yelich
Total: -- 122
|
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
(1110)
[English]
Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act
(Bill C-45. On the Order: Government Orders:)
|
April 20, 2005--Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs of Bill C-45, an act to provide services, assistance and compensation to or in respect of Canadian Forces members and veterans and to make amendments to certain acts. |
Hon. Albina Guarnieri (Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to advance an investment in future veterans, to advance the prospects of a better life for people who have served their country, and to advance a new veterans charter.
There have been discussions among the parties and in keeping with this being the Year of the Veteran, we wish to recognize the debt owed to all our veterans.
[Translation]
I believe this is an ideal opportunity to set aside our political differences, on behalf of those who defended our freedom, and get unanimous consent on this motion.
[English]
I move:
|
That Bill C-45, an act to provide services, assistance and compensation to or in respect of Canadian Forces members and veterans and to make amendments to certain acts, be deemed to have been read a second time, referred to committee of the whole, reported without amendment, concurred in at report stage, read a third time and passed. |
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. minister have unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt that motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed)
The Deputy Speaker: I wish to inform the House that there is one hour and 10 minutes remaining for debate on the previous question related to the motion for concurrence of the third report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Accordingly, the debate on the motion will be rescheduled for another sitting.
Mr. Richard Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure that you would want to know if there has been a breaking of the rules when it comes to voting. I know that all members who make an effort to come to the House on time for the vote would like to see members opposite do the same.
The Minister of State for Public Health was not in her chair when the motion was read and in fact only took her chair as the Minister for State for Infrastructure and Communities who sits next to her was about to rise to cast his vote. Therefore, I think that she made herself ineligible for the last vote we held.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George for that. The hon. Minister of State for Public Health is not here to respond to that right now, so I do not know that we can deal with it any further at this moment. Perhaps she will come back. The vote was not so close that one vote would have determined anything different anyway, so we will let her come back and respond to that if she wishes.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If I were in a position to give you advice, which of course I am not, I would advise you that this is a matter of considerable importance because it is precedent setting.
It is true that in this particular instance the vote was not close, but how about the next time if it is? And then to get up and argue that the vote should count anyway because it counted this morning in this particular instance. That vote should, notwithstanding that the minister is not here, in fact be disqualified.
The Deputy Speaker: To reassure the member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park, we do take the issue seriously of course and members do need to be in their seats during the reading of the motion or the bill that is before the House. As I mentioned, we cannot deal further with this until the Minister of State for Public Health responds. We are not finished with this. We will wait for her to respond to it and then we will deal with it appropriately at that time.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
(1115)
[English]
Petitions
Marriage
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present yet another petition on the subject matter of marriage signed by a number of Canadians including constituents from my riding of Mississauga South. The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that the majority of Canadians believe that fundamental matters of social policy should be decided by elected members of Parliament and not by the unelected judiciary. They also point out that the majority of Canadians have indicated their support for the current legal definition of marriage.
The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to use all possible legislative and administrative measures including the invocation of section 33 of the charter, commonly known as the notwithstanding clause, to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
* * *
Middle East
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to present a petition signed by approximately 2,000 petitioners. It is a petition organized by Naomi Binder Wall from the Jewish Women's Committee to End the Occupation who has been holding a weekly vigil for the past four and a half years.
The petition calls on the Canadian government to speak out against the wall that Israel is constructing on Palestinian land in the West Bank and to demand the Israeli government issue orders to tear it down. I am very pleased to present this petition that is signed by almost 2,000 people in the Toronto area.
* * *
Water Chlorination
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions.
In the first petition the petitioners call upon Parliament to instruct the federal environment minister to impose a moratorium on the expanded use of water chlorination in small rural applications until further study on the alternatives are completed.
* * *
Marriage
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in the second petition the petitioners ask that Parliament put into federal law that the definition of marriage is the lifelong union of one man and one woman.
* * *
Criminal Code
Mr. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to present the following petition to the House. This petition calls for the amendment to the federal Criminal Code so that Canadian Sikhs can be exempt from an organization's liability on workplace safety. Many Canadian Sikhs who make a living as longshoremen have encountered difficulties and even, to some degree, lost jobs because of a requirement that they wear a hard hat on the job site.
I acknowledge that this is a very delicate matter of freedom of religion and at the same time balancing safety. In that spirit, I would like to present this petition signed by 61 affected Canadians.
* * *
Carley's Law
Mr. Randy White (Abbotsford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have numerous petitions.
I have two petitions in which the petitioners ask the government assembled in Parliament to vote in favour of Bill C-275, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding failure to stop at the scene of an accident, which would make sentencing for hit-and-run drivers more severe.
* * *
Marriage
Mr. Randy White (Abbotsford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions in which the petitioners ask Parliament to pass legislation 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.
* * *
Carley's Law
Mr. Randy White (Abbotsford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, finally, I have many petitioners with regard to Bill C-275, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding failure to stop at the scene of an accident, which is known commonly as Carley's Law hit-and-run. These petitioners again ask that parliament continue to support that legislation.
* * *
Ambassador to UNESCO
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition signed by a number of Canadians who express concern about the appointment of a former MP of this place, Yvon Charbonneau, as Canada's ambassador to UNESCO. They believe he has made comments that are of concern, that are against the State of Israel and, therefore, need to be dealt with by the Government of Canada.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the Prime Minister to withdraw this appointment and give a clear, unambiguous message in terms of anti-Semitism that is prevalent in our society today.
* * *
(1120)
Marriage
Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition to this House with close to 200 names on it from the riding of Simcoe--Grey. The petitioners call upon the government to maintain the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
* * *
Questions on the Order Paper
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Question No. 120 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 120--Mr. James Bezan:
Does the government plan to equip Correctional Service of Canada officers with stab proof vests to wear while on duty in dangerous prison conditions?
Hon. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
At the present time, the Correctional Service of Canada, CSC, has protective vests available for correctional officers in all institutions. The vests are issued on a case by case basis following a threat risk assessment of a situation.
CSC has established a joint committee with the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, UCCO, to review issues concerning protective equipment. This committee is currently in the process of reviewing the various types and styles of stab-resistant vests that would be issued to correctional officers assigned to specific posts in specific institutions.
The circumstances in which these vests will be employed will be clarified in CSC's operational policies.
[English]
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (for the Minister of Finance) moved that Bill C-48, an act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-48 is a bill that proposes further investments from unplanned surplus funds.
Canada's social foundations are a key to our social identity. In past budgets, the Government of Canada has made significant investments in these social priorities and this bill is merely a natural extension of those priorities. It already builds upon government initiatives taken over the past number of years and budgets.
Before outlining the measures contained in this bill, however, I would like to take a moment and talk about how the government is able to make these investments, or how we got from there to here.
As members know, Canada will record its eighth consecutive surplus in the budget year 2004-05, a record unmatched since Confederation. Indeed, Canada will be the only G-7 country to post a total government surplus in that fiscal year. Canada's much improved fiscal situation has allowed the government to make significant investments in the priorities of Canadians.
Our fiscal outlook, however, has not always been so rosy. When we took over the government from the members of the party opposite here, we were faced with a budgetary deficit in excess of $40 billion. On top of that, the unemployment rate was in the order of 11%. There was weak economic growth and weak consumer confidence, all brought on by the management so-called of the previous administration.
We recognized that something had to be done if we were to ensure a future for our generations to come. That is exactly what we did.
Our government undertook a series of measures to reduce spending and put our fiscal house in order. By 1997-98 we were able to eliminate the deficit.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are a bit of an athlete in your own right and without any pain there is no gain. Canadians clearly made sacrifices in support of a goal of improving our fiscal situation. However, in this case, and I know your athletic endeavours are matters of legend, the pain has paid off big time.
An hon. member: It's no legend.
Hon. John McKay: Possibly not matters of fact, rather than matters of legend, but that is another issue.
Canada's fiscal turnaround was nothing short of remarkable and has certainly not gone unnoticed by other countries that are looking to us as an example of what to do. It was thanks to these sacrifices made by Canadians that consumer and business confidence grew. In turn that led to stronger economic growth and job creation.
Once the fiscal situation turned around, the government put more money in the pockets of individuals and families by reducing taxes more than any other federal government in history. It also invested significantly in the priorities of Canadians, such as health care, education, infrastructure, research and innovation, national security and the environment.
The bill before us today brings those investments in a number of key priorities for Canadians, priorities that the government shares. Specifically, Bill C-48 provides the framework for further investments in important areas, such as affordable housing, post-secondary education, the environment and foreign aid.
Let me assure the House that this in no way will put us in danger of going back into the bad old days of deficits. I emphasize that this will not put this government into deficit.
(1125)
The government is committed to spending $4.6 billion for these investments. These investments will be financed from fiscal resources that are in excess of $2 billion in the fiscal year 2005-06 and $2 billion in the fiscal year 2006-07. Estimates show that we will still have sufficient resources to continue to pay down the debt as well. I want to again emphasize the point that these investments will only be made in the event there are resources available above the $2 billion in each of those fiscal years.
I would like to outline the details of these proposed investments for our future.
First, with respect to affordable housing, the government recognizes that Canada's communities are the social and economic foundation of the country. Whether large metropolitan areas, cities or rural hamlets, the communities Canadians choose to live in have significant bearing on the quality of their life and social and economic opportunities open to them. However, the harsh reality is that in downtown cores and poorer neighbourhoods of many cities urban poverty problems have led to increased demand for affordable housing.
In recent years the government has made a number of investments totalling $2 billion in the area of affordable housing and homelessness. These programs are still being rolled out and in most cases the funding will continue to ramp up over the next year.
We have done the following.
In 1999 the government launched a three year national homelessness initiative. A key element of that was the supporting communities partnership initiative known by most of the people in this area as SCPI, which provided $305 million for local community groups to offer supportive services and facilities for the homeless.
This initiative was of great importance to the community from which I come as we were housing something in the order of 1,400 homeless people in the riding every night. I am pleased to say that over the years, with the assistance of SCPI and other programs, the number has declined precipitously to the point where we are now somewhere in the order of 200 to 300 people per night. I would like to think the Liberal caucus in particular had a lot to do with that initiative.
Budget 2003 provided a further three year extension to the SCPI initiative at $135 million per year. Furthermore, budget 2001 announced $680 million over five years for the affordable housing initiative to help stimulate the creation of more affordable housing. Bilateral cost sharing agreements were subsequently signed with all 13 jurisdictions in Canada. On top of that, $320 million over five years was announced in budget 2003, bringing total investments in affordable housing to $1 billion over six years.
The government continued to do more in budget 2003 when it announced a three year renewal of the government's housing renovation programs at a cost of $128 million per year. These programs support the renovation and the renewal of the existing stock of affordable housing and help low income persons with critical housing repair needs. In addition, the government currently spends $1.9 billion per year in support of existing social housing units.
The legislation builds on those previous initiatives by proposing a further $1.6 billion for further affordable housing construction. It is important to emphasize that the funding is not tied to matching funds from the provinces.
In recognition of the critical shortage of adequate housing for our first nations reserves the new funding will also include aboriginal housing. That is $1.6 billion of the $4.6 billion initiative.
The second part of the initiative is in the area of post-secondary education, which is and continues to be a priority of the Government of Canada. We need to provide students with a solid foundation that will serve them well in Canada in the future.
(1130)
Since balancing the budget, the government has provided significant new funding in support of post-secondary education through increased transfer and support to provinces and territories and increased direct support to students and universities.
For example, federal transfer support for post-secondary education is provided through the Canada social transfer, a block transfer to provinces and territories which are each responsible for allocating federal support according to their respective priorities regarding post-secondary education and other social programs.
Overall, the Canada social transfer will provide $15.5 billion in the fiscal year 2005-06, including more than $8 billion in legislated cash levels and $7 billion in tax points. This will continue to grow on an annual basis as the economy grows.
In addition to the Canada social transfer, the Government of Canada provides about $5 billion annually in direct support for post-secondary education. That, among other things, helps families save for their children's education.
The bill provides additional funding to complement the initiatives already taken by the government. Specifically, it provides $1.5 billion to increase accessibility to post-secondary education with a substantial portion to support students from low income families as well as training money to support labour market agreements. That is building on the $1.6 billion for affordable housing. We add a further $1.5 billion for initiatives in education and labour market training.
The third initiative is on the environment. As we know, the government is very much aware that a sustainable economy depends on a sound environment and healthy communities. To that end, we have made significant investments in the environment and in sustainable infrastructure in Canadian communities. Bill C-48 builds on those initiatives, proposing $900 million for environmental investment.
The objective of the government's issues is to have the most impact where it matters most, in places where Canadians live, work and play. Canada depends upon the cities and communities to attract the best talent and compete for investment as vibrant centres of commerce, learning and culture.
That is why, building on the current financial support for infrastructure programs and the full rebate of the GST, the government has delivered on its commitment to share a portion of the revenues from the federal gas tax with municipalities to assist with their sustainable infrastructure needs, such as public transit, water, waste water treatment and community energy systems.
I might mention that for my city of Toronto, the GST rebate is in the order of about $50 million annually and that continues year after year. Again, it is a significant sum of money.
This is a perfect example of different levels of government working together to achieve a common goal. Bill C-48 enhances the government's commitment, focusing primarily on public transit.
As members know, individual Canadians produce greenhouse gases through day to day activities, such as driving vehicles and heating or cooling homes, anything that involves energy use. Certainly, there are things that all citizens can do to play a key role in addressing climate change, particularly in their homes. That is why the bill also proposes to provide funding for low income energy refit programs.
Having talked to others in the corridors and around Parliament Hill, I know this is a particular aspect that has gained a lot of attention among certain members of the community.
Even before introducing the bill, the government had promoted actions by Canadians to reduce greenhouse gases through a range of information and incentive programs, such as the EnerGuide for houses retrofit Incentive program. This evaluation service provides homeowners with independent expert advice on the different systems of a home and information on energy efficient improvements that can increase comfort and reduce energy bills.
(1135)
The government's goal is to quadruple the number of houses retrofitted under the EnerGuide for houses retrofit incentive program over the next five years. Indeed the proposal in the bill complements this plan.
I must say it is more than mildly curious that members opposite at one level oppose these initiatives and then say in the next breath that if they form the government, they will of course adopt these initiatives.
The next initiative is in the area of foreign aid. As a nation composed of people from every part of the globe, Canadians have a keen sense of the world beyond their borders. Indeed Canada as a G-7 member has a responsibility to contribute to making the world safer and protecting the vulnerable in times of strife.
If members want to see the new face of Canada, I would invite them to my riding. I do not think there is a racial, ethnic or religious group that is not represented in the riding. They are Canada's future.
Canada's recently released international policy statement sets out a vision for Canada and its role in the world. The new international policy framework delivers on the government's commitment to invest in our international role. We have made substantial progress in delivering on Canada's 2002 pledge at Monterrey to double international assistance by 2010-11. In addition, Canada will strengthen the partnership with Africa through debt relief and aid to foster private sector development and key investments to address the serious health issues afflicting that continent.
Bill C-48 forms an integral part of the government's foreign policy by proposing an additional $500 million in international assistance. That new funding, combined with our proposed new approach for foreign aid, will better ensure that money goes to where it is most effective and do the most good.
Those who have been following this debate will notice that adds up to $4.5 billion over the next two years. There is a minor discrepancy between the $4.5 billion in the bill and the $4.6 billion that has been committed to this initiative. The final initiative has to do with an agreement to invest a further $100 million from within the fiscal framework to assist in the protection of workers' earnings in the event of employer bankruptcy.
That is in sum the $4.6 billion committed over the next two years. I would like to reiterate that the proposals contained in the bill are merely a natural extension of everything the government stands for. We are proud of the contribution we have made in securing Canada's social foundations. We are proud of the contribution we have made to the securing of our fiscal foundations. We believe that Canadians are proud of what we have worked so hard to accomplish together.
I would urge all members to support the bill.
(1140)
Mr. Randy White (Abbotsford, CPC): I think I have heard it all here today, Mr. Speaker. In the opening remarks of the Liberal member, I believe he said it was an unplanned social trust. I have been around this place for 13 years and this is a new one. This is an unplanned social trust. All of a sudden these things he just talked about become important because the Liberals made a deal with the NDP. That is what the unplanned social trust is. It is a $4.5 billion deal.
If it was important before today, why was it not planned in the budget in the first place? Why is it that we have to suffer in the House of Commons the stupidity of a government that says it just made a $4.5 billion deal and boy has it now got a planned social trust? What kind of stupidity is that anyway?
I spend a lot of time going across the country on issues such as drugs. The number of addicted young people is growing every single day. The issue has been in the House of Commons for three years. The Liberals have an unplanned social trust, but there is not one red cent in the budget or the social trust budget to try to get people off drugs.
He talked about education. Has anyone ever seen an ad on television or in the newspapers, or heard one on radio from the federal government trying to show young people that drugs are not good? But the Liberals have some unplanned issue about education.
By the way, there was an announcement yesterday about a whole bunch of money for airports across Canada. I asked the transport minister yesterday how much was in it for the Abbotsford airport. Not one red cent. It must be because it is one of the strongest held Conservative ridings in the country. That is sick.
Why is it that if these issues are so darned important to Canadians that they were not in the budget in the first place? The government has the unmitigated gall to stand in the House of Commons and say that all of a sudden these issues are really important because it made a deal with the NDP.
Hon. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, I would like to think that the hon. member was listening carefully to my speech but he has just given a demonstration that he did not listen at all.
I did not talk about any unplanned social anything. I talked about unplanned surplus funds. There is a big difference. It is a pathetic example of the members opposite. I want to refresh the hon. member's memory as to how we got here.
As the hon. member will recollect, we were supported in this budget originally by his party. Gee, how about that? We were supported. When the budget implementation bill came in, then the Conservatives decided that the polls were going their way so they had better not support the budget any more. Then we had a food fight over the word toxic. As the polls continued to move in favour of the party of the members opposite, they thought they would not support the budget at all. Now it is a case of bringing down the government under any pretext and it does not really matter what the pretext might be.
It is a bit of a nonsense question on the part of the hon. member. If he had actually thought about his question and had he noted that it was the unplanned surplus, and if he had read the bill which I am quite sure he has not, he would know that anything above $2 billion in the event that it is there, will be applied to these initiatives.
There is no difference between what the budget that was presented here and this particular initiative is, in the event that there is no surplus.
(1145)
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke very much of his Liberal priorities. One such priority is the establishment of a government day care bureaucracy which the Liberals have been pushing relentlessly.
While we in this party will keep existing agreements that have been signed with the provinces, I want him to know that he will find no support on this side of the House for a government day care bureaucracy. We will take child care dollars and give them directly to parents, allowing them to make their own child care decisions.
The government day care bureaucracy is going to cost, according to its own supporters, $6 billion a year. It will bankrupt taxpayers. It is not affordable. It takes choices away from women and families.
We will oppose it. In fact if there is an election, the Prime Minister has called this the free trade issue of this election. We will oppose a government day care bureaucracy and replace it with a direct tax credit for parents.
Hon. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether you are having as much difficulty following the bouncing ball of the members opposite. Initially they opposed this; we know that. When it turned out to be a measure that was well received by numerous Canadians, and various governments such as Manitoba, Ontario and Saskatchewan have actually entered into agreements with the government, those members started to change their tune. The Conservatives trotted out one of their members from Edmonton who said that if they formed the government they would introduce this measure.
I think the hon. member should go back to his leader and find out exactly what the policy of the Conservative Party might be on this issue. I understand that initially the Conservatives were opposed to the policy; now I am not quite sure. I suspect that the hon. member may not have his marching orders quite right from his leader.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, listening to the Conservative members, they have wound themselves up so tightly in procedural red tape it is hard to figure out any more what it is exactly they are in favour of. We hear they are not in favour of child care. They are not in favour of money for housing. They are not in favour of money for education. Exactly what do they stand for?
For us in the NDP we are very happy that the bill is being debated because it is based on what Canadians want. People see the procedural wrangling that is taking place and the dysfunction that has been created in this place by the Conservatives as opposed to getting down to business and delivering on basic issues that people want, on housing, education, the environment, child care, safety and protection of our children. These are things that people want to see delivered. I am very proud to say that as a result of the agreement in this bill we have additional investments of $4.6 billion that will go to those key items.
The parliamentary secretary is indicating that all these things were already there, but the fact is there was no relief for students. There was nothing in the original budget bill that was directed to students. There was nothing in the bill that was directed to housing as a new investment.
Is the parliamentary secretary committed to ensuring that this money is delivered to help students with their tuition? They are facing very real debt loads. This bill is about getting help to people, whether it is for housing or tuition, or through the gas tax for public transit. These are things that--
(1150)
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.
Hon. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member's initial comments that the party opposite seems to be not the official opposition party but the party of against. The opposition members are against all of the initiatives that the hon. member listed among a whole variety of other things. I am not quite sure where the official opposition stands, other than they may be in bed with the separatists.
To directly respond to the hon. member's question, she will take note of budget 2004 which implemented quite a number of initiatives with respect to post-secondary education. She will recollect that in the course of my speech I indicated quite a number of initiatives that we had taken in previous budgets with respect to that issue.
It is the same with housing. A lot of the housing programs have been rolling out over the past number of years starting as I said with the SCPI initiative in 1999, budget 2001, budget 2003. As I said earlier, the current support is something in the order of $1.9 billion. All of these initiatives build on those issues.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George.
This is a very dismal performance by the government. We are debating Bill C-48 but one has to wonder why. This seems to be the third Liberal budget since the February 2005 budget was introduced. Many people call it the NDP budget because, quite frankly, the two parties together do not have a majority in the House. I say that it is an illegitimate budget.
I do not think most Canadians will be amused with what the Liberals have been doing. They have been boycotting and filibustering their own legislation to not allow these bills to be debated and voted on in the House of Commons because they have become so desperate to hang on to power. They are hanging by their fingernails. This is a pathetic performance by a dying regime. We saw it in eastern Europe.
I have been in the House almost 12 years, like some of my colleagues, and this is the worst performance I have ever seen. I see desperate people making illegitimate agreements just to hang on to power. They are not respecting the parliamentary democracy we have in this country that at some time, and the Liberals do not seem to get this, maybe they will not be in power. They cannot conceive of that idea somehow so they will cut any deal and sign anything to hang on to power.
The budget was delivered on February 23 in which the Liberals announced $42 billion in new spending. They went back and brought the numbers up for the 2004-05 fiscal year. They said that the surplus would be $3 billion. Of course we snookered them by hiring our own fiscal forecasters at the finance committee who, just six weeks later, said that the Liberals were off and that the surplus was double that. It was $6 billion. For this fiscal year 2005-06 the Liberals have estimated a $4 billion surplus. The fiscal forecasters say that it will be $8 billion, only six weeks later.
The unplanned surplus that the parliamentary secretary talked about, I do not think so. We have seen this crass practice in the last seven years of lowballing surpluses to build up huge funds that they can use in election campaigns. That is really what this is.
Next came Bill C-43, the budget implementation bill. What did the Liberals do? They snuck in a couple of amendments. One was the Kyoto amendment, which all of a sudden was tagged on to the budget. Just a few weeks earlier it was not there but they snuck it in to put greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide in particular, in the noxious gas category to allow them to tax it heavily. Of course we cannot support that. We want to see it hived off and we will try to do that in committee, if we ever get there.
Then of course today there is the NDP budget, which is Bill C-48. What has happened since budget day itself? There has been an almost $8 billion turnaround. New spending plus the cuts in the taxes that were proposed under personal tax cuts and the corporate tax side has meant that essentially there is an $8 billion difference.
What do we have here? We have a desperate government trying to buy itself another election. It is in a massive spending spree. It is trying to bury Gomery by taking away people's attention from Gomery with this budget.
Let us look at what today's newspapers are saying. The headline in the Globe and Mail on page A4 states, “Liberal spending blitz hits $19.5-billion” . Steven Chase says:
|
--Ottawa's minority Liberal government has grown so big it now amounts to nearly half the spending unveiled in the February budget. |
It goes on to say, “the 2005 budget was only two months old when the government began piling on extra spending”.
A headline in the National Post today reads,“Spending spree continues”.
Another article reads:
|
Federal government spending announcements have hit $22.3 [billion] since [the Prime Minister] went on television on April 21 to apologize for the Liberal sponsorship scandal. |
Hon. John McKay: You don't like $1 billion for farmers? You don't like $1 billion off airport rent? Break it out, Charlie.
Mr. Charlie Penson: I know the parliamentary secretary does not like this because it is hitting a nerve and he is heckling but his time would be better spent, it seems to me, trying to prepare the pathetic campaign that he is going to have to run in the next few weeks.
(1155)
I do not know how the Liberals will defend this. The government is so desperate that it has been announcing all over the country that it has spent $1.24 billion, and that is new spending. It gets worse.
The National Post has decided to monitor this spending. In the last month and a half, since the government has taken this new tactic, it is up to spending announcement number 122. The last announcement was in St. John's, Newfoundland, quite a few were in Regina and several were in Toronto and Montreal. It seems like the spending is concentrated in areas where the Liberals will need support in the next election.
What bothers me is that Canadians have said things quite differently. Their priorities are quite different than these. I know the Liberals are trying to buy themselves an election but that is not what Canadians want.
I have been a member of the finance committee at different times over the years. During the prebudget consultations, Canadians told us that they wanted the government to cut its spending in areas to allow them some tax cuts so they could make decisions themselves. We heard from a number of organizations that talked about Canada's falling standard of living. In fact, it has been static for the last 15 years, which essentially means that we have gone backwards. Canada's productivity is only about 75% of that of the United States. The government does not seem to care.
Some corporate tax cuts were announced in the budget. They were going to be well back in the budget but now they are gone. It seems that the government has given in. It seems to be scared. It seems to be desperate and pathetic and its leadership is lacking. It is allowing any agenda it possibly had on February 23 to be hijacked in a desperate attempt to get votes.
I do not think that will work. People see through this. Canadians are not amused with what is happening. The Liberals are up every day in the House moving concurrence motions to delay their inevitable defeat in the House of Commons. We saw it again this morning. I came over to debate in the House this morning and the Liberals were at it again. They were discussing the Inuit sled dogs that were killed in 1955. The issue was so important they wanted to raise it in the House and yet two minutes later they adjourned the debate. These are the type of tactics they are using.
Let me talk about the Prime Minister for a moment. He had a big myth that he was the deficit slayer. He did a lot of that on the backs of the provinces by passing his problem on to the provinces. What we have seen is a guy so desperate to be in power that he unseated a sitting prime minister. He had a 15 year campaign to do that but now that he is in power he does not seem to know what to do with it.
About a year and a half ago a group of people in my riding said that they wanted me to switch over and sit with the Liberals so they could get cheques in the riding. They said that the member for LaSalle--Émard would sweep the country and win 250 seats. What happened to that?
The Prime Minister, who was finance minister at the time, had a myth going that he had done a great job of cleaning up the finances of the country. We now know that the provinces had to absorb a lot of that cost. We know that the current Prime Minister, who was going to campaign and win 250 seats, barely squeaked through with a thin minority.
What do we see now? We see the pathetic sight of a Prime Minister who cannot accept the will of Canadians, who cannot accept the fact that he does not have a majority in the House, making deals with everybody and his dog. He is spending money to try to buy the election, seat after seat. It is pathetic. It is illegitimate.
The government does not deserve to be in power any longer. The sooner it can be put out of its misery the better off we will all be.
The Liberals have this great thing going that if we do not pass the budget, everybody who has been promised money will not get it. What kind of blackmail--
An. hon. member: Extortion.
Mr. Charlie Penson: What kind of extortion is the government attempting? That is the worst example of governance that I have ever seen.
All this says to me is that we have a Liberal government and a Prime Minister, in particular, who are so desperate to hang on to power they will do anything. I think Canadians will see through this and they will throw those guys out at the earliest opportunity.
(1200)
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that there would be a little bit more discussion about the bill because I very much support it.
The bill deals with environmental issues for retrofits and low income housing, access to post-secondary education and foreign aid to Darfur and the Sudan, which I know all hon. members would like to see happen. It also deals with the protection of workers' earnings.
The member reverted to the budget implementation bill and said that his party was opposed to Kyoto and everything in it even though his leader ran out of the House before the budget speech was over to say that it was a great budget. Now those members turn around and play games.
The member said that the Prime Minister cannot accept that he is not in a majority. The fact is that the Prime Minister accepts the reality that it is not a majority. It is a minority government and minority governments have to work in a different way. It has to work collaboratively, which is exactly what has happened.
Since the member wants to play with the Globe and Mail, I think he had better come clean with Canadians. Which one of these spending items does he not agree with: the $1 billion for farmers, the majority of which is for western Canada and for Ontario; the $100 million for the pine beetle infestation in B.C.; the $4.6 billion for the items included in this bill, being foreign aid, tuition for post-secondary education, housing and the environment? How about the $5.75 billion for immigration services, tuition, training, administrative assistance and environment? How about the $8 billion to reduce the rent for airports?
If the Conservative Party wants to be critical of the government for spending and say that it is buying votes, would the member please tell the House and Canadians, if he can, which of these items he disagree with?
Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting philosophy, particularly coming from a government that had the opportunity to introduce all these measures, to which he has spoken, on February 23 in the finance minister's budget. Just the fact that there is basically nothing left of the finance minister's budget, I cannot see how the finance minister can continue on. It seems to me that he has to resign.
If all these measures were so important, retrofits and the environment and Sudan, why were they not in the budget introduced just two and a half months ago?
I have already told the member but I will remind him again. Even though the Liberals thought they would not have that much money in a surplus, they were suggesting $4 billion, the fiscal forecasters, Global Insight and so on that we hired, six weeks later already put the lie to that. They said that the government would have at least $8 billion in a surplus for this year.
The Liberals have been running this scam. It is a game where they are lowballing the surpluses. They have become the laughing stock of the world. Even the IMF identified it. The Liberals are chastising the corporate sector for corporate malfeasance and telling the corporate sector to clean up its act and what are we getting out of this government, including the Prime Minister when he was finance minister? They are lowballing surpluses year after year to the point where it is a national embarrassment. They even had to hire Mr. Tim O'Neill to bring in a report on how that might be changed. Where is Mr. O'Neill's report? It is being buried until after the next election even though they promised it would be out before the budget.
The member asked questions about Kyoto. Kyoto was not included in the February 23 budget.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Kyoto's not an issue in the throne speech.
Mr. Charlie Penson: That was an amendment that was brought in about a month later in a crass move to try to hide it in the budget. If we want to debate whether CO2 should be classified as a noxious gas, the varying CO2 that we give off as we breathe and plants use, why do we not debate that in the environment committee in the proper forum? No. The Liberals tried to sneak it through in the budget. Naturally we do not agree with that. Quite frankly, the member is way off base. He is simply clinging to power.
(1205)
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-48.
There is one thing that Canadians need to know, which the Liberals have not answered yet. They put forward their budget in February of this year. It was a budget that we in the Conservative Party could support. We could support it, but what we have now is a budget that is totally different from the one they put forward in February. This is a budget that was created by the NDP. The only reason these items are in this budget is that the Liberal government has chosen to climb into bed with the NDP.
Let me say that I do not fault the NDP members. They have the principles and the things they believe on how money should be spent. Good for them. We do disagree on how we get to certain goals, but that is fine. We have different philosophies.
What is really shameful about the Liberal government is that prior to making the deal with the NDP, it did not think those things were important. Suddenly, now that the Liberal government is falling quickly and the Liberals are drowning in their own cesspool of corruption, they find a lifesaver with the NDP. They say to the NDP, “Bring on those spending proposals and we will support them because we can make people think they are important to us now”.
In fact, if these proposals were as important to the Liberals in February 2005, why on earth were they not in the budget back then instead of us seeing the Liberals wait until they are drowning in their own corruption to climb into bed with the NDP? What we have here is a pirate ship that is sinking fast. The Liberal members, the Prime Minister and the government are spending like drunken sailors to try to keep that pirate ship afloat.
Let us be clear about where this money is coming from. There is only one source of revenue for the government and that is the Canadian taxpayer. This government over the last 12 years has plundered the hard-working Canadian taxpayer through tax increases, through government fee increases and through the pillaging of the $40 billion-plus EI surplus. I do not see anywhere in this budget that the Liberals are going to put any of that money back.
As my colleague from Peace River pointed out earlier, this is the third budget revision since February. We now know that the government is doling out $1.2 billion or $1.3 billion a day in new spending announcements since the budget came out. This is money that was not accounted for in the budget. It was not accounted for in February. It was not accounted for a couple of weeks ago, but suddenly the government has all kinds of money.
What the Liberals are saying is that they found unplanned surpluses, but really what they are not saying is that they are going to use the money that they purposely did not make public, on the surpluses that are coming.
Which word is best to use here, Mr. Speaker, fibbing or fudging? This is like fudging the budget in saying that we are going to get so much money less than what the reality of the income is going to be, and then standing up and spending like drunken sailors because suddenly they found a big bag of extra money.
They ask why we do not support this budget. We cannot because it is not the same budget that the Liberals presented in February. Since then, as my colleague pointed out, they have added Kyoto to the budget in an effort to try to plant the seed so they could have a lever to somehow begin taxing fossil fuels when they decide they want to pull the cash lever a little more. We cannot support that; we all know about the Liberals' national energy program that devastated the west some years ago.
(1210)
One of the members mentioned the $100 million for pine beetles. On this $100 million that the government promised to B.C. for pine beetles, let us be truthful: this represents only 10% of what the province asked the federal government for. It represents only one year of the commitment that the province asked the government for. The province asked for a commitment of 10 to 15 years. The government would not commit past one year. The government gave the province less than 10% of what was asked for.
While we in B.C. are certainly happy to get the $100 million, the government and this parliamentary secretary know that the provinces cannot operate on short term planning, especially when they have a crisis in their lifeblood industries. The Liberals know that.
We cannot support the budget or this bill. We understood from the government that in 2005 a deal had been made with the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador on the offshore oil resources. That was debated in the House. Everyone had the understanding, including the provinces, that this was a stand-alone deal cut with the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador and the government of Nova Scotia. We were happy with that. Our colleagues who represent ridings in those parts of the country were happy with that.
An hon. member: Nothing has changed for that--
Mr. Richard Harris: It was a stand-alone deal, but suddenly we find that this deal is included in a very large omnibus bill and we will have to vote for all the other things in order to get this bill through. This is not the budget of February 2005 that the government brought in, so how on earth can we support it?
This government is guilty of nothing less than reckless spending, deceptive practices and misrepresentation of surpluses it projected for the coming years. Worst of all, the government is in violation of the principles of running a good and honest government, because what the Liberals are doing with Bill C-48 is nothing less than making a deal that is costing billions of dollars of unscheduled spending. The government is on the road spending $1.3 billion or so a day in unscheduled spending for no reason other than that of trying to save the Liberals' sorry butts from going down as they become known as the worst and most corrupt government in the history of Canadian politics. That will be their legacy.
Claim what they may about past governments, the Liberals are part of the worst and most corrupt government in the history of Canadian politics. They think nothing of spending billions and billions of dollars of taxpayers' money in order to somehow salvage their fortunes. Canadians will not be blackmailed. Canadians will not be extorted. Canadians will not have any part of the corruption of this government and they will bring it down in the next election when it happens. We will listen to Canadians on this one.
(1215)
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, if my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George is serious about listening to Canadians, he should be accepting the changes that the NDP saw fit to have the government make within that budget so that we could support it.
These are changes that Canadians wanted. There are dollars for child care, affordable housing and foreign aid, which his own party supported but now is not going to. There are additional dollars for tuition and education for Canadians throughout the country. Canadians are going to benefit from that.
I am at a loss as to why the Conservatives would not now be supporting this budget with those changes. However, I do recognize that it definitely wiped the smile off their leader's face, that smile he had after the first budget. The moment that budget came down there was the Cheshire cat with the biggest smile in the world. He was so happy about the budget that he could not even get out of this House without that smile. It was a budget that did nothing for ordinary Canadians but did everything for corporate tax cuts.
Now the smile is wiped off your face and you have to do something for Canadians, not just for your leader.
Mr. Richard Harris: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member talking directly to me, because now I can respond to that.
When the budget came down in February we suggested that we would be willing to support it. As a matter of fact, we saved the government's butt on two occasions when the NDP and the Bloc voted against it. They did vote against it. We actually saved the government, because we wanted to make the government work. We were going to allow the budget to pass and we were going to try to carry on, watching the government very closely, believe me. We were prepared to carry on. The NDP and the Bloc voted against the provisions of the budget, so I do not know where the member is coming from.
Certainly on the items she just mentioned we do disagree on some. Child care is one example. We do not support state run child care. We support the government returning money to the parents of children and letting them decide which child care spaces they want to send their kids to. After all, it is the parents' money in the first place. Why should they give money to the government when the government will then tell them how to raise their kids? That simply does not make sense in this country.
While the NDP, and the Liberals as well, would love to have a state run, government child care system so they could build up a huge bureaucracy of people working in the industry, which would just fit fine with their philosophy, we on this side of the House in the Conservative Party believe that no one can raise kids better than the parents themselves. That is where the child care money should go.
We should give the parents of Canadian children the option of where they want to send their kids for child care, and not into some state run and state regulated child care service that is more like an institution than a loving home.
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will pick up on the point my hon. colleague talked about, caring for children and youth.
First, we now know that the Conservatives supported the first budget as it was. What has happened with the additional moneys that went into it? They are supporting our future, meaning our youth. It is for post-secondary education. It is providing money to support youth in terms of child care. More important, it is also supporting small and medium sized enterprises.
The question I really have for the member and his party is this one. Do they not support students? Do they not support making their lives easier? Do they not support post-secondary education?
I know why. Let me close with this. In the Conservatives' convention, those members voted down having a youth wing. That was publicly televised. Youth in my riding came to me and said, “My God, the traditional Progressive Conservative Party had a youth wing. The Liberals have a youth wing and so do the NDP, the PQ and everybody”. Those members opposite, the Reformers, known afterwards as the Alliance, took over and kicked out the Progressive Conservatives and kicked out the youth of Canada.
Does he not support post-secondary education? That is what it is all about.
(1220)
Mr. Richard Harris: Mr. Speaker, of course we support post-secondary education. Of course we support child care. We have a version that is a little different from what the Liberals and the NDP support in child care. We still believe that parents in this country have the first right of choice as to where their children go for day care while the government and the NDP believe that the government should somehow build and pay for institutions all over the country and we should send our kids to be looked after by some huge government bureaucracy.
As far as the youth wing in our party is concerned, I am proud that we consider our party a fully inclusive party, open to having all Canadians of all age groups in the mainstream of the party. We do not want to segregate youth simply because they are young. In our party, we treat them as adults and we ask them to be fully inclusive in the decision making. Why would we want to segregate them into a youth wing when we value their input in the mainstream body of our party?
An hon. member: As adults.
Mr. Richard Harris: As adults. They make adult decisions. Apparently the NDP and the Liberals simply do not trust their youth, so they relegate them to a youth wing and then make their decisions come through some sort of vetting process before they get to the main decision making body of the party. We do not buy that. We think youth are important and deserve full status in our party.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have been listening since this morning to the comments of my colleagues on both sides of the House, including members of the government, the Conservative Party and the NDP, in their questions and comments. I think that one aspect of Bill C-48 is not clear enough. Over the next few minutes, I want to shed more light on the debate so that people can understand what the current situation is.
This is not about being left-wing or right-wing, or about supporting or opposing a social measure. The Bloc Québécois members are social democrats to the core. Naturally, we support positions that lean more to the left than to the right. Overall, we use common sense and a moderate approach. At present, we are not talking about that at all.
We are talking about the fact that this is a minority government. To start, when it tabled its first budget, it did not receive the support of the House. The opposition had identified priorities that correspond to what the public we represent wants or would have wanted to see in the budget. These priorities, this consensus, were totally ignored in the budget tabled a few months ago.
The Bloc Québécois has been consistent from the start. This budget was unacceptable when it was tabled and it is still unacceptable today, even with these new measures. We cannot support a budget or an amendment to the budget, as presented in Bill C-48, when, fundamentally, we have remained consistent. We have said that this budget did not satisfy the top priorities of Quebeckers. Supporting this budget would mean betraying who we are.
As for Bill C-48 itself, we must consider the current context. We have a minority government that has not met the public's needs or listened to the opposition parties. It has acted like a majority government and has completely ignored the consensus of Quebeckers and even, in several instances, of Canadians.
Suddenly, it feels it is on the ropes. It is mired in corruption up to its neck. Everyday we learn something new from the Gomery commission, and it all adds up to the fact that a parallel group is not responsible for the corruption that occurred in connection with the sponsorship scandal, as the Minister of Transport said, but rather that this goes to the very core of the Liberal Party of Canada and even involves current ministerial aides.
The government is on the ropes. It can see power slipping away. So now it is throwing out commitments everywhere that it will not be able to keep, because it is going to be defeated this evening, with the motion of non-confidence the Conservatives have presented. So it is trying to play all sides at once.
There is one thing we need to keep in mind, however. Every time a government that is suspect, one formed by a party that is even more suspect, distributes such commitments—we are talking $1.2 billion a day for the past 18 days—this just makes it even more suspect. This government should already be in police custody. It has done enough damage to the taxpayers' money and to democracy, by investing billions of dollars uselessly in order to influence the results of the last referendum in 1995, and the 1997, 2000 and 2004 elections. Enough is enough. It should not spend, or commit to spend, one cent more. It has already done enough harm with the taxpayers' money.
Now we see the Prime Minister making commitments just about everywhere. Yet only a few weeks ago he had no leeway. When the budget was presented, let us not forget, we were told that the government would have liked to have looked after more of its priorities, but that its main priority was a balanced budget.
That is our priority too, but we are well aware that, when the first budget was presented in February, there was still considerable leeway available. The government could have looked after more priorities, such as correcting the fiscal imbalance. It could have changed the employment insurance program, as it has been asked to do for years. After two elections and commitments from the Liberal Party to improve EI, the improvements have never happened.
(1225)
We knew that there was money and that the government was twisted enough to not act on the public's priorities but rather to keep some manoeuvring room secretly for itself, as it has done since 1997-98. We have a minority government continually mired in corruption, according to the ever more astounding revelations at the Gomery commission. You can check in the blues and in our public speeches. We knew there was manoeuvring room and the Prime Minister would use it when the going got tough, as it has in recent days.
There is a reason behind the $1.2 billion in commitments daily. It is not to better serve the public. A few weeks ago, he could have included it in the budget per se. He could have acted on people's priorities, served this country's most disadvantaged. He did not. Why not? Because he thought he could get out of it and because the Conservatives did not reject the budget. A few weeks later, the NDP joined in to ally officially with a government that is suspect, I repeat. When you are suspect, when you are being held for questioning, you have to stop spending. You no longer have the moral authority to make commitments of several billions of dollars, as the government has done for the past 18 days.
“Do not touch taxpayers' money”, is the message heard throughout our ridings. “Stop making commitments. You are being held for questioning, you are under suspicion.” Arguments are added daily to the public's warnings.
They talk of the sponsorships. But there is more than that. Since 1993, since this government has been in office, there have been all sorts of stories, such that we should not let it have another cent, because it is spending all over the map.
On the other side of the House, the Liberals have a tendency to forget certain events. We all remember on this side—although memories on the other side are rather faulty—the scandal over Human Resources Development Canada, for which the minister responsible at the time is now the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the member for Papineau. A billion dollars disappeared under the stewardship of this minister and could never be found. Several years later—this scandal came to light some five years ago—the money still has never been found. Where is that billion dollars?
There is also the firearms scandal. We in the Bloc Québécois are in favour of firearms control, but not at any price. This program to manage and control firearms was supposed to cost $20 million. Now it is more than $1.5 billion. Where has that $1.5 billion gone?
There are also many problems with taxes and tax treaties. Why are these problems not fixed? Once again, the government is suspect. There is a treaty with the Barbados and regulations governing corporate taxes here that, when combined, make it possible for corporations to save money. Thus the Prime Minister's family business, Canada Steamship Lines, was able to save more than $120 million in federal taxes over the last five years.
With the Prime Minister setting this example and being a suspect in the sponsorship scandal—because more and more light is being shed thanks to the revelations of the Gomery Commission—could there be any doubt that the government is not only very lax but that this slackness is also very profitable for the Prime Minister and his cronies, the large corporations involved in international shipping.
I had an opportunity to work with Mr. Jacques Léonard, president of the Conseil du Trésor in Quebec City. Together with my honourable friend from Joliette, we were on a committee to review government management. There, too, not one more cent should be entrusted to this government in view of its poor management of the public purse. When the Prime Minister used to be Minister of Finance, he liked to boast that he was one of the best managers in the world. Well, we have made some fabulous discoveries.
(1230)
I will name a few. Listen up if you want to know what this government does with taxpayer dollars. While cumulative inflation was set at 9.6% from 1998 to 2003, bureaucratic spending increased by 39% during that same period. In addition, the number of public servants increased by 46,000, and payroll by 41%. In the Department of Justice alone, payroll increased by 141%, while inflation was still 9.6% during that period. The cost of political polls, which really do the public and the poorest families a lot of good, increased by 334%.
This government is quite fond of lavish spending. The cost of office furniture increased by 215%. Also, some $1.5 billion went to the gun registry, which we cannot mention enough. Furthermore, the Governor General enjoyed an 82% increase in her budget, while the average salary increase for low-income and middle-income workers, under collective agreements, was roughly 2% a year, for a modest increase of 8% during that period. Yet, the Governor General gets an 82% increase. A lot of good that does the public, the unemployed, young people who are victims of an underfunded education system.
It is scandalous. Not just the sponsorships, but all the waste, the mismanagement, the hidden funds, like the billion dollars at HRDC, all of it is scandalous. This lavish spending shows that the government has not had the moral authority to govern for a long time now.
We have been all the more convinced of this since hearing all the revelations at the Gomery inquiry targeting the Liberal Party and the staff of certain ministers, and even some ministers themselves who said they never saw nor heard anything about this scandal.
Today, we are being asked to respect the government and its new annual commitments of $1.2 billion. We will never do this. If the new commitments set out in Bill C-48 were significant, perhaps we would. However, such a corrupt government should no longer be managing our money or making commitments, but rather respecting the verdict that will be rendered this evening, when we defeat it. It is time for this government to step aside and stop spending our money.
I want to examine each of these commitments in turn. Some $1.6 billion is being invested over two years in affordable housing. There was no money for social housing a few months ago, no more than has been since 1993. Suddenly, there is $1.6 billion over two years for this sector, which needs two and a half times that amount each year in order to meet the needs of the public, which have increased since 1993. At that time, when the Liberals came to power, 1.3 million households in Canada needed access to social housing. Up to 50% of their income was going toward housing. At 25% of income, people are poor enough to qualify for social housing.
Now, 1.7 million households need access to social housing. At least 1% of the annual federal budget should be allocated to this sector to make up for lost time, following devastating measures, in the fight against poverty, by the former finance minister and current Prime Minister. With regard to housing, poverty is also caused by measures such as the drastic cuts to EI and federal transfers to the provinces for social programs. At one time, federal contributions were at 25% and even 50%, 25 years ago. Currently, it contributes about 11.5%
The Liberals are responsible for poverty. They did not invest in social housing. Suddenly, for fear of being defeated or being shown the door, they have committed $1.2 billion in initiatives in the last 18 days.
(1235)
They promised $1.5 billion for access to post-secondary education. For years now, since 1995, the Liberals have been pillaging educational systems everywhere in Canada, not just in Quebec.
In Quebec an investment of $1 billion was needed every year for the next ten years in order to remedy the chronic underfunding this government has caused. We have been presented with $1.5 billion for the next two years for post-secondary education. Do you know what that represents for Quebec? Approximately $188 million out of the expenditures of $12.2 billion. The potential is there, but the NDP was too quick to sell its birthrate for a mess of pottage to a corrupt government. We are talking $188 million for post-secondary education out of the $12.2 billion in education spending.
That is just mocking the public. It that is all it took to get the NDP to sell its soul to the corrupt Liberal Party, it is pretty insignificant.
As I have said, it is the same thing with social housing. They say there will be $1.6 billion over two years, but it would take $2 billion a year just to make up for lost time. And even that figure is based on previous needs, but the latest figures indicate that now there are 1.7 million households in need of social housing.
If the government had wanted to govern properly and had not got so mired in all the Gomery revelations—with all the distasteful and undemocratic details we have been treated to in the past few months—it would have had sufficient leeway to meet all the priorities mentioned to us at the time of a meeting between myself, the Minister of Finance and the Conservatives. It could have started to resolve the fiscal imbalance by greatly increasing education transfer payments. Now federal transfers account for 11.5% of education costs, everywhere in Canada.
It could also have corrected the equalization formula, as we asked, instead of signing piecemeal agreements. Moreover, in the budget implementation bill they want us to swallow the agreement with Newfoundland and Labrador, and with Nova Scotia. They want us to swallow an agreement that has just clouded the issue as far as fiscal imbalance is concerned, making it worse than before.
With this agreement, they have put huge pressure on the other provinces. They have created an imbalance, which may be called a horizontal imbalance, that is, they have increased the fiscal capacity of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia so much that it is now higher than that of Ontario. Ontario can well get angry and cry foul, like Quebec. The special agreements confuse matters rather than treat them comprehensively.
If the Prime Minister were really concerned about correcting the fiscal imbalance, he would not operate on a piecemeal basis as he did with Ontario, and as he does with the $1.2 billion commitments he has made a day over the past 18 days. He would not be concerned about sprinkling commitments here and there in order to save his skin. He would have worked responsibly during the past 10 months and presented a budget taking steps to resolve the fiscal imbalance. He would have had the support of the Bloc Québécois and probably all of the parties.
The provinces have to deal with unavoidable expenses in health care, education and support to the most disadvantaged families. They do not have enough resources. These resources are in Ottawa. The possibilities of deficit are very real.
Last year, for example, Ontario had a $10 billion deficit. This year, its deficit is $6 billion, and on it goes. Quebec faces huge pressure over taxation and a balanced budget. This could be remedied, but, for 18 days, the Prime Minister has not been concerned with correcting this fiscal imbalance any more than with remedying the employment insurance plan.
I can hardly wait to see the NDP members in the next election, which will probably be called this evening. They will go to their riding and say that they joined with a government that did not deign to do anything of any significance to resolve the EI problem. They were the defenders and attacked the government in order to have EI reformed and 60% of the population not excluded from it.
(1240)
Now, they join with the Liberals, who have forced hundreds of families into the street each year since the EI reform. They have kept them on social assistance and in a state of poverty.
In closing, I congratulate the NDP on its social and moral conscience.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot covered a range of items beyond the current bill. I understand his points. He represents the Bloc Québécois, the party that wants to separate Quebec from Canada. He is someone who I understand. Politically, he sees an opportunity to marry up with the Conservatives to cause some difficulties. This will be a big issue for Canadians.
However, I do not want to get into the political arguments. I want to talk about some of the issues. One thing the member talked about quite specifically, as it relates to Quebec, was post-secondary education.
Throughout his speech, he mentioned how critical he and his party were of the $4.6 billion of additional spending on environmental matters, like retrofits, low income housing, access to post-secondary education, foreign aid and the protection of workers' earnings. He highlighted post-secondary education and was very critical of the spending. He said that this was to buy votes. Then in the very next breath, he turned around and complained that it was not enough for Quebec.
The member is either for it or against it. He cannot have it both ways. If we are to have reasoned debate on some of these issues, one cannot argue all sides of the question and not let people know where one stands. It is important that the member clarify whether he does or does not support the additional spending on post-secondary education. He should make that clear. He cannot be on both sides.
The member also mentioned a matter on the question of fiscal imbalance. I know the member has been very active on this. He is the chair of that finance subcommittee. We had an opportunity to work together on it.
One aspect is very important to the question of fiscal imbalance, and that is the issue of tax points. The member knows of what I speak. He also knows that it is very difficult to somehow explain that the value of transfers to the provinces is a combination of cash transfers as well as tax points which have an economic value and a true cash value.
One thing we found out, and I have not heard how the member reacted, was when Ontario calculated the transfers, with regard to the health and social transfer, it calculated it only on the basis of cash only, not on the tax points.
As a result of his work, in terms of the economic equity issue, in his opinion does the issue of tax points have to be included in determining the effective transfers to the provinces?
(1245)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my Liberal colleague. I was attacking the government, and not specific individuals. I repeat that I have a great deal of respect for him.
He did not want to get into the political arguments, but he has done just that by saying that I was clearly a separatist and that, to me, this is an excellent opportunity to encourage Quebec's separation from Canada. I will simply and very calmly give him the following answer, since this matter is extremely important to me.
Under other circumstances, we would not have acted and we would have remained seated and silent. Unfortunately, the machinations of this government— which used public funds, 22% of which come from Quebec—are disgraceful and anti-democratic. The members of the Liberal government distorted the democratic process in 1995 by organizing the Montreal love-in. They used public funds, which flowed through the sponsorship program, or other tricks to simultaneously steal the 1995 referendum and a part of our soul from us.
We had clear democratic rules in Quebec. The yes side had $5 million, just like the no side, and we fought it out democratically in a battle of ideas. These people came and upset everything in the name of so-called Canadian unity. Whether federalists or sovereignists, Quebeckers had accepted these democratic rules. Then these people spoiled everything with their dirty money. They did the same thing in the elections of 1997 and 2000. Insofar as the 2004 election was concerned, we do not know yet, but there was still probably dirty money in the Liberal party's coffers.
So now we are accused of taking advantage of this opportunity to ride the sponsorship scandal. In fact, it is previously undecided Quebeckers who are deciding whether to get the hell out of this corrupt regime. It made me sick at heart to think that the Liberals had used my money as a taxpayer and that of my sovereignist neighbour—50% of Quebeckers are sovereignists. They used the taxes we pay to beat us in the last referendum. They subverted democracy and flouted Quebec's political party funding legislation and the Referendum Act. That really makes me sick.
Quebec's motto is Je me souviens. I can guarantee you that we will remember not only after the government is defeated this evening but also when the time comes some day to count up the people who are still undecided. Sovereignty will not be achieved just because of a tax question or a corruption issue. People in Quebec who are still undecided must understand that we send $40 billion in taxes to this bloody federal government. And then we take it in the ear when this money that belongs to us is allocated.
My hon. friend spoke about having it both ways. It must be understood that it is not his money or Liberal party money but the money of Quebec taxpayers. We send the federal government $40 billion in taxes and have to get down on bended knee to receive some of it back in order to reach a consensus on various matters and achieve Quebec's priorities.
That will be added to the arguments. If the Liberals thought that they were saving Canadian unity by subverting democracy and using dirty money, they were badly mistaken. The past is coming back to haunt them now.
[English]
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke about Liberal waste and Liberal corruption. We know this is a corrupt, wasteful government. I want to identify what I consider to be the number one article of waste in the Liberal government's agenda, and I would like to find out what the hon. member thinks of my thesis on this.
I believe the number one article of waste in the Liberal government's agenda is its attempt to create a government day care bureaucracy.
The supporters of a government day care bureaucracy, even in the CAW and in other organizations that have advocated a national government-run day care bureaucracy, believe it will cost between $6 billion and $10 billion per year to bring in the day care bureaucracy. At the same time as costing about 10 times what the Liberals claim it will cost, they will be taking choices away from women and families.
It is a paternalistic system and the women in my constituency have told me that they will not have the minister stand and tell them how to raise their kids. The women in my riding believe in their right to choose how to raise their own children instead of having the government take money out of their pockets and then spend it on raising other people's kids.
I want it on the record in the House, for all my constituents in my suburban Ontario riding to know, that I will fight until my dying day to stop that day care bureaucracy. It takes choices from women and families and it will waste billions. I invite the hon. member's comments.
(1250)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I can state right at the start that I do not share his opinions on public child care facilities.
We put such facilities in place five years ago in Quebec.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Pay close attention, this is important. We put public child care facilities in place. This kind of debate took place in Quebec at the start, but I can assure you that now people are very pleased to have child care for what was initially five dollars a day and now is seven dollars. People are very pleased, because it works. We were also very pleased in Quebec to be able to act as an inspiration for the rest of Canada. But during those five years of operating with our original idea, we bore all the costs ourselves. We also assumed the tax deductions and federal tax credits to which the parents would normally have been entitled. Because of the low cost, the five dollars and then seven dollars a day, we could not draw as much benefit from tax credits and federal tax exemptions, and we have never been compensated for that.
The child care system works. My party and I support it and are very pleased with it. We have focussed on the bureaucratic expenses which have risen considerably. Had their growth been limited only to inflation in these sectors—and not been 10, even 30 times greater in certain cases—we could have saved $5 billion annually. We could have applied these savings to increasing the number of public child care spaces.
What we are particularly opposed to is the laissez faire attitude, particularly where bureaucratic expenses are concerned. I have listed some of these already. Opinion polls, up 334% in five years, which makes no sense. Office furnishings, 215%, another aberration. These are luxuries to which we object strongly.
[English]
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on this very important debate and I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg North.
The voters in the last election sent a very clear message. They were not happy with continued majority Liberal governments. They wanted better; they wanted a new direction. It was the decision of a great number of Canadians that New Democrats should be sent to the House of Commons in order to attempt to achieve some of the goals that Canadians had in mind for people, their families and the environment.
When people vote for the New Democratic Party, they expect us to come here to work and not to play political games, and engage in the kind of political back and forth name calling and brinkmanship that has been going on in this House of Commons for quite some time. We of course looked for an opportunity to make a difference on behalf of the Canadians who voted for us, and Canadians more broadly, around the issues that they felt were most important.
We took a look at this budget when it was first presented and the first thing we noticed was that there was a very large tax cut being given to the large corporate sector. This was never promised in the election. Canadians did not vote for such an initiative. Yet ,there it was in the budget.
Meanwhile, Canadians had hoped that the budget would address affordable housing, significant action to achieve our Kyoto targets and reduce pollution so there would be clean air for people to breathe, and putting Canada on the international stage and to a position of honouring its commitments on foreign aid. Many other issues such as post-secondary education funding so that tuition fees which are rising through the roof and student debt which has reached completely unacceptable levels were not addressed.
We looked at the budget and saw that many of those commitments, many of those aspirations that Canadians had but had not been realized in the budget, represented a problem in that budget document. We had promises broken to Canadians, on the one hand, and on the other hand, we had very expensive initiatives that were never promised, namely, corporate tax cuts to the friends of the government. So, faced with that budget, we were unable to support it.
We did notice that the Conservative Party felt that it was a terrific budget and were happy to sit on its hands and not vote against it. As a result, it was going to move forward on that basis.
Then, as a result of the unfolding political games here in Parliament that have left so many people quite disgusted at what goes on in this place, the Conservatives decided that they would no longer support the budget that they initially thought was terrific.
We sat down and asked, as a caucus, “How can we offer to improve this budget to the point where it might actually deliver on some of the needs that Canadians are facing?” We consulted very broadly in this process. We talked to the NGOs, we talked to Canadians, and we talked to representatives of provincial governments, municipal governments, and the labour movement.
We decided to offer some initiatives, that if they were put into the budget at the same time as removing the overly generous, very large corporate tax cuts to big business, we could create a new balanced budget. It would be balanced in terms of its fiscal content and it would also be balanced in terms of its approach to dealing with the issues. Canadians could at least have on the table a budget that really represented their values, their perspectives, and the issues that faced them in their daily lives.
Furthermore, we suggested to the Liberal Party at the time, and to the Prime Minister, that if the government was willing to move in an expeditious fashion to actually adopt these changes to the budget, so that there could be some results from the deliberations over the last 10 months that have largely been unproductive in this House, this would represent a real contribution to Canadian political life and, more important, to the lives of Canadians themselves and to their families.
Canadians could then look forward to their children perhaps actually achieving post-secondary education and training for the jobs of the 21st century instead of having to decide, as many of them are right now, that they cannot afford to carry on with post-secondary education or pursue training that they need because they simply cannot afford it and it would be too much of a burden on their families.
(1255)
It is hard to imagine a more tragic circumstance than young people who have worked hard through high school, achieved the grades that are needed to be admitted to university or college, and then to have to realize that they simply cannot afford to make use of the opportunity that should be there for every young Canadian.
That was very important as part of our proposals. Our first proposal was that there should be a fund created that would allow for greater affordability of post-secondary education, with a specific focus on tuition fee reduction as a very important goal.
Second, we turned to the issue of affordable housing. I must admit that I was completely shocked when I read the budget document and saw that not one penny through the five years of that budget plan was being added to deal with the crisis of homelessness and affordable housing in this country.
Our party, Canadians, municipal organizations, NGOs and homeless people themselves have been calling for action to build affordable housing for years. I remember when two blocks from my home Eugene Upper perished and froze to death because we did not have enough affordable housing in our communities for people such as Eugene Upper to put a roof over their heads. It was absolutely shocking.
There have been many announcements made of large sums of money that were ostensibly to be spent. Most of that money has never flowed to the very people who are in need of housing. It has sat in accounts. It has been announced time and time again in press conferences and press releases where politicians in a self-satisfied way beat their chests about their level of concern. Yet, year after year goes by as homelessness increases and people die in the streets of a rich country such as Canada because we have no national affordable housing program to speak of.
It was the finance minister in the mid-1990s who annihilated the affordable housing construction program that in fact had won international recognition as the best housing program in the world. That was a housing program that was created at the time when the member for Ottawa Centre was the housing critic of the New Democratic Party and in a minority Parliament.
As a result of working for the interests of Canadians in that context we saw a minority Parliament working. I am very proud to be part of a caucus that is once again attempting to do exactly the same thing around affordable housing.
Third, we turned to the issue of the environment. The fact is that our communities need some of that huge federal surplus which comes to the federal government in part from a gas tax of 10¢ a litre, also GST on top of all of that from gasoline sale, and that never makes its way back into the communities to be invested on cleaning the environment.
In my experience in the municipal world and as past president of the Canadian Federation of Municipalities, we pushed hard against an intransigence on the part of this government for many years. Finally, we got the beginnings of some movement in this budget, 1.5¢ out of the 10¢.
We felt that was insufficient and that in a balanced budget context it was possible to do more. We proposed that an additional 1¢ would be delivered directly to those communities, so they could move on things like public transit which is so vital to reducing the number of smog days. In my home city of Toronto we are not on our first smog day of the season. There were smog days in February and then again in the month of May. When smog happens, it sends people to hospitals.
Fourth, we put a focus on international aid. Canada made a commitment to respond to the international needs of so many who are living at a dollar a day, billions of people globally. We have such great affluence that 0.7% of GDP should be directed to these purposes.
Our proposal to add a half a billion dollars in the next two years for that objective will move Canada on a trajectory toward achieving that goal. There is more to do. As we listen to Stephen Lewis and so many other eloquent speakers talk about the needs globally and what a Canadian dollar could do to save lives, we felt it was important to put that initiative as part of the revised better budget that would focus on people's needs.
(1300)
Last is the intervention to create $100 million fund that will help workers when they are faced with bankruptcies in their workplace. It is an absolute injustice that workers who have put all their work over so many years, their lives in many cases, into the profitability of a business would be left behind.
It is with a great deal of pride but also considerable humility that our party try to engage in this process in a positive way. We now have a better balanced budget for families and for the environment. Our goal is to have it passed.
Mr. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the leader of the socialist party, waxing eloquent of his new deficit spending deal with the Liberal Party. I would like to ask him a specific question about agriculture. That member, before the flip-flop occurred, when the original budget was presented, asked how Conservative members of Parliament could support that budge. He said:
|
How can the member from Saskatchewan stand and support a budget that gives nothing for farmers when they are living on the edge?...How will that help any of the farmers living on the edge. They are producing food for us and the world virtually for free? In fact, they lose money. |
He chastized us for not defeating the budget by voting against it. Then he cuts a deal with the Liberals, the corrupt ad scamming government, and still does nothing for farmers. He sold out his support without a dime in that deal for Saskatchewan's farmers, a group of people who are on the edge, who need some assistance. Why has he left them out in the cold after chastizing us for not defeating the budget? Now he comes in and props it up without doing anything that he said he would do.
He has done nothing to secure an equalization deal for Saskatchewan, a deal that would see billions of dollars remain in Saskatchewan instead of being clawed back from natural resource revenues, money that could be reinvested for farm safety net programs. We know the NDP in Saskatchewan does not fund programs such as CAIS like other provinces do. Its excuse is that it does not have the revenues. The Conservative Party urges the government to have an equalization deal, to get those dollars back to Saskatchewan so they can be put into those agricultural safety nets. There is not a word on this in the new Liberal-NDP coalition budget.
What does the member have to say to farmers in Saskatchewan who he has left in the cold, his betrayal of them by not standing up for them and not trying to negotiate a single new cent for them?
(1305)
Hon. Jack Layton: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the hon. member speak about this. That budget was being supported by the Conservatives only weeks ago. Frankly, it is difficult to warrant investing a lot of time in a response to those allegations, as unfounded as they are.
First, our party decided to go to work to address some issues, unlike the Conservative Party opposite. We brought proposals to improve investment across the country in key areas. Having spent many years working with the municipal organizations in Saskatchewan, the idea of having gas tax, and more gas tax as a result of our NDP proposals in the budget, is something they have sought for years. We are not just talking about SUMA. We are talking also about SARM. Perhaps the hon. member should spend a little more time getting to know these organizations.
We are talking about municipalities that are looking for some of the gas tax in order to invest in their infrastructure and that is of great assistance to farmers. I have spoken with farming families in Saskatchewan as well as their organizations, and the failed investment in infrastructure is one of the key issues. In addition, if this budget fails as a result of the actions of the member's party, then the funding, albeit inadequate I will grant that, available to assist farmers would disappear. At least there is something in the budget and by having the budget pass, there will be some benefits flowing in response, for example, for the BSE situation.
It is very interesting to hear members of the Conservative Party attempt to champion the farmers when they have never supported agricultural safety nets. In fact, we have heard many allegations on their part that these are too generous.
We are calling for concrete action that will benefit people across the country. We need investments in post-secondary education, in affordable housing, in getting the gas tax back to communities and in international assistance so Canada can play its full role.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in the debate on what I have called over the last number of days, the NDP budget bill. I am not trying to boast, but simply to put on record the good work of our leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth. I also want to acknowledge the work of our House leader, the member for Vancouver East.
These two individuals devoted an incredible amount of time over the last couple of weeks trying to improve a budget that was failing Canadians. They put hours of effort into convincing the Liberal government that its budget needed to shift priorities and ensure that fundamental issues of significance to the life and well-being of Canadians were added in the budget. It is as simple as that. We did not support the original budget. Why? Because on a number of these key issues, which I think Conservatives are concerned about as well, there was nothing in the last federal budget. There was nothing for housing or education, two of the most pressing issues facing our country today.
We did not support the last Liberal budget on February 23 because it failed Canadians and took away valuable money. I would agree with members opposite that we have to be careful and responsible with our dollars. We have to ensure a fiscal balance and that we do not run another deficit. We absolutely agree with that and we did it responsibly.
We went to the government with concerns about the $4.6 billion that it put against corporate tax cuts. That followed a corporate tax cut of millions of dollars over the last five years, bringing the corporate tax rate from 28% down to 21%. The last budget proposed another drop from 21% to 19%. We said that the government should take that money and direct it toward where it would make a difference in terms of creating jobs and improving the health and well-being of Canadians, as opposed to putting it into another deep, dark hole where we would not see more investment in Canada or increased productivity and where we would not see the riches, the wealth and the cash in which it is swimming distributed to Canadians.
The member for Nepean is getting a little agitated at our presence in the House today, and I hope he is agitated. I hope he is getting a lesson from some of the women in his caucus about his patronizing, chauvinist remarks when it comes to day care and women. I for one am offended by his remarks. I will stand in the House and do whatever I can to talk about how the Conservatives are insulting working women who are trying to juggle work and family responsibilities.
Excuse me if my voice is a little hoarse. I have been spending a lot of time talking about this over the last number of days. In fact, when I went home to my riding in Winnipeg North, I was inundated with calls from people who wanted to know about this budget. They wanted to know when it would come into effect. They asked that we ensure it happen. They pleaded with us to make it a reality for Canadians. It is the moment in the life of this Parliament when we have a decision to make that will truly make a difference for Canadians.
(1310)
Mrs. Joy Smith: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member from the NDP caucus across the way made mention that the Conservatives were not supportive of day care. She made some quite insulting comments on the record.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): May I remind the hon. member that we are now in debate. The hon. member for Winnipeg North has the floor. If she wishes, she may ask questions or make comments when she is done, but I am afraid this is not a point of order.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to take on that point of order at the first opportunity I have. I hope in the meantime the member for Kildonan--St. Paul will read the comments made by her colleague from Nepean.
I will get back to the issues at hand, the importance of getting this budget passed. The budget bill came about as a result of hard work by the NDP in cooperation with the Liberals. I tell the Bloc that this does not mean we condone or sweep under the carpet all the news we are learning about corruption and the sponsorship scandal. We know there will be an election on corruption. That is self-evident. We have a chance in the House at this moment to make a difference for Canadians. We have a chance to get a budget through that means something to the lives of working people and their families.
If my colleagues in the Conservative Party and the Bloc Party had been truly listening at our finance committee hearings and understood what was going on in those prebudget consultations, they would have agreed with us. They heard what we heard. We heard that if there were anything the government could do at this moment to grow the economy, to help reduce the debt, to ensure that we could thrive and be competitive in this world economy, it would be to put money into education, lower tuition and stop the patchwork band-aid of programs, like the millennium scholarship fund and the learning fund. We heard that the government should start to put something meaningful in place for students and help families send their children to post-secondary education.
We heard that not just from social justice organizations or student movements. We heard it from the business community, from corporations and from chambers of commerce. We heard it from every group that appeared before committee. They said nothing made more sense than to invest in education.
Through this time of cooperation between the NDP and the Liberals, we have managed to allocate $1.5 billion for education to help lower tuition costs, to help families send their sons and daughters to university. That is Parliament at work. That is serving Canada. That is why we are all here. That is also why New Democrats are determined to ignore the games being played by the Conservatives and others in the House and to put our noses to the grindstone and get this budget through. It is vital not just to families right now, but it is vital to the future of our country.
It is also important to understand that people are sick and tired of these games. They are sick and tired of all the different moves to try to help the Conservatives bring down the government. All those members see right now is power and the need to grab on to it. They are turning their backs on all those Canadians they came here to represent. They are turning their backs on families who want to send their children to university. They are turning their backs on families who cannot access affordable housing. They are turning their backs on people who need access to public transit. They are turning their backs on people who would like help in ensuring that their homes are made energy fit. They are turning their backs on billions of people around the globe who live in abject poverty, the millions who earn maybe $2 a week. They are turning their backs on Canada's responsibility to share a bit of our wealth to ensure that we do our part in diminishing world-wide poverty.
We come here with good faith, goodwill, in an attempt to make Parliament work. We believe not only do we require a budget that addresses the needs of Canadians, but we have to restore people's faith in this place. They are turning away from us. If an election is called in a short while, all those folks who have been watching this place or who have been hearing about it will have a hard time going to the polls. They do not see their hopes and dreams being represented in this place. They do not see their way of interacting with people, which is on a basis of cooperation and decency reflected in this place. Canadians are sick to death of what is happening here. We have an obligation to stop the games, get down to business and pass this budget.
I urge all members in the House to put aside their political agendas right now, leave them for a while, get this place working again. I urge all members to help us get this budget bill through. It is exactly what the Conservatives want. It would allocate resources from the surplus on an upfront, transparent basis.
(1315)
I want to remind the Conservatives that this is exactly what they have been calling for in the finance subcommittee dealing with the fiscal imbalance and the need to have more accurate forecasting. They have said, just like we have ensured in this bill, that moneys from the surplus are to be specifically assigned to projects so that Canadians know and have a say and Parliament knows and has a say.
We have made a difference. It is the path to follow for the future. I urge all members in the House to support this bill and get on with working for Canadians.
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech today and was quite astounded at some of the comments made.
I think it is quite clear that members on this side of the House want to give child care dollars to parents and let parents make their own decisions about what they want to do in terms of care for their children.
It is going to cost $6 billion in tax dollars to implement the program that is suggested here. As a member of Parliament and a parent who has raised six children, I will say that I like to make my own decisions about my children. People in my riding are saying that they want to make their own decisions for their children.
Why does the member want to take the decision making away from parents? Why does the member not want child care dollars to go to parents to let them, not the state, make their own decisions?
(1320)
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, first I have to tell the member for Kildonan—St. Paul that under the designs for a national child care program all parents and families have freedom of choice. Parents have freedom of choice to ensure that they can provide for their kids in a quality setting while they make a living to support their families.
It is absolutely ludicrous for those Conservatives to suggest that if we just gave the money to families, these day care centres, with quality, trained professionals, with good programming and with nutritious food, would miraculously spring into place and parents would be able to access day care at a reasonable cost.
An hon. member: That is fantasyland.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Absolutely, that is fantasyland.
The member should talk to the Manitoba Child Care Association, which has been leading this fight for more than 10 years, and probably for 20 years, trying to get a non-profit, publicly administered, quality child care system from one end of this country to the other.
Finally, let me calm down a bit to say that this is an important issue, just as education, housing and support for environmental projects are important to Canadians. All of this will be lost unless members over there can get their heads around supporting Bill C-48, which is the mechanism for accessing some surplus dollars to meet the priority needs of Canadians, and Bill C-43, which provides money for child care on a very sensible, reasonable basis that is clearly in tune with Canadian families.
All of that will be lost if those members decide to keep obstructing the House in the interests of their political ambition and their search for power as they turn their backs on the Canadians they claim to represent.
Hon. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments by the member for Winnipeg North. I know she is a longstanding member of the finance committee and well versed in financial matters.
I must say that when my party cobbled together this deal with the NDP, initially I was surprised, but then I thought that it was a good thing, for three main reasons. First, it builds on some of the investments the government is already making in some of these social policy areas. Second, it gives us a chance to pass the budget. I think it is a very good budget and Canadians want this budget. For example, we want to see money start to move to municipalities and communities. Third, it basically exposes more clearly that the Conservative Party is in bed with the separatists, which we in the House and in committees have known for some time now; it exposes it more clearly for Canadians.
I have a question for the member for Winnipeg North. One of the things coming out of this deal was that the corporate tax cuts were reversed or put off in some other fashion. I personally do not see corporate tax cuts as a means to an end in themselves, but I wonder if the member could comment on whether she thinks all tax cuts are bad or whether she sees any kind of positive relationship between cutting taxes and jobs and productivity.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague on the Liberal benches and I want to say that I am glad we were able to cooperate and come up with this better balanced budget.
I do take a little bit of umbrage with the member's comments, as well as those made previously by the parliamentary secretary, that these were items that were there and the Liberals are building on them. In fact, in terms of the February budget, there was nothing for education or for housing. We have been able to move the agenda and shift the government toward the priorities of Canadians.
On the question of corporate tax cuts, I think it is very important to remind the member that we are not talking about all tax cuts. We are not talking about the NDP's position on tax cuts. I can get into a long debate about that any time the hon. member wants. We are talking about this government's decision to suddenly insert into the February budget a $4.6 billion cost by reducing the corporate tax rate despite the Prime Minister saying in the last election that there would be no new tax cuts until programs had been restored and investments were made in key areas.
All we have done is make the Prime Minister keep his word. We have tried to keep the Liberals honest. We are fulfilling the very commitments that Canadians heard in the last election. We look forward to continuing to have this cooperation.
(1325)
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it has been fascinating to listen to some of the comments, questions and answers, especially from the Conservatives opposite when they talked about their leader's flip-flop on this budget. What was very interesting was their talk about the $5 billion for day care, when they said that the CAW predicted it would be $6 billion and then said that the Liberals are wrong by 10 times our projection, or in other words, $5 billion is really going to cost $6 billion and we are 10 times out. And with that kind of math, people expect that party to run the government? It would be very interesting.
I want to pick up in my speech on where the parliamentary secretary started to set the groundwork for this budget, where it is coming in and why we are able to make this type of investment in Canadians, in their education, health care and environment, in agriculture, in equalization and in all the areas where we are able to invest. Of course that is because of the tremendous work we have done over the years to cut down the very large deficit we had, which has put us in the situation where we can make these types of investments.
That confidence of the financial sectors in Canada continues today. I want to quote from today's London Free Press. Sherry Cooper, chief economist for BMO Nesbitt Burns, is one of the key economists in Canada and said today:
|
--Canada has no recession in sight over the next few years and will be a growth leader among Group of Seven countries. |
|
And next year, Canada will lead the pack, tied for first place with the United States, Cooper said. |
|
"Unlike the U.S., Canada has not had an economic recession in 14 years and no recession is in sight for the remainder of the decade," Cooper said. |
|
Next year, Canada will be neck-and-neck with the U.S. with a three-per-cent growth pace.... |
|
The Quebec economy is expected to grow at annual rates of 2.6 per cent this year and 2.9 per cent in 2006.... |
|
Growth in the developing world will provide strong support for commodity prices, driven by China's huge demand for pulp, cement, coal, iron ore, steel and aluminum. |
|
"This will translate into higher prices. Quebec and Canada's top export to China is pulp--and prices there are likely to edge upward from already high levels," Cooper told Montreal-area business officials. |
|
Cooper noted Canada will be the only country among the G7 industrial powers--which include the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Britain and Italy--to have current account and budget surpluses in the coming years. |
This management of the economy is why it gives me great pride today to be able to express support for this budget that builds so strongly on supporting the priorities of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
In fact, I have been greatly anticipating today's debate, because I believe it will bring to light the shocking degree to which the priorities of the official opposition are out of step with those of Canadians.
After all, we are talking today about measures that reinforce and complement a budget that Canadians want to see passed as soon as possible.
They want to see it passed because it delivers on their priorities without compromising the extraordinary fiscal progress that has underpinned Canada's remarkable economic turnaround. They want it passed because it will create wealth, expand economic opportunities and strengthen our social foundations so that Canadians can share in the promise of our society. They want it passed because they are justifiably baffled by the daily dithering and flip-flopping as to where the official opposition actually stands with respect to this budget.
So without further ado, I would like to proceed with today's debate in the hope that the members of the official opposition will gain some insight into the importance of the issues at hand and maybe even come to some sort of conclusion they would be willing to share with the Canadian public about whether or not they support the measures in question.
As my colleagues have so eloquently explained, this bill provides increased support for a number of measures for which there is a great deal of public support, such as affordable housing construction and post-secondary education. However, I would like to dedicate my time today specifically to the provisions of this bill that provide for environmental initiatives such as public transit and the creation of a low income housing energy retrofit program.
(1330)
As hon. members are no doubt aware, budget 2005 confirmed our commitment to transfer $5 billion to cities and communities. The bill before us today would provide $900 million for environmental initiatives, the bulk of which will be aimed at public transit in our cities and communities. It is money that can be used to invest in public transit systems that reduce pollution and gridlock and, in doing so, will help achieve our Kyoto targets and reduce the health care costs associated with pollution.
As I just mentioned, the bill would also dedicate a portion of the funding to support a new low income housing energy retrofit program that will benefit low income families and communities in a number of ways. First, these retrofits will greatly reduce the heating fuel requirements for thousands of low income Canadians across Canada. In doing so, it will leave these families with more disposable income that can be dedicated to other priorities.
At the same time, these retrofits will reduce emissions at the community level, again helping us reach our Kyoto targets and reducing the health costs associated with air pollution.
I know the Leader of the Opposition has characterized the bill as disgraceful, at least the week after he said that he was supporting it, so he clearly has not changed his mind about the importance of increased funding for the important public services provided by municipalities.
Where do other Canadians stand on this issue? Unlike the official opposition, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities was unequivocal in its analysis. It said:
|
This money will go directly toward meeting the needs of communities: fixing our streets and bridges, upgrading water treatment plants, improving and expanding public transit, and providing much needed services to people. We applaud the Government for recognizing the challenges Canadian cities and communities face and for taking action to help us meet these challenges. |
Canadians and their representatives in the government understand first and foremost that their quality of life is not a means to an end. It is an end in itself. Canadians also understand very clearly that the bill represents an opportunity to improve our quality of life that cannot and must not be passed by.
Because the bill is a bill that addresses some of the highest priorities of Canadians, priorities like affordable housing, post-secondary education, the environment and foreign aid, make no mistake that these are the priorities of Canadians. I therefore urge hon. members to vote in favour of the bill.
I would like to talk about a number of other areas related to the environment that we have been promoting because it has not been talked about in great detail in the debate and it certainly is one of the priorities for Canadians.
We have put forward innovative initiatives in cooperation with business, the environment sector and individual Canadians to deal with the critical challenges facing us related to greenhouse gases, smog and the environment. Nowhere is this more prevalent than in my riding in the north where we see dramatic effects already of greenhouse gases and global warming.
I was at a conference speaking to some of the many initiatives that Canada has already taken. We had already committed $3.5 billion to global warming and the environment before the budget was introduced. The member who spoke before me suggested that it was still a philosophy. I had to set him right and I invited him to come to the northern part of Canada where it has a much greater and quicker effect so that he could see where the ice roads were melting at the detriment of our economy. That is the only way to get major shipments into many areas of the north. He will see where ice bridges are coming in much later and leaving much earlier. He will see where some of our first nation administration buildings were collapsing or shifting and had to be rebuilt or moved because of the melting of the permafrost. He will see the changes in our species and the critical effects on species that some northerners who still live a traditional lifestyle depend on.
That is why it was so important in the budget and through other mechanisms to support the environment. We put forth a climate fund. The climate fund is not just a direction that we should do this, this and this. It is not a rules based, punitive type of action. It is a fund where people and organizations can come forward with creative solutions.
(1335)
Many Canadian environmental organizations and businesses have been very creative and they came forward with ways to save energy and thus reduce greenhouse gases. Energy consumption, of course, is the biggest producer of greenhouse gases. This is very innovative approach and will be a key part of our plan.
Another section of the plan is the partnership fund. Some of the provinces have some very innovative ideas and they want to work in partnership with us. Under the partnership fund the provinces and the territories can come together with us and move forward on some mega projects that will help the environment.
Another major section of this strategy is the auto emissions agreement, a tremendous agreement that we spent years negotiating with the auto industry. California, which is the only other area in the world that has done anything major, its auto emissions strategy is now up for possible court challenges and may never come fully into play. However, in our system, because it is voluntary and has been agreed to, it will be a major assistance to reducing smog, increasing the health of Canadians, reducing greenhouse gases and improving our climate.
Because of the government's, and in particular the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of the Environment, very effective negotiations and partnership with industry, we have the large emitters regulations. As members know, the large final emitters produce the biggest chunk of greenhouse gases in Canada and the attendant smog that has an effect on the health of Canadians.
We have worked for years to understand them individually and to come up with the types of regulations that will not harm them but will, because of the increased energy efficiency, allow them, as some of them have already done, to become more effective and more productive. Some would have suggested, although not those in the official opposition, that we just have one size fits all. However, economically, that could force some of those companies out of business because some have different processes, different indices and different ways of creating greenhouse gases, some which can be controlled. That is why this is a very sophisticated, realistic and competitive part of our plan.
Another part of our plan, which, I have to admit, we have done a terrible job in this House of promoting, is the many energy efficiency programs that we already have in place.
We have some of the leading scientists in the world related to different types of renewable energies and reducing energy efficiencies to our housing programs, to solar energy, to biodiesel, to ethanol and to wind energy. All these programs, including part of our $3.5 billion in investments, are in place and are moving along. They are being taken up at a faster rate by Canadians. They have been very successful and have removed thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gas, even before this budget, which of course adds some huge increase and promotion to our effort.
Over and above all those existing programs, we are adding new renewable energy programs to enhance other renewable energies. As members know, we had already increased by four times our wind energy subsidy to enhance that but now we are also going to invest in other renewable energies in this new program.
Another area that we are looking at is Canadian carbon sinks. This is another opportunity waiting to happen, an opportunity to help Canada do its part in its leadership role. We will be having the world meeting in Montreal shortly. To increase that leadership role, there is potential with these carbon sinks.
Whether it is in agriculture and the methods of agriculture that will leave greenhouse gasses in the earth for a longer time just by improving our processes or whether it is in forestry where there is lots of innovative research, we have some of the leading researchers. Canadian government scientists are some of the leading scientists in the world and are respected around the world for some of the work they are doing in how to manage the forests and improve them as greenhouse gas sequestration.
(1340)
How long can we manage the forests? How long can we keep the carbon there and how long can the forests provide economies for rural Canadians living near those areas?
A majority of first nations people live near the boreal forest. They can play an important part in managing that to improve their economies. Through the economic opportunities available through the sequestration of greenhouse gases, they can have revenues in times when it is hard to have revenues, especially in the very far north where the forests, on their own and unmanaged, are not overly productive.
We could look at ways of preserving forests and providing compensation to capture greenhouse gases as opposed to totally eliminating the forests, which sometimes takes hundreds of years to grow the farther north we go, and would not be economic from that perspective.
Another very dramatic contribution that we are making is to cut our emissions by one-third. For the Government of Canada to make a commitment like that to limit our greenhouse gases by one-third of what we now produce is a major commitment. Of course we cannot expect others to follow if we do not lead. We are asking far more of ourselves than of anyone else in the Kyoto plan.
The fact that we are asking of ourselves and of Canadians through the one tonne challenge is the reason we will have the moral authority to ask the rest of the world, the developing countries that have not yet gained as much from greenhouse gas emissions, such as China and India, to make huge contributions to them as developing countries in the first round. When we show our leadership then we will have the moral authority to ask them to come in on the second round with the major contributions that they can make.
It is not that we are not helping them already, as I am sure a few members of the House know. We are already dealing in clean coal technologies, another one of the areas in which we are performing a leadership function.
By helping China, which burns incredible amounts of coal and the greenhouse gases negatively affect Canadians, as they do everyone else in the world, with clean coal technologies to reduce it greenhouse gas reduction, helps us, and there is a lot more potential for that in the future.
With the investment in coal scrubbing, we can take out all the nitrous oxides, the sulphur dioxide and the mercury and we can sequester carbon dioxide, another project in which we are involved.
Another area where we have major investments of over $10 million is the sequestration of CO2 in mining properties in Alberta where we produce oil and gas. I am sure some members of the opposition from that area of the country would be quite interested in these very successful projects that are providing leadership in the world. We take carbon dioxide and store it underground. It also helps the petroleum industry to extract more oil and gas from those areas.
In conclusion, over and above probably the best received budget in Canadian history, starting of course with the approval of the leader of the official opposition, I am also proud of the amendments we have made because they are all areas that are important to us.
Everyone will agree that we have invested in foreign aid, housing, education, environment and public transit in the past. In a minority government it is good that we have come to an agreement to accelerate these contributions, which are important to Canadians and important to us, a bit faster than we had expected. This was the task put upon us by the people of Canada when they asked us to join with at least one other party in putting together a budget. I am very proud to support the budget that is so well received in the public.
(1345)
I call upon all the parties in the House to join me in supporting economic development, the poor, education, health care, foreign aid, and the cities of Canada and municipal infrastructure that will make Canada even more the best country in the world in which to live.
Mr. Richard Harris: Mr. Speaker, I realize my colleague from Wild Rose has an excellent question and I will defer to him.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I had a difficult time following the last speech. There was one thing I did catch. It was consistent with the throne speech, very consistent with the budget speech and now consistent once again. The word “agriculture” was used for about one-tenth of a second or so. It was slightly mentioned.
This wonderful new budget agreement that the government has come into with the leadership of the NDP talks about a lot of wonderful things, but agriculture is not mentioned once again. It is the same old story, agriculture is never mentioned and never solved.
I have heard that $6 billion has gone to the farmers. I have news for those members. The money has not gone to the farmers. That is all a bunch of nonsense. These are big announcements that have been going on for a long time since I have been here. The money is not getting out to the farmers, or does this member not know how many people have gone broke and gone under and had to sell out because of the lack of funding? The funding just does not get out there.
I received a call a few minutes ago from a lady who said she had received her CAIS money after many dollars were spent getting accountants to help her. It was $322.19. She had been waiting since 2003.
These NDP members are talking about a $1.5 billion injection into education. Are they gullible enough to believe that it will actually happen? The government has not kept its word on anything. They make these big, flowery announcements and they do not pan out. It is time that Canadians woke up.
On the topic of this babysitting stuff or national day care, I would like this member to know that I have several communities in my riding with probably a population of 200 people. We have thousands and thousands of rural people who do not have access to day care anywhere. However, they will be expected to pay for it. They will be expected to fork over the taxes so the big city people can have their day cares. They receive no help in return for staying home with their children. There is no reward for that. They get taxed more than the people who go out and work.
It is becoming an absolutely one sided farce. I am really tired of it. I have said hardly anything in the last few days on this. I am getting tired of hearing these wonderful things this government is doing when it has failed. The government has failed the people in my riding. Every farmer can tell the government that it has failed dismally.
I do not know why in the world this outfit over there would shine up with the NDP that wants to throw more money around like crazy and not even mention once again agriculture, the people who are hurting on our land. When will the government wake up and start doing what is right for the people of Canada?
Hon. Larry Bagnell: Mr. Speaker, I spent about 20 minutes explaining what the government is doing that is right for the people of Canada. However, I always enjoy the member opposite. I know he is very committed to his work and very passionate, and he says what is on his mind.
In fact, I am delighted that he made the point that I have been trying to make for the last few weeks in the House concerning the consistency of this budget and the throne speech and our platform. In our platform and in our throne speech we talked about help for seniors.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
(1350)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Order, please. The hon. member has the floor. We would like to hear his answer.
Hon. Larry Bagnell: Mr. Speaker, as I was trying to say, I am delighted that the member has reinforced the point I was trying to make through the budget debates over the last few months. We have been consistent with our platform and with the throne speech. We followed right through with the budget. We have kept our promises which is what Canadians want. We kept our promise to support seniors, wind energy, day care and education. We kept our promise to have the biggest environmental budget in history.
Related to agriculture, imagine the party opposite running the country when two of its members have just said that there was not a cent toward agriculture. Well, where were they several weeks ago when we announced $1 billion? If $1 billion is nothing to them, if they cannot keep track of that from two weeks ago, how could they possibly run the country?
What is embarrassing is that they support the budget and then the next week they do not support it and force us into an agreement with another party and now they are complaining. What do the people who supported the Conservatives in Calgary think when their member has forced us to make this deal with the NDP? What do their constituents think when they flip-flop and cause us to make this deal? As a matter of fact, I am proud of this deal.
What do the people of their ridings think about the fact that they have never asked any questions over the last few months? In fact, their finance critic was asked to resign yesterday. When have they asked any questions about anything of our ministers? It would be fascinating if the press did a tally of how many times our ministers have been asked about government departments over the last few weeks.
I know we are not allowed to comment on who is here and who is not, but in question period there are empty seats over there because our ministers have not been asked about health care, the poor, agriculture, education, foreign aid, and all the issues that are important to Canadians. If we are not being held accountable, how could they provide a government?
When they talk about transparency, why are they not allowed to talk about what their constituents are saying? They were all told not to speak about what their constituents said about the election. Why are the members for Newmarket—Aurora or Central Nova not been heard from in the last few days? We would like to hear from all the Conservatives. There are actually two or three progressive ones there, unfortunately for us. It would be great to hear what they had to say.
The saddest result of all this, as everyone knows by looking at the polls, is that an upcoming election would increase the strength of the separatist movement in Canada. The fact that any members in the House would put their party, to get a few more seats, above the interests of Canada to set an environment where the conditions would be ripe for a referendum is a very sad position for that party and for Canadians. It would lead to potential difficulties in unity in this country and an expensive election that no one wants. Canadians have told us that and yet the other side will not take that leadership just as it would not on Iraq.
When I asked their leader why the party that was based on grassroots Reform Alliance and used to listen to their constituents did not listen to them when it came to the war on Iraq, he said, “We need to have leadership. We cannot listen to constituents”. They are doing that again by forcing an election which will cost $250 million. They want to waste that. The polls show it will be another minority government which would waste another $250 million. That is what is concerning Canadians.
I would therefore encourage both parties in the opposition to support this budget, probably the most popular budget in history, that helps Canadians in so many ways, helps the economy, the poor and the sick, education and first nations people. If I am asked another question, I will get into the embarrassing record of the opposition on helping first nations people. We are attempting to make progress in this budget and with the aboriginal round table.
(1355)
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to take the member up on it. This morning we had a motion on a report on aboriginal cultural affairs. I was very concerned that the opposition did not want to put up people to debate the issues in the report nor to ask questions related to the report. I would simply ask the hon. member, could he make a comment on that and how important cultural matters are to the first nations?
Hon. Larry Bagnell: Mr. Speaker, I was never so shocked as I was yesterday in the House when Her Majesty's loyal opposition actually proposed in a member's statement that they would help first nations people after all the times they have voted against land claims agreements. Nothing has changed. We added money to the budget to help aboriginal people and we are making progress, but that party voted against that, and those members speak against it in their speeches.
This morning one of their members talked about our quiet member for Nunavut who was speaking up for the rural aboriginal people in northern Canada and who actually went against our party on a motion. They said this was procedural wrangling.
They originally supported and now are voting against our budget that has money for health care for aboriginal people, lifelong learning, housing, economic opportunities and land claims. The opposition has the absolute nerve to suggest, after all these attacks on the progress for aboriginal--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar.
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the very exciting and prominent new member of the House of Commons, the member for Edmonton—Spruce Grove.
In my four minutes I would like to refer to a Toronto story. I know the Toronto Star is hardly a bastion of conservatism, but it has an article that says, “PM's spending spree smacks of desperation”. It certainly does, but it also should strike fear into the hearts of anyone who understands fundamental money management.
We are talking about $1.25 billion a day for the last three weeks that has been committed by the government opposite in contravention of the most fundamental principles of money management, without due regard for the process of evaluation, and without a plan. The Liberals are so desperate for ideas over there that they have gone to the NDP for help. It is pathetic. If Canadians wanted an NDP budget, they would have elected more than 19 members of Parliament for that party. They did not.
An article in the Globe and Mail today was entitled “Liberal spending blitz hits $19.5 billion”. It said:
|
Toronto-Dominion Bank chief economist Don Drummond said he believes the Liberals are obliged to table an economic update to tell Canadians how all this new spending fits in the fiscal plan. |
It went on:
|
To tell you the truth, I would think everybody's sort of lost track. |
The fact of the matter is that the government is desperate. It is corrupt. It is indecent and dangerous. It is selling this country's fiscal future down the river as it will do anything to cling to power. It is trying to cover up a vote buying scandal with another vote buying scandal. It is trying to buy its way out of trouble. One thing is absolutely for certain, Canadians are on to it. Canadians understand what got the Liberal Party into this mess and Canadians are not interested in being bought by their own money.
Here is another comment from another article today. This is interesting. This is from Michael Murphy, senior vice-president of policy for the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. He said:
|
The government has clearly made a decision to spend its way to the next election. They've now basically said: “To heck with that budget, here's new stuff”. |
It's back to the future for the Liberals. This is what got us into the massive deficit financing of the past, the whole principle of concentrating benefits, making promise after promise regardless of the legitimacy of the spending or regardless and disrespectful of a plan of any kind.
They threw it around in a one and a half page bill that the NDP members sold themselves out for. We knew that the NDP members would prostitute themselves, but they did it cheaply in this case because this is a one and a half page bill with no commitments on the part of the government other than to do orders in council in broad general categories.
For example, the Liberals claimed to care about aboriginal housing. They are going to address aboriginal housing, but without a plan, how can they possibly do that?
(1400)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): It being 2 o'clock we will now proceed with statements by members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[S. O. 31]
* * *
[English]
Asian Heritage Month
Ms. Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, May marks Asian Heritage Month, an occasion for Canadians across the country to reflect on the contributions of people of Asian heritage to the building of Canada.
Asian Heritage Month was first celebrated in Toronto in 1993, followed by celebrations in many cities across Canada. In December 2001 the government officially recognized the month of May as Asian Heritage Month. In schools, community centres and workplaces Canadians are invited and encouraged to improve their understanding and appreciation of the often neglected yet important contributions Asian Canadians have made to our country.
As elected representatives, we should take pride in the accomplishments of all the diverse citizens of this remarkable country.
* * *
Sutton Fair
Mr. Peter Van Loan (York—Simcoe, CPC): Mr. Speaker, August 4 to 7 will herald the 150th Sutton Fair. The fair's historical roots as an agricultural exhibition of animals, crops and handicrafts continues today, but the Sutton Fair is much more now, offering midway flash, entertainment, contests, shopping and food, the Sutton Fair ambassador contest and the Georgina Idol talent competition. Today there is something for everyone, young and old, city or country, resident, cottager or visitor.
In the 1800s members of Parliament Conservative Richard Tyrwhitt and Liberal William Mulock displayed their animals at the fair. Even Prime Minister Mackenzie King, although he was twice rejected by local voters as MP, came to open the fair as prime minister in 1925. It is an event not to be missed.
This August I hope to see everyone at the fair.
* * *
Thunder Bay Bombers
Mr. Ken Boshcoff (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pride to rise today to congratulate the members of the Thunder Bay Bombers senior men's hockey team on their Allan Cup win. Two provinces and two time zones away from home, this team made the incredible and improbable a complete reality in a four to three overtime victory.
Thunder Bay has now claimed the Allan Cup a record 10 times. This remarkable win brings the national championship back to Thunder Bay and the province of Ontario for the first time in 16 years.
The Thunder Bay Bombers represent nearly every facet of hockey in the community of Thunder Bay. Team members include former Lakehead University Thunderwolves, pro players, alumni of the former Thunder Bay Junior Flyers, and minor hockey coaches.
Please join me in congratulating the Thunder Bay Bombers in another of a long series of Allan Cup victories.
* * *
[Translation]
Pay Equity
Ms. Paule Brunelle (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on May 4, the women of the Pay Equity Network demonstrated on Parliament Hill calling on members of Parliament to pass proactive pay equity legislation.
On Saturday some 5,000 women, gathered in Quebec City to welcome the world march of women's global charter for humanity, called for pay equity, among other things.
Over a year ago, the federal pay equity task force published its report recommending passing new legislation. One year later, the Liberal government still has not tabled a bill to correct the present injustices. Under current legislation, the onus is on women to file complaints.
Need I remind the House that equal pay for work of equal value is a human right? What is the government waiting for to acknowledge this through appropriate legislation?
* * *
(1405)
[English]
Family Expo
Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this weekend there is a wonderful event occurring in my riding of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. Atlantic Canada's first family expo entitled “We Love Our Children” will be held this weekend, May 14 and 15, at the Dartmouth Sportsplex. It will feature three pavilions that will host parenting workshops, information on family travel, health, nutrition, education and much more.
There will be entertainment by top family entertainers, including Treehouse's Max and Ruby, Razzmatazz for Kids and CBC Party with Mark and Clifford. Featured speakers include former MuchMusic VJ and current TV host of Yummy Mummy, Erica Ehm, math specialist John Mighton and Daisy Rock guitar inventor, Tish Ciravolo.
This unique event for Atlantic Canada is dedicated to our most valuable resource, our children. Check out the website at familyexpo.ca.
This event would not have happened without the tremendous efforts of volunteers and in particular the hard work and dedication of Suzanne Morrison and Andree Gracie. I wish them all the best and look forward to being there.
* * *
Lupus
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today is World Lupus Day, an opportunity to increase awareness of this disease with a thousand faces.
Lupus is a disease in which the immune system attacks the body's own healthy cells causing tissue damage, organ failure, and in some cases, death. Lupus can strike any tissue or organ in the body, including the skin, muscles, blood vessels, lungs, heart, and brain. Over 50,000 Canadians are affected by lupus. It strikes men, women and children of all ages, but primarily women during the child-bearing years.
While new research brings promising findings each year, there remains no cure for lupus. Early detection and treatment can help to slow the debilitating effects of the disease. However, many physicians are unaware of the symptoms. As a result, many people suffer for years before obtaining the correct diagnosis and treatment.
There is an urgent need to increase lupus awareness. I would like to applaud organizations like Lupus Canada and the Lupus Erythematosus Society of Saskatchewan for providing support for those affected by this disease and raising awareness of lupus.
* * *
Conservative Party of Canada
Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' lust for power hit new lows when their deputy leader compared his party's efforts to topple the government to what transpired in Ukraine last fall. It is particularly hypocritical since the Conservatives initially tried to scuttle my motion in the House last October for Canadian involvement in Ukraine's orange revolution.
In Ukraine it was the government that would not respect the will of the people. In Canada it is the opposition that does not respect the will of the people by trying to force an election that two-thirds of Canadians clearly do not want. In Ukraine it was the government that falsely tried innocent people. In Canada it is the Conservative-separatist alliance that falsely passes judgment prior to Justice Gomery's issuing his findings.
Just as former Ukrainian President Kuchma fanned the flames of separatism in Ukraine to retain power, in Canada the Conservative Party leader is willing to do the same to attain power.
The Conservatives trivialize the sacrifices of millions of Ukrainians. Clearly their leader is no Yushchenko.
* * *
[Translation]
Dominique Chevalier
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to acknowledge the commitment of a great citizen of Drummond to the cause of women.
Since 1986, Dominique Chevalier has been running Partance, an agency serving women in the regional municipality of Drummond who are seeking employment.
In addition to her involvement in women's groups, she participates in the Conférence régionale des élus de la région 17, the Conseil régional des partenaires du marché du travail, and the Corporation de développement communautaire in Drummond, and she chairs the board of the Femmes et production industrielle regions 4 and 17.
In its recent women of merit competition, the YMCA gave her an award for her social commitment. At the Réseau industriel Drummond awards gala, she won the 2005 award for best business coach.
On behalf of the people of Drummond and my colleagues, I congratulate Dominique Chevalier, a woman of distinction.
* * *
[English]
Grenada
Hon. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after almost eight months since hurricane Ivan devastated the island of Grenada, I wish to report to my colleagues that there are encouraging signs of recovery on the island state.
Grenadian Canadians, NGOs, and the Government of Canada responded to the emergency needs. They sent a tonne of relief materials and to date the Government of Canada has contributed $10.7 million.
As the Prime Minister's special adviser on Grenada, I visited Grenada to assess the status of the ongoing reconstruction efforts headed by the Agency for Reconstruction and Development.
Canadians have continued to show their desire to help, and I would like to thank all Canadians for their unrelenting support. There is still much work that needs to be done to rebuild the island to pre-Ivan conditions. I encourage all hon. members to help Grenadians “Build Back Better”, which is the theme of their rebuilding efforts.
* * *
(1410)
Calgary International Airport
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Calgary Airport Authority has set the standard for efficiency, convenience and consumer satisfaction. Travellers from around the globe praise the Calgary airport for its ingenuity and responsiveness to the needs of air travellers. It is an exciting, modern gateway to Calgary.
In just 13 years since its transfer from the bureaucratic rule of the federal government to a non-profit local authority, it has become the leading airport in Canada. No longer a drag on the federal treasury, the Calgary airport pays its way and contributes handsomely to the federal treasury.
The Liberal government has taken advantage of this success. In 2005 the airport will pay $25 million in excess rent to the federal government. This gouging is unfair to Calgary and to the air travelling public, reducing competitiveness and hindering growth.
When the previous Conservative government transferred the airport to a local authority, we never intended the airport to become a cash cow for the Liberal government. While the minister's announcement yesterday to avert an immediate crisis in federal airport rents is a positive first step, the ongoing punitive rents charged to the Calgary Airport Authority remain an unfair burden to the travelling public and a disincentive to further progress.
* * *
[Translation]
Cité étudiante de la Haute-Gatineau
Mr. David Smith (Pontiac, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw attention to the remarkable performance by the representatives of the Vallée-de-la-Gatineau at the 2005 Défi sportif held in Montreal from April 27 to May 1.
Thirteen young students from the Cité étudiante de la Haute-Gatineau in Maniwaki proudly took part in the various challenges at this international sports event for young people living with physical or intellectual disabilities.
Our dynamic delegation came away with two gold medals, no less, both won by Dany Langevin-Lajeunesse.
Congratulations to teachers and staff who made it possible for these 13 athletes to be part of this enriching and rewarding experience. My warmest congratulations once again to the practical training group from the Cité étudiante de la Haute-Gatineau.
* * *
[English]
Dairy Industry
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): Mr. Speaker, once again I rise in this House to ask the Liberal government why it refuses to take action to defend supply management at the international level. Last year Canadian farmers lost $171 million in market share from imports of modified milk products.
Under article 28 of the GATT we have the tools to protect supply management, but the government refuses to act. Time and time again, dairy farmers have asked the government to apply article 28 and all they get is evasion and denial. When I hear the agriculture minister say that he is exploring ways to position the industry, I hear Liberal doublespeak that tells Canadian farmers the government will take concerns that need action now and put them on the long slow train to Palookaville.
Canadian farmers deserve better. Other countries stand up and fight for their farmers. I am calling upon the government to stand up and defend supply management and apply article 28 now.
* * *
Prescription Drugs
Mr. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the health minister's inaction is putting Canada's prescription drug supply in jeopardy. For months he has promised to present options on the cross-border drug trade. He promised to bring options to the Commons health committee but to date we have seen nothing.
Developments in the U.S. are quickly overtaking the minister. City and state governments are passing laws to allow bulk imports of Canadian prescription drugs. A number of bills before Congress would give the go-ahead to this practice. Bulk sales could create shortages for Canadian patients and threaten our price controls. It is time for the ministers to stop talking and start acting.
Canadian Internet pharmacies, or at least most of them, are not interested in bulk sales to the U.S. Without some regulation, bulk exports could soon be a reality. When will the health minister start supporting the Conservative Party position and block bulk exports of prescription drugs?
* * *
(1415)
[Translation]
Government of Canada
Mr. Robert Vincent (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is ignoring the wishes of most of the parliamentarians in this House.
It started in October, when the Bloc Québécois introduced a subamendment to the throne speech calling for the resolution of the fiscal imbalance. Although it received the unanimous support of Parliament, the Liberal government has ignored it.
The federal government's disdain has reached new heights with its insouciant approach to the majority decisions of this House, for example, the creation of a plan to help older workers, the creation of a trust account for the tainted money and the reversal of the decision to close nine RCMP detachments in Quebec.
Do we have to hire Earnscliffe or Groupaction to get our message across?
Since the start of the 38th Parliament, this government has been besmirching democracy. It will have to acknowledge the confidence vote and act accordingly.
* * *
[English]
Minister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works has a horrible habit. He says one thing when he means another, or is it that he means one thing and misquotes another? After all, he spends question period quoting from the day to day testimony of newspaper columnists.
Just take Lorne Gunter's Edmonton Journal column from Friday, which the minister used as proof positive that he was on the right side of the sponsorship scandal. But wait, as Mr. Gunter points out in his Sunday column, “Skippie the wonder puppet” took the reference out of context.
Let me correct the minister and tell him what Mr. Gunter really thinks about the Prime Minister's intrepid sock puppet: “Do you ever notice how he looks as guilty as a Liberal about it? He's been totally co-opted”.
I could almost feel sorry for Skippie, a man that the former lieutenant governor of Ontario, Hal Jackman, called “a disgrace to our political system” and “a sleaze of the worst order”. Then again, he would probably just misquote that and think it was a compliment.
* * *
VE Day
Mr. Lloyd St. Amand (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Canada's veterans.
I had an opportunity this past weekend to participate in the Brant Liberation of the Netherlands parade. The parade, which took place in Brantford on Sunday, May 8, was an event which marked the liberation of the Netherlands and the end of the second world war.
It was an honour to welcome the Vice Consul of the Netherlands, Mr. Loek Felten, to Brantford to take part in such a significant event.
I would like to personally thank the organizers of this tremendous event and pay special tribute to the many veterans who gave so much of themselves for our rights and our freedoms. Our debt to them is beyond calculation.
I also wish to pay tribute to the Brant Naval Veterans Association for its weekend events marking the 60th anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[English]
The Budget
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in its deal with the NDP, the government claimed it would remove some tax relief measures from the budget, yet budget legislation before this House does not exclude any of these tax measures. Can the Prime Minister clarify whether the tax measures are in or out of the budget?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have indicated that we are anxious to move forward with the tax arrangements that are contained in Bill C-43. It is clear that if those measures were put to the House now the bill would not succeed. Therefore, there are two of those measures which we propose in the appropriate way to put in a separate piece of legislation.
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): In other words, Mr. Speaker, the government's present budget legislation before the House does not actually describe its budgetary policy.
Let me ask another question. In its deal, the government claimed it would immediately spend more money on NDP priorities. The new budget bill is unclear if or when that money will be spent, whether it will be done this year or next year or in any year at all. Can the Prime Minister tell us exactly when the government plans to spend that money?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when one takes a look at what those items are in terms of post-secondary education, the environment and foreign aid, those happen to be Liberal priorities, they happen to be NDP priorities and they happen to be Canadian priorities.
It would be very good if the opposition were to join with us on--
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
(1420)
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, if they are such important priorities one would think the government would be able to tell us when it is actually going to implement them.
[Translation]
The Prime Minister refuses to acknowledge the existence of the fiscal imbalance, but he has now met with the premiers of Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and soon Saskatchewan as well, to settle it.
When will the Prime Minister admit to all the premiers, including the premier of Quebec, that fiscal imbalance does exist?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the agreement reached this past weekend with the Government of Ontario meets the priorities of the government, of the people of Ontario, and of all Canadians, priorities such as post-secondary education and the environment.
There were also some issues specific to Ontario, among them immigration. Ontario was, for example, the only province not to have concluded an agreement on training. That was a shortcoming that had to be remedied, and we did so.
* * *
[English]
Sponsorship Program
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, sworn evidence showing illegal election payments implicates people right up into the office of the Prime Minister. Liberal officials are confessing to money laundering and campaign law breaking.
The Liberal response is to attack these whistleblowers. Sworn testimony was given that witnesses were threatened with ruined reputations. Liberal lawyers are now busy backing that up with lawsuits.
Why are Liberals outraged only when one of their own spills the beans?
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I asked this question yesterday: what has the member forgotten about fundamental justice? It is an abuse of the privileges of this House to use it to slander people who cannot respond in this House.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government knows that Gomery will never be able to name names. They have tied his hands with clause k. But senior Liberal party organizers and key ad scam figures are naming names. They disclose that thousands in laundered cash were handed to Liberal staffers now running ministers' offices, including the PMO.
This scheme is corroborated by top Liberals such as Corbeil, Béliveau, Brault and Thiboutot. Why does the government simply ignore this testimony?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member questions the mandate of Justice Gomery because she wants to cast a pall over the work of Justice Gomery. She wants to try to attack his credibility because she is afraid that his report will actually show Canadians that this Prime Minister has acted honourably.
The fact is that clause k has been in several inquiries, including the Arar inquiry, the Walkerton inquiry held by a Conservative government in the province of Ontario, the Stonechild inquiry called by an NDP government in Saskatchewan, and the Grange inquiry held by, again, a Conservative government in Ontario. Clause k is a standard part of basically the mandate of any government inquiry.
* * *
[Translation]
Government of Canada
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today is the moment of truth for the Liberals, who no longer have the moral authority to govern. The motion that will be brought before the House recommends that the government resign. This is clearly a non-confidence motion, and the three opposition parties recognize it as such.
Will the Prime Minister respect the will of the elected representatives of the people, recognize that he no longer has the confidence of the House and call an election?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Québécois is well aware of the fact that, according to the experts, this is a procedural matter and not a confidence motion. The committees are their own masters. They are entitled to make their own decisions, and we will await the committee's decision.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in 1926, following the tabling of a similar vote of non-confidence, Mackenzie King, a Liberal Prime Minister, realized that he no longer had the support of the House and resigned. He did not hang on. He respected the convention on confidence. In short, he acted as a responsible head of government, and history testifies to that fact.
Like Mackenzie King before him, will the Prime Minister act like a worthy and dignified head of government and respect the will of this House?
(1425)
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again, the leader of the Bloc Québécois must know that there will be many occasions, in connection with the budget and the opposition days, before the month is over to move non-confidence motions here in the House.
The government is quite prepared to be judged, but only judged following a motion of non-confidence, according to tradition.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the substance of the motion this evening is very clear. The intentions are obvious. Parliament will have an opportunity to withdraw its confidence in this government.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the rules of Parliament, while providing some guidance on the matter of confidence, leave the Prime Minister with some responsibility to demonstrate his judgment and his sense of democracy, and that in this regard he must consider tonight's vote a vote of confidence?
[English]
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said previously, this motion is not a matter of confidence. The vote this evening is not a matter of confidence. It is a procedural motion to refer a report back to the committee. We certainly will not prejudge what the committee might do. The committee could choose to defeat that amendment. It could choose to change that amendment.
With respect to the example provided from 1926, I would suggest that my hon. colleague reread it, because it in fact proves the point that we are making. In 1926 it was a report coming out of committee, not a report going into committee--
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
[Translation]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this evening the Prime Minister will find himself having to rise above partisan considerations and recognize that he no longer enjoys the confidence of Parliament.
Does the Prime Minister intend to honour this democratic vote or to plunge Canada into an unprecedented political and constitutional crisis by clinging to his job?
[English]
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can only hope that you will ignore some of the hysteria coming from the hon. member across the way.
The obligation we as a government have is to provide opposition days and in fact those are provided. There are a couple of bills in the House that are in fact confidence issues. They are budget bills. When they collapse, there will be a confidence vote. Those are legitimate measures of confidence. I would encourage the House to get on with debating the budget bill.
I indicated earlier on that there will be opposition days by the end of May, when the opposition members can in fact hold the government to account with a confidence motion if they so choose.
* * *
House of Commons
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians are rightly disgusted by the spectacle of this Parliament. They are tuning us out and turning us off. They see us being far more interested in ourselves and our own political interests than in the interests and needs that they and their families have. This is the crisis we are at.
Will the Prime Minister accept some responsibility for this mess because in the end we can only learn from the mistakes that we admit?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe the point raised by the leader of the NDP is very well taken. I think all party leaders, and indeed all members of Parliament, should accept the responsibility. In terms of the civility of the debate in the House, there is no doubt that there has been a substantial deterioration in words used and accusations made. Allegations which people would not make outside of the House are made here without any inhibitions. I think we all suffer and the House suffers when Canadians watch question period and the nature and the way it has evolved. I would hope we can improve that.
* * *
Standing Committee on Public Accounts
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the self-centred politics we have seen is what makes it so difficult to get things done around here. For example, getting a better budget adopted is blocked by self-centred politics. It meant that extraordinary steps in extraordinary situations had to be taken to see the charter on veterans adopted, and we are pleased that has happened. We worked very hard to try to get a better budget put together and to have it adopted.
My question is for the chairman of the public accounts committee. Is he willing to commit today that the vote today will not be put before the committee until we have had--
(1430)
The Speaker: The hon. chair of the public accounts committee and member for Edmonton--St. Albert.
Mr. John Williams (Edmonton—St. Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the leader of the New Democratic Party is jumping the gun. We have not had the vote yet. Therefore, there has been nothing referred to the public accounts committee on this issue yet.
* * *
Sponsorship Program
Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the trail of dirty money winds its way to the Prime Minister, it is clear he is breaking another promise to Canadians. Yesterday, we heard that his supporter and the Minister of Transport's aide, Richard Mimeau, received $6,000 in dirty money to cover campaign expenses.
Two months ago, the Prime Minister said, “Anybody who knew about that and did nothing should resign immediately”. That person has not quit. When will the Prime Minister finally keep a promise to Canadians and fire Mr. Mimeau?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize what the hon. member said on March 10 in a press release. She said:
|
Forcing and election would paralyse federal government activities and hurt Canadians...It is also imperative that the Gomery inquiry gets to the bottom of the sponsorship [issue]...An election now would prevent Justice Gomery from finishing his work as scheduled, and may put the whole commission in jeopardy. I believe Canadians are not anxious to fork over another $250 million [for] another election so soon after the last one. |
That is what she said on March 10.
Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC): Mr. Speaker, all of this before they changed the budget. The Prime Minister was quick to fire those people associated with his predecessor, Mr. Chrétien, but apparently he has lost his nerve when it comes to his own cronies.
Mr. Mimeau is a key Quebec lieutenant and a supporter of the Prime Minister. He is an aide to the Minister of Transport. It is no longer just about the old guard, it is people who are working right here, right now.
Why should Canadians believe the Prime Minister did not know any of this when the trail is leading right to his door?
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, frankly, because the individuals in question have absolutely and completely denied the allegations and have asked their lawyers to take action on it. What the member has to remember is that people do have rights in this country whether or not they are demonstrated on the floor of the House.
[Translation]
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Benoît Corbeil tells us that two employees from the office of the Minister of Transport received tainted money from Groupaction: his press attaché, Irène Marcheterre apparently received $5,000 and Richard Mimeau, $6,000.
When will this tainted money be returned, as the Prime Minister has promised?
[English]
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it would be interesting to spend a little time with Marleau and Montpetit which talks about the privileges of the House and what it confers on members. It confers grave responsibilities on those who are protected by it. By that I mean specifically the hon. members of this place. The consequences of its abuse can be terrible. Innocent people could be slandered with no redress available to them.
I would caution hon. members to use a little judgment.
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC): Mr. Speaker, members of the House also have the right to have their questions answered in question period.
Last week we learned that the transport minister was lobbying without properly registering himself as a lobbyist as is required by law. Now we learn that two people who are working in his office received dirty sponsorship money.
My simple question for the Prime Minister is, when will the dirty money be returned to taxpayers like the Prime Minister promised?
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that those two individuals have absolutely and completely denied it and they are taking action to defend themselves, which they have the right to do. We should not jump to the execution before we have had the trial.
(1435)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the comments made by Benoît Corbeil at the Gomery inquiry are very incriminating and implicate members of the Liberal Party of Canada. Whether they are accusations or allegations the result is the same: dirty sponsorship money was used to pay election workers.
In light of these damning revelations, does the Prime Minister not feel that he has no choice but to put the dirty sponsorship money received by the Liberal Party into a trust?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, these are unfounded allegations. Legal action was taken following Mr. Corbeil's testimony yesterday.
The only way to know all the facts is to have Justice Gomery's report. Canadians and Quebeckers want this report. The interests of Canadians are more important than the interests of separatists.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, are we to understand by the minister's comments that all those who did not send a formal notice are acknowledging their guilt?
Jean Brault, Michel Béliveau and Benoît Corbeil all said the same thing, that the sponsorship cash was used by the Liberal Party to pay election workers in violation of the Canada Elections Act.
In light of all this mounting testimony, does the Prime Minister realize that the only solution left to the government is to deposit the dirty sponsorship money into a trust?
[English]
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the House yesterday afternoon that Bloc member said the following, “We want to leave Canada. So let us. That is exactly what we want”.
Despite the attempts of Bloc members to hide their separatist agenda, their true intentions come through. They want this Parliament to fail because they want this country to fail. It is time for the Conservatives to stop lying down with the Bloc and start standing up for Canadians who want this Parliament to be sustained.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Yet, Mr. Speaker, we did not buy three elections with dirty money.
On the eve of the last election, the Minister of Transport made a commitment, on behalf of the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada, to put the dirty money in trust.
How can the minister explain that it was necessary to put the dirty money from the sponsorships in trust last year, and now, with all that is coming out in the Gomery inquiry, it is apparently no longer appropriate to do the same?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are also allegations that the Parti Québécois received inappropriate funds. The Bloc thinks that, if the separatists are the ones getting dirty money, it is not as dirty.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the government insists on bringing up the subject of the Parti Québécois, why does it not follow its example and put the money in trust immediately?
In light of the revelations in the Gomery inquiry, clearly the government no longer has our confidence. Under the circumstances, there is no question of this government running another election on dirty money.
What is the Prime Minister waiting for before creating a trust account as the House is asking him to, and putting the dirty sponsorship money into it immediately?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the party has been clear. If the party has received any inappropriate funds, the party will reimburse the taxpayers. There is one leader who is working to clean up this system and that leader is our Prime Minister. If the separatists do not believe the allegations against some within their ranks, perhaps they ought to support the work of our Prime Minister and wait for Justice Gomery's report.
* * *
Justice
Mr. Peter Van Loan (York—Simcoe, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has said four times in the House that he was unable to do anything about political interference in the appointment of judges because of the Gomery commission.
Yesterday, Justice Gomery confirmed that he did not have the authority to inquire into this other scandal. The Minister of Justice was well aware that Justice Gomery could not investigate this serious matter.
Why did the Minister of Justice attempt to mislead the House yet again?
The Speaker: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. However, I do have some reservations about the formulation of the question.
(1440)
[English]
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clearly the Gomery commission is well established. We set out the guidelines that follow in a normal way and fashion and it complies with the normal rules that we would expect of a judicial commission. I think that is appropriate.
Mr. Peter Van Loan (York—Simcoe, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps saying that Gomery will get to the bottom of this. The rules say that he cannot.
The Minister of Justice misled the House when he said that Justice Gomery would investigate admissions of Liberal tampering in the process of appointing judges. Yesterday Justice Gomery confirmed what the Minister of Justice knew--
The Speaker: Order, please. I was speaking with the Clerk and did not hear all that the hon. member said, but I understand he suggested that the minister misled the House. He knows that making these kinds of statements are not proper.
If he will put his question directly, we will proceed and I will review the blues and, if necessary, have a withdrawal from the hon. member.
Mr. Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, the minister told the House that Gomery would investigate these questions. Gomery says that he has no authority to do that because his hands are tied.
Since the Prime Minister has tied Gomery's hands, will the Minister of Justice stop telling Canadians that Gomery will take care of it and call for a full investigation into his own party's tampering in the appointment of judges?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again, the opposition members are attacking the mandate of Justice Gomery. They realize, after months of work, after months of testimony, after $72 million invested in getting to the truth by Justice Gomery, after 12 million pages of documents being reviewed by the Gomery commission and countless days of testimony, that there has not been a scintilla of evidence that has in any way demonstrated that our Prime Minister has acted inappropriately.
They are attacking the mandate of Justice Gomery to try to discredit it because they do not feel they will like the result of his work.
* * *
The Budget
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC): Too bad Gomery was not looking at Earnscliffe, Mr. Speaker.
We know the Prime Minister believes that post-secondary education, the environment and low incomes are all his number one priorities. He basically confirmed that earlier in question period. Yet his NDP deal, as reflected in Bill C-48, does not establish programs for any of those number one priorities. Funding if necessary, but not necessarily funding for his number one priorities.
Has the Prime Minister explained to the NDP that the money for all of his number one priorities will not flow until the fall of 2006, if it flows at all?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the legislation makes very clear that the government is seeing access to funds in fiscal year 2005-06 and fiscal year 2006-07. The terms of that access are very clearly spelled out in Bill C-48, as well as the purposes of the money in terms of the broad categories.
It is now obviously up to the relevant government departments to develop the specific programs that will dedicate those funds to the purposes described in Bill C-48.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance revealed that the Prime Minister's deal with Premier McGuinty really was not worth the napkin on which it was written. Basically in an interview, when the parliamentary secretary was asked about funding for this, he said, “Well, there's a reasonable chance” that the money would not flow to Ontario.
When the Prime Minister struck his deal with Premier McGuinty, did he tell the premier that there was a reasonable chance that the money would not flow?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously there are important elements of the arrangement with Ontario that are dependent upon very important conduct in the House of Commons, including the passage of the budget.
I would remind the finance critic for the opposition that within a couple of hours of the announcement of the budget plan on February 23 he said “this budget is a step in the right direction”.
* * *
[Translation]
Economic Development
Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. Soon, the House will be asked to vote on Bill C-9, which reinforces the role of this agency in Quebec.
Can the minister tell us why the Bloc Québécois intends to vote against this bill? Why is the Bloc voting against the economic development of Quebec?
Hon. Jacques Saada (Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister responsible for the Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the stakeholders in the social economy, the municipalities and the regions of Quebec want this bill, and the Bloc is voting against it. The federal budget includes an additional $307 million for Quebec alone, and the Bloc is voting against it.
The Bloc Québécois is voting against the economic diversification of the regions, against the most vulnerable communities, against research and innovation and against Montreal's development. In my opinion, the Bloc is putting its interests ahead of Quebec's. Canada has always played a fundamental role in Quebec's economic development and it will continue to do so, despite the Bloc Québécois.
* * *
(1445)
[English]
The Environment
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions in the past I have felt that concentration in Parliament on corruption, scandals and things like that were putting a larger question at risk, and that is the long term sustainability of our environment, which, if we do not save, all these other questions become academic.
I am particularly worried now about the Devils Lake diversion. We only have until June before that water starts to flow. I am concerned that if we have an election, the government, which is already not focused enough on that issue, may become even less focused.
What is the government's plan, election or no election, to make sure that dirty water does not flow into Manitoba's ecosystem ever?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can tell the House that when the Prime Minister met with the president and when I met with Ms. Rice, the secretary of state, we insisted that the case of Devils Lake be brought to the borders board which is the place at the commission to really look into it.
This is not a case of Canadians versus Americans here. Many Americans are on our side and they do realize that the Devils Lake diversion should not take place.
* * *
Maher Arar Inquiry
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, shamefully, no minister in the government is taking responsibility to ensure that justice prevails in the Arar inquiry.
Before recusing himself, the justice minister acknowledged the dangers of trampling human rights and trashing justice in the name of security.
In contrast, the fisheries minister, assigned explicitly to ensure justice for Arar, is defending non-disclosure, justifying lack of transparency and deferring to the public security czar.
Why is the Prime Minister's government, in the name of security, stonewalling the inquiry's pursuit of justice?
Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to assure my hon. colleague that I have instructed the officials to make the fullest disclosure possible in keeping with the security and safety of police work.
* * *
[Translation]
The Economy
Mr. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in this Liberal lottery, the government has announced spending of $22 billion over and above the $42 billion already promised. Don Drummond, chief economist with the TD Bank, has said the government appears to have lost all sense of how much money is involved. After more than 10 years of sacrifices by Canadians, these financial follies could well put the country back in a deficit.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that he is drifting toward economic disaster in an effort to keep his government afloat?
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the newspaper stories and the websites to which the hon. gentleman refers are clearly in error. They are adding together apples and oranges and bananas and coming up with pineapples and not making any sense whatsoever.
The fact of the matter is that all of these spending plans of the Government of Canada fit within our fiscal framework.
Mr. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that is why the finance minister should provide a full accounting to the House. At least former finance minister John Turner had the integrity to resign when Mr. Trudeau flip-flopped on fiscal and monetary policy in 1975.
In fact, only one month ago the finance minister said, “You can't, after the fact, begin to cherry-pick”, meaning the budget. He added, “If you engage in that exercise, it is an absolute, sure formula for the creation of a deficit”.
Will the finance minister show some ministerial accountability, admit that he has made deficits a real possibility, admit that the Prime Minister has cherry-picked his budget and resign?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker, I most certainly will not. The fact is the budget, in the form of Bill C-43, was proceeding very nicely through the House of Commons until a certain event on April 21 when that gentleman's party reversed itself 180 degrees, flip-flopped from support to opposition and joined with the separatist party to try to defeat both the government and the budget.
We were elected in this minority Parliament to make this Parliament work. Therefore we found another configuration that would allow the budget and fiscal responsibility a decent chance to survive.
* * *
(1450)
The Budget
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that the Atlantic accord must be part of the total budgetary process and in fact that it must remain in the omnibus bill. Yet today we see Bill C-48 introduced as a separate two page piece of legislation.
If the government can introduce a stand-alone bill to legitimize the NDP buyout, why can he not introduce one for Atlantic Canadians who are losing millions of dollars every week because of government game playing?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the legislation implementing the Atlantic accords is before the House already. It is in Bill C-43.
I ask the hon. gentleman to consider, as Atlantic Canadian governments have considered, the danger of actually removing the Atlantic accords from Bill C-43 and leaving them absolute hostage to the Bloc Québécois.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yes, Bill C-43 is before the House today but, as a coincidence, last year's budget implementation bill may pass through the Senate today, a year later.
If the Prime Minister can take the tax cuts out of the budget with the snap of a finger, he can do the same thing for the Atlantic accord and save a year for Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. Will he do that and make the same agreement on that bill?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is wrong in his facts. In respect of Bill C-33, it was not the main budget bill from last year. The main budget bill from last year was passed through the House of Commons on May 8, I believe it was, of last year. Indeed, the hon. gentleman is wrong in the analogy that he is drawing.
* * *
[Translation]
Agriculture
Ms. Denise Poirier-Rivard (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the representatives of farm producers are expressing concern at the Government of Canada's attitude in its defence of supply management in the negotiations taking place at the WTO.
In view of the concerns of the producers over the real intentions of the government, could the minister reassure them and confirm his intention to vigorously defend the retention of supply management and order his team of negotiators to do likewise?
[English]
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, absolutely, we support supply management in this country without reservation. That is the negotiating stance that we took in Geneva last year. That is the negotiating stance that our negotiations are taking right now. It is what we will pursue throughout the course of these negotiations.
[Translation]
Ms. Denise Poirier-Rivard (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, BQ): Mr. Speaker, farm producers are concerned because the government recently backed off somewhat by agreeing to make supply management negotiable.
Why is the government not helping farmers by closing its borders to milk byproducts legally entering Canada duty free?
[English]
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said in the answer to the previous question, in the broadest sense we are defending supply management through our negotiations in terms of WTO.
There are other measures in the interim that we should take. We are launching an appeal under the CITT. We are taking a look at some labelling issues and some standard issues. We put in a new monitoring system in respect of those specific items at the border. We will act as the need to act arises.
* * *
Social Development
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party will honour the child care agreements with the provinces; however, our party is willing to go one step further and put money directly into the hands of parents so they can make their own child care choices.
The difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives is that the Conservative Party supports equality and choice. Why is there not one red cent of the $5 billion Liberal day care scheme going to parents who choose to stay at home with their children or choose other child care options?
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member opposite that the commitment that was made in last year's election campaign was not just $5 billion over five years for a system of early learning and child care but a national early learning and child care system. It is a commitment made now and a commitment to deliver now and in the future in order to build a national early learning and child care system.
(1455)
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this is about equality and choice and the government is discriminating against certain parents.
Our party has spoken to parents from coast to coast. What they are asking for is a workable program that financially empowers them with choice and provides their children with the tools they need to succeed. In fact, studies have shown that almost all working parents would stay at home part time if they could afford to.
Why do the Liberals refuse to financially empower all parents equally?
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will remind the member opposite that in last year's election campaign the commitment was a $2,000 tax credit. That $2,000 tax credit would have the magnificent impact of affecting those who are the worst off, those who are the poorest in the country, to the amount of $320 per child.
The average cost of child care in the country is over $8,000. That is a tax deduction. That is not child care.
* * *
Agriculture
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, supply management has worked very well in this country for some 40 years and our party has consistently supported supply management.
Today we find that some processors are bringing in protein additives in the processing process with cheese and other products.
How is our government dealing with this issue? How can our dairy farmers benefit from this problem that is being created by outside sources?
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in answer to a previous question, we are vigorously defending supply management in the broadest sense to the WTO.
We are also taking some measures though that are more specific than that. We are launching an appeal under the CITT. We are taking a very close look at some labelling provisions. We are looking at the issue of standards. As we do the increased monitoring and we see the impact of these importations we will take action according to the circumstances.
* * *
Justice
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Conservative amendments to the DNA bill have been unanimously accepted at the justice committee. These changes would compel dangerous offenders, like Karla Homolka, to provide a DNA sample to police.
I think the Prime Minister will find unanimous consent in the House to fast-track the entire bill through second and third reading, as the government is doing with Bill C-45, the veterans charter bill.
Will the Prime Minister also commit to fast-tracking Bill C-13, the DNA bill?
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I understand there has been some discussion among the justice critics and, frankly, it is an opportunity to demonstrate that this Parliament works. It worked for the veterans earlier today. It can certainly work for a number of things.
I would say to hon. members along the way that when we cooperate and focus on the interests and priorities of Canadians, Parliament can in fact work.
I would ask the two parties opposite, the Conservatives and the Bloc, that if they want to be in this Parliament and be in this Parliament for the interest of Canadians, then let us work together to ensure we can pass this DNA bill and other bills.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I still do not know whether that is a yes or no but why would he not do it in terms of the Atlantic accord or other bills?
The Minister of Justice has promised to table a bill to prohibit human trafficking. The Conservative Party supports the bill in principle. It is an initiative to stop exploitation and abuse of vulnerable people. However, without serious penalties for these serious crimes, the exploitation and abuse will continue.
Will the minister commit to instituting a mandatory prison sentence to send a clear message that human slavery is among the worst of human rights violations?
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Clearly, Mr. Speaker, trafficking in persons is a fundamental violation of human rights, both globally and domestically. Shortly we are going to be introducing a bill dealing with human trafficking. Once that bill has been set before the House and there has been a chance for it to be fully debated and considered at committee, I am sure that whatever resolution we need to bring forward to deal with this very difficult problem will be found.
* * *
(1500)
[Translation]
Government of Canada
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, earlier during oral question period, the leader of the government attempted to demonstrate that the 1926 example was completely different from the motion on which the House will be voting this evening. In a ruling last week, Mr. Speaker, you said the following:
|
--in reviewing the precedent from June 22, 1926, ....which can be found in the Journals at pages..., an amendment containing assertions clearly damaging to the government of the day was successfully moved to a motion for concurrence in the report of a special committee. I find this example to be not markedly different from the one the House is faced with now. |
How can the leader of the government try to tell us this is totally different, when you, Mr. Speaker, with objectivity and after analysis, have stated that it was similar?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order. The hon. leader of the government.
[English]
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Again, Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member pays very close attention. What I understood that you ruled on was actually the wording of the amendment. What I was commenting on was the actual process that was followed. The report itself had come out of committee. It was not going into committee. It was concurred in.
In fact, I would also suggest that King resigned not because of a motion in this House; he resigned because the Governor General in fact did not take his advice. He wanted to dissolve Parliament. The Governor General said no. They are two completely different examples. I want to point that out--
[Translation]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Laval—Les Îles.
* * *
[English]
Housing
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Labour and Housing. In 1999 the government created a unique program as part of its response to the homelessness crisis in Canada. The supporting communities partnership initiative is a successful and popular program that creates a more integrated and inclusive approach to homelessness.
This program is scheduled to end in 2006, next year. Could the Minister of Labour and Housing tell this House what the government's intentions are regarding this important program?
Hon. Joe Fontana (Minister of Labour and Housing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Laval--Les Îles knows, this has been an extremely successful program for over six years, with $1.5 billion, and it is there to help people who are homeless or at risk of being homeless.
[Translation]
I should point out that, in the 2005 budget, the Minister of Finance indicated the government's intention to renew the current housing programs, including SCPI for Quebec.
[English]
The Speaker: That will conclude question period today. I want to thank all hon. members for their restraint. It is the quietest one we have had in a month and we got through a lot of questions.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development is rising on a point of order.
* * *
Points of Order
Oral Question Period
[Points of Order]
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I rose and asked you to ask all hon. members to respect the limit to which freedom of speech is actually honoured in the House.
Today, two other members from the opposition party, the member for Simcoe—Grey and the member for Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, referred to the same Canadian citizen, who actually does not sit in the House and requires the protection of the House.
You, as the presiding officer of the House, Mr. Speaker, did not rule yesterday on a question of privilege that I raised and on the limits of the freedom of speech of the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill. If we continue to allow this type of behaviour in the House, more Canadian citizens' reputations and names will in fact be slandered.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you do enforce that rule and that you do ask hon. members not to mention those Canadian citizens who do not have the protection of the House. If any hon. members on the opposition side would like to defame anybody, they should do it outside and not inside the House.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the substance of the questions to which my hon. friend objects is simply a repetition of confessions made under sworn testimony and which is repeated and reported in the public domain. And yes, I have, as have my colleagues, been quite prepared to repeat these Liberal confessions in the public domain. What is fair comment--
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Jason Kenney: Is this not interesting, Mr. Speaker? All day on the opposition side we have gone without heckling and we see what kind of reciprocation we get from the opposite side.
As for what constitutes fair comment in the public domain based on sworn testimony and Liberal confessions, we have no compunction about repeating such matters of public record here in the House of Commons, where free speech prevails.
(1505)
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think it would be useful to remind hon. members of what our rules are. Marleau and Montpetit states at page 77:
|
There are only two kinds of institutions in this land to which this awesome and far-reaching privilege [of freedom of speech] extends--Parliament and the legislatures on the one hand and the courts on the other. These institutions enjoy the protection of absolute privilege because of the overriding need to ensure that the truth can be told, that any questions can be asked.... |
|
Such a privilege confers grave responsibilities on those who are protected by it. By that I mean specifically the Hon. Members of this place. The consequences of its abuse can be terrible. Innocent people could be slandered with no redress available to them. Reputations could be destroyed on the basis of false rumour. All Hon. Members are conscious of the care they must exercise in availing themselves of their absolute privilege of freedom of speech. That is why there are long-standing practices and traditions observed in this House to counter the potential for abuse. |
The Speaker: I indicated to the hon. member for Ahuntsic yesterday that I would get back to her on this point if necessary. I have heard additional submissions. I will get back to the House in due course in respect of these matters.
* * *
Presence in Gallery
The Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Olayuk Akesuk, Minister of the Environment of Nunavut, and the Honourable Ed Picco, Minister of Education of Nunavut.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
* * *
Points of Order
Division List No. 79
Hon. Carolyn Bennett (Minister of State (Public Health), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to state that in my excitement about returning from Nursing Week and the fabulous public health nurses in Ottawa, I ran into the House and reflexively stood up to vote. My vote of this morning should not count.
The Speaker: Is it agreed that the name of the Minister of State for Public Health be removed from the list of those who voted in this morning's vote?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The Chair has notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for York West.
* * *
Privilege
Citizenship and Immigration
[Privilege]
Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of personal privilege. Members will recall that on January 14, 2005, I resigned as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration after serious allegations were made against me relating to Harjit Singh and his immigration situation.
At the time these allegations were made, I had decided to step down as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in order to clear my name. On January 31, 2005, I commenced legal action against Harjit Singh and others as a result of false and outrageous statements made against me.
Today I am pleased to say that all legal proceedings between Harjit Singh and I and others have been settled. As part of the settlement, I received a full and complete retraction from Harjit Singh and public apologies from all of the defendants.
I now wish to read Harjit Singh's public apology and retraction into the record. It states:
“I, Harjit Singh, wish to provide a full and complete apology and retraction to Judy Sgro for statements made by me or attributed to me by the media in connection with my immigration situation. I now admit that I did not have a meeting with Judy Sgro. Further, at no time did Judy Sgro request any campaign assistance from me, nor did she help me with my immigration problem.
I am providing this apology and retraction voluntarily and of my own free will, having been provided with independent legal advice. I would like to say that I sincerely regret any statements that may in any way have tarnished Judy Sgro's privileges as a Member of the House of Commons, and further sincerely regret any embarrassment or pain caused to Judy Sgro by my statements, which were completely false”.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
(1510)
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for York West has the floor.
Hon. Judy Sgro: Mr. Speaker, the apology and retraction by Mr. Singh continues: “I am aware and consent to the fact that this apology and retraction may be released to the media for publication. I ask that my privacy and that of my family be respected. I will not be making any further comments to the media regarding this matter”. It is signed before a witness by Harjit Singh.
Mr. Speaker, the allegations and the personal attacks made against my integrity and my reputation as an individual were very difficult for my family and I, as they would be for anyone in the House. I am grateful to everyone who supported me during these difficult times. I very much appreciate the support of my constituents in my riding of York West and my colleagues in the House of Commons.
This situation should serve as a reminder to all that before we pass judgment on the alleged conduct of individuals, we should first have all the facts. Reputations should not be tarnished by unsubstantiated allegations and innuendo solely for partisan politics.
All of us as hon. members in the House should use caution to ensure that we do not abuse the immunity that the House provides. This honourable institution should never be used to propagate smear campaigns and personal attacks against anyone regardless of what side of the House one is on.
I also wish to report to the House that after an extensive investigation by the Ethics Commissioner, he has concluded that I acted appropriately in the situation involving Ms. Balaican. The Ethics Commissioner's report fully supports what I have said from the very beginning, which is that I acted appropriately and did not breach any ethical guidelines, that I had never met with Ms. Balaican, nor was I ever aware that she had volunteered on my campaign.
He stated that my decision to grant the minister's permit was based on reasons entirely consistent with the criteria that I had been using as a minister in determining all other requests seeking my intervention.
Once again, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the many people across Canada who provided me with support and well wishes. Most important, I want to thank our Prime Minister, one, for accepting my decision to step down, and two, for his unwavering support both politically and personally.
Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask for unanimous consent to table the public retraction and apologies from Singh and the other defendant, as well as the report from Dr. Bernard Shapiro, our Ethics Commissioner.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and all of my colleagues.
(1515)
The Speaker: Does the hon. member for York West have the unanimous consent of the House to table the documents she referred to?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The Chair has notice of another question of privilege from the hon. member for Wellington--Halton Hills.
* * *
Franking Privileges
Mr. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning abuse of the frank.
The member for London North Centre has been sending bulk mailings into my riding under his frank. A number of constituents have contacted me with concerns about these mailings and in particular have asked why they are getting mail from another member.
These bulk mailings are nothing other than 10 percenters or householders under a different name. Using the frank to deliver 10 percenters and householders in enclosed addressed mail is a violation of the spirit of what the frank is for and a violation of the spirit of the rules concerning 10 percenters and householders.
However it is the nature of the enclosure in these bulk mailings that concerns me most and is, I believe, a violation of my parliamentary privilege.
It is stated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice:
|
Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively...and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions-- |
As the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, anything that impedes my ability to discharge my function is a violation of privilege.
The enclosure in these bulk mailings impedes my ability to be the member for Wellington--Halton Hills because they mislead the reader into thinking that the member of Parliament for Wellington--Halton Hills is someone other than me.
I know that the envelope contains the riding and name of the member for London North Centre; however, many people do not take note of exactly what appears on the envelope when they open an envelope and look for what is contained therein. When one reads the enclosure, one concludes that the member for London North Centre is the member for Wellington--Halton Hills. This is causing a lot of confusion with my constituents as to who is their MP. I suggest that this constitutes a prima facie violation of my privilege.
If you find, Mr. Speaker, that I have a prima facie case, I would be prepared to move the proper motion.
* * *
(1520)
Franking Privileges--Speaker's Ruling
The Speaker: As the hon. member for Wellington--Halton Hills well knows, we have had a number of these kinds of questions of privilege raised in the House recently and quite a number have been sent off to the procedure and House affairs committee, which is actively studying these issues, I believe, as we speak.
I am more than happy to permit him to move his motion and send the matter to committee, if he wishes. I am sure the committee will be interested in considering this one along with all the other ones that it is currently dealing with of a similar nature. There do seem to be a lot of these mailings these days.
I know that the committee is actively considering the issue. I just heard a little about it from one of the members who has one of his matters before the committee.
If the hon. member has a motion to make, I will be glad to hear it.
* * *
Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
Mr. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I certainly am not using my frank for bulk mailings into someone else's riding. I move:
|
That the matter of privilege raised by the member for Wellington--Halton Hills on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. |
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Debate, the hon. member for Scarborough--Rouge River.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know colleagues do not want to spend the whole afternoon debating this issue, but I want to make two remarks.
First, I intend to support the motion, not because I believe it is, as has been put, a clear-cut case of breach of privilege but it certainly falls within the category of difficulties that the procedure and House affairs committee is looking at now.
Mr. Speaker, I would not want your ruling to be taken as a ruling that a franked envelope communication from a member of Parliament to a person in another riding would constitute a breach of privilege of the member in the other riding where the letter was sent. Members of the House of Commons routinely send out communications to Canadians either in reply to letters or for other purposes.
In terms of free speech and our franking privilege, I just wanted to make it clear that members have to continue to be free to communicate with Canadians on issues, especially when Canadians write to individual MPs who are not their members of Parliament.
The second point I want to make is that the rules that govern both mailings, whether it is under the frank or whether it is a 10 percenter or whether it is distribution of householders or the bulk mailing machinery that allows us to send communications by weight, I regard the rules now as an absolute wild west show. I do not regard the rules as being in keeping with the way these privileges and services developed originally.
When I first came to this place, there was a rule that mailings of that nature did not include partisan material. Eventually that rule sort of fell by the wayside. It was honoured more in the breach, which is a very unfortunate thing to say. The rule was not followed so we abandoned the rule because we could not police it. Then, not only did we have the partisan material going out routinely as part of any of those types of mailings but we started to add in negative political material. It would not just be promotional of one's own party; it would actually be negative about another party, or another MP, or a minister.
Now all kinds of communications are going out under different categories of parliamentary services, paid for by the taxpayer, which is loaded with political self-promotion and negative political content about other members and other parties. I do not believe the citizen would be able to keep track of it all. I am afraid to even inquire into it. It is a wild west show. None of us is actually in a position, singly, to grab hold of this, but I am hopeful that the procedure and House affairs committee will signal the problem and commence on developing a resolution.
Ultimately, it is not the procedure and House affairs committee as much as it is the Board of Internal Economy that will have to deal with these rules. Of course that particular body, the Board of Internal Economy, operates in camera and its minutes are not public. Nobody knows--I do not even know--how his or her representative or how the representatives of their colleagues in the House are dealing with this issue on the Board of Internal Economy. That is just not the way to run a democratic institution, especially when we are dealing with on one hand, members' privileges and services, and on the other, our democracy, which relies on fair free speech, as was pointed out earlier today, and communications between this place, its members and our electors.
I make those remarks in trying to be helpful. I regret if my inability to immediately unanimously agree to the motion has prolonged debate here, but I hope my remarks will be taken as helpful.
(1525)
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague across the way on this issue. I had not anticipated participating in this debate. I thought your remarks, Mr. Speaker, summed up the situation as it has been presented over the past number of days in the House. Members of Parliament from all parties raised the issue of 10 percenters and franked mail going into neighbouring ridings.
My colleague from the Liberal Party raises these issues and says that we want to ensure we do not have a situation where partisan mailings go in. As we pointed out in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs as we deal with these one by one when they get to committee, which I sit on, the reality is that this has been happening for quite some time.
Another reality is that all parties do it. An additional reality is that one of the few tools open to the opposition parties to offset the tens of millions of taxpayers' dollars that are spent every year advertising the supposed good works of the Government of Canada into all of our ridings is for us to offset that in a small way by either direct mail or 10 percenters, and getting communication pieces into Liberal held ridings.
The member can stand and try to narrow the debate down to the use of 10 percenters or franked letters. I agree with him that we cannot have a situation where it would be illegal for me as a member of Parliament to respond to a Canadian citizen who writes me a letter by sending a franked response. I must have that right. If a citizen from the hon. member's riding writes me a letter, I must be able to respond. Otherwise, obviously I would be accused of ignoring the concerns that he or she wrote to me about. We are in complete agreement on that.
We have information that the Liberals are using virtually pallets full of negative partisan material that they are franking into ridings. I suggest that the hon. member communicate his concerns not only to this side of the House but among his own colleagues as well.
The government uses millions and millions of dollars to advertise what the government does. I think every Canadian is well aware of who the Government of Canada is at the moment. It is the Liberal Party of Canada. Certainly, they have become more aware of it because of the sponsorship scandal. What is the sponsorship scandal all about? It is about advertising.
We have an interesting situation. The government is caught in a scandal of monumental proportions that came about because it spent millions upon millions of dollar advertising. In this particular case it was advertising Canada in Quebec trying to buy Quebec votes. To get the truth out to Canadians, the opposition from time to time must send a counter, so to speak. We must send out our views to Canadians to get the message out unfiltered.
We certainly cannot rely on the government to do that for us. It has a pretty partisan agenda of sending out its message and costing millions of taxpayers' dollars to get its message out about all the supposedly great and wonderful things it is doing for Canadians. We have very few resources to get our side of the story out. I would like everyone to bear those remarks in mind.
The last point I want to make is that quite frankly twice during my hon. Liberal colleague's remarks he said that the use of franked mailings for political self-promotional items and 10 percenters was, in his words, “a wild west show”.
(1530)
I notice that he did not say a wild east show. He did not say a wild central Canadian show. As a western member of Parliament, I take exception to that because once again, it is a Liberal trying to denigrate western Canada by this being a plot of the west and that is not the situation. All four political parties use these communications pieces and I just wanted that on the record.
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on the subject matter and support my colleague from the Conservative Party in getting this to committee because I was one of the members who originally brought this to the House of Commons. There was an organized campaign of several members of the Conservative Party who made mailings into my riding to gather data on the signature or request of the official opposition leader.
I would hope that they would be consistent in their objections of this practice, especially when it comes to two things and if it is about the content. It was interesting because the clerk of the House of Commons testified in our case in public before the committee and said that the material that the Conservative Party sent into my riding could not be done procedurally in the House of Commons.
The issue that we had was not only just mailings into my riding, but material that was saying we could do something that is impossible for us as members to do. We were not only attacking a particular member, but also misleading the public about the role of a member of Parliament.
I would hope that my Conservative colleagues would be very supportive of my case because it is wrong to use the frank or the mailing issues in that way. It is not even about putting a slant on something, a political spin or an evaluation of legislation. We are talking about whether members can do something or not do something.
I had several Conservative members mail a piece of legislation related to the RCMP and the gun registry on the very day that this country was mourning the loss of our four officers. People in my constituency were picking it up in their mailboxes. This was very improper as it related to the whole issue of the gun registry, the RCMP, and how it affects individual members of Parliament.
That day my wife pulled that piece of literature out of the mail. It had been sent to the wrong area. We need to have corrective action for all members in the House. If we are going to use a resource of the House to at least provide our commentary on issues and our positions on issues, that is one thing, but we are actually using public resources to tell Canadians things that we cannot even do as members of Parliament and we harm our democracy.
I support the member and I would hope that his party is going to be consistent on this. I would hope that his party is going to recognize that this damage is not only to a particular member of Parliament but it damages Canadian democracy when we literally spin things as opposed to talking about the truths of members.
(1535)
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to unnecessarily prolong this, but I did want to raise the issue that the New Democrats raise. All parties utilize this access to Canadians for partisan communications. It is not just the Conservative Party.
Has he checked with his party to ensure that everything that it has mailed out is completely factual? I asked him that question when he appeared on his own point of privilege on this issue. I asked him that in the procedure and House affairs committee and he did not reply. I do not think he knew the answer, to be completely honest, but I did ask him the question.
If he is going to point the finger at other parties then has he at least checked with the18 colleagues in his caucus to ensure that everything that they have mailed out to other members' ridings, whether they be Liberal, Bloc or Conservative, has been completely factual? He did not reply.
I would agree with him that it is something that the House needs to look at. It certainly will be. At present there is the point of privilege that he himself raised that went to procedure and House affairs that we have dealt with now. In addition, there is one there now from the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. There is also one from a Liberal member that cited a point of privilege and now another one from my colleague from Ontario.
It is a growing problem. I certainly recognize, on behalf of the Conservative Party of Canada, that we are not just pointing fingers. I said that during my remarks. We are not just pointing fingers at the other three parties. We are recognizing that it is something that must be dealt with.
(1540)
Hon. Tony Ianno (Minister of State (Families and Caregivers), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have been dealing with this issue for 12 years. There has not been a member from the NDP who has not sent something into my riding, and I think they have had three or four mailings since we have been here. They continue to send things into my riding, and to my family and myself. I face the same thing with that member.
I have been against this issue for a long time. It is important for members of Parliament to have freedom of speech and to write to someone. I have no problem with that. However, when it is a mass mailing into another member's riding for partisan political purposes, then they should pay for it from their party's coffers as compared to paying for it out of the Canadian public's coffers.
It is just coincidental that the leader of the NDP's wife happened to run against me, and more mailings from him continue to come into my riding. I am sure he is aware that his wife did not win the election in my riding. He can continue sending anything he wants into his riding, but people in my riding would like to hear from their own member of Parliament. When the information becomes partisan, it is often not factual.
It is important that we deal with this from