38th PARLIAMENT,
1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 101
CONTENTS
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
|
 |
The Speaker |
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
|
|
Canada Day Poster Challenge |
|
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy (Charlottetown, Lib.) |
|
|
Gananoque Remembers |
|
|
Mr. Gord Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC) |
|
|
Craig Manufacturing |
|
|
Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.) |
|
|
Tembec Mill |
|
|
Mr. Guy Côté (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, BQ) |
|
|
Women Veterans |
|
|
Ms. Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Lib.) |
|
|
Dental Technology |
|
|
Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC) |
|
|
Niagara Folk Arts Festival |
|
|
Hon. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.) |
|
|
Canadian Federation of Independent Business |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ) |
|
|
Etobicoke--Lakeshore |
|
|
Hon. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.) |
|
|
Customs Officers |
|
|
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC) |
|
|
Official Languages |
|
|
Hon. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.) |
|
|
B.C. New Democrats |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) |
|
|
Member for Newmarket—Aurora |
|
|
Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC) |
|
|
Speech and Hearing Awareness Month
|
|
|
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, BQ) |
|
|
Nappan Experimental Farm |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC) |
|
|
The Budget |
|
|
Mr. Bill Matthews (Random—Burin—St. George's, Lib.) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
Sponsorship Program |
|
|
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Employment Insurance |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Yves Lessard (Chambly—Borduas, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Yves Lessard (Chambly—Borduas, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Maher Arar Inquiry |
|
|
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Sponsorship Program |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Justice |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Transfer Payments |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Social Development |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Canada Post |
|
|
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
Aboriginal Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
The Budget |
|
|
Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Shipbuilding Industry |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Oil and Gas Industry |
|
|
Mr. David Chatters (Westlock—St. Paul, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. David Chatters (Westlock—St. Paul, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Natural Resources |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Forest Industry |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Jacques Saada (Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister responsible for the Francophonie, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Jacques Saada (Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister responsible for the Francophonie, Lib.) |
|
|
Sudan |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Seniors |
|
|
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Ianno (Minister of State (Families and Caregivers), Lib.) |
|
|
Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates |
|
|
Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Clothing and Textile Industry |
|
|
Mr. Alain Boire (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ) |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Presence in Gallery |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Points of Order |
|
|
Oral Question Period |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Oral Question Period |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Chief Electoral Officer |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Routine Proceedings
|
|
|
Government Response to Petitions |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Interparliamentary Delegations |
|
|
Hon. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.) |
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.) |
|
|
Foreign Affairs and International Trade |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.) |
|
|
Agriculture and Agri-Food |
|
|
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.) |
|
|
Income Tax Act |
|
|
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, BQ) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Broadcasting Act |
|
|
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, BQ) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
PETITIONS |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.) |
|
|
Juvenile Diabetes |
|
|
Mr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC) |
|
|
Autism |
|
|
Mr. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Robert Vincent (Shefford, BQ) |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC) |
|
|
Property Rights |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Correctional Service of Canada |
|
|
Mrs. Carole Lavallée (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Newton—North Delta, CPC) |
|
|
Immigration |
|
|
Mrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC) |
|
|
Autism |
|
|
Mrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC) |
|
|
Taxation |
|
|
Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC) |
|
|
Refugees |
|
|
Ms. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC) |
|
|
Canada Post |
|
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC) |
|
|
Stem Cell Research |
|
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC) |
|
|
Citizenship |
|
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC) |
|
|
Marijuana |
|
|
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mrs. Betty Hinton |
|
|
Canada Post |
|
|
Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC) |
|
|
Autism |
|
|
Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC) |
|
|
The Environment |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Procedure and House Affairs |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Questions on the Order Paper |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc |
|
|
Motions for Papers |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc |
|
|
Business of Supply |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Hon. Keith Martin |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Budget Implementation Act, 2005 |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Poilievre |
|
|
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Marc Lemay (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
|
|
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos |
|
|
Mr. Tony Martin (Sault Ste. Marie, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos |
|
|
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Julian |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
Mr. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Navdeep Bains |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Navdeep Bains |
|
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Navdeep Bains |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Mark Holland (Ajax—Pickering, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Forseth |
|
|
Mr. Tony Martin (Sault Ste. Marie, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Forseth |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
|
Mr. Marc Lemay (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
|
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
|
|
Mr. Mark Holland (Ajax—Pickering, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Marc Lemay (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ) |
|
|
Routine Proceedings
|
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Foreign Affairs and International Trade |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
(Division 89) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
|
|
Treaties Act |
|
|
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Dan McTeague (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy |
|
|
Hon. Dan McTeague (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Wajid Khan (Mississauga—Streetsville, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Air-India |
|
|
Mr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Russ Hiebert |
|
|
Hon. Roy Cullen |
|
|
The Environment |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Joe Comuzzi (Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario), Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant |
|
|
Hon. Joe Comuzzi |
|
|
The Environment |
|
|
Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Mark Warawa |
|
|
Hon. Jerry Pickard |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Supply |
|
|
Citizenship and Immigration—Main Estimates, 2005–06
|
|
|
(Consideration in committee of the whole of all votes under Citizenship and Immigration in the main estimates, Mr. Chuck Strahl in the chair)
|
|
|
The Chair |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC) |
|
|
The Chair |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
The Chair |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
The Chair |
|
|
Ms. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
The Chair |
|
|
Ms. Meili Faille |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Ms. Meili Faille |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Ms. Meili Faille |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Ms. Meili Faille |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Ms. Meili Faille |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Ms. Meili Faille |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Ms. Meili Faille |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Ms. Meili Faille |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Mr. Bill Siksay |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Mr. Bill Siksay |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Hon. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
The Chair |
|
|
Hon. Andrew Telegdi |
|
|
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Centre, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
The Deputy Chair |
|
|
Mr. Lee Richardson |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
The Deputy Chair |
|
|
Mr. Lee Richardson |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
The Deputy Chair |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Mr. Lee Richardson |
|
|
The Deputy Chair |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
The Deputy Chair |
|
|
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
The Deputy Chair |
|
|
Mr. Roger Clavet (Louis-Hébert, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Chair |
|
|
Mr. Roger Clavet |
|
|
Hon. Hedy Fry |
|
|
Mr. Roger Clavet |
|
|
Hon. Hedy Fry |
|
|
Mr. Roger Clavet |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Mr. Roger Clavet |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Mr. Brian Jean (Fort McMurray—Athabasca, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Mr. Brian Jean |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Mr. Brian Jean |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Mr. Brian Jean |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Mr. Brian Jean |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Mr. Brian Jean |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Mr. Brian Jean |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Mr. Brian Jean |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Mr. Brian Jean |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj |
|
|
Hon. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Mr. Bill Siksay |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Mr. Bill Siksay |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Mr. Bill Siksay |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Mr. Bill Siksay |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Mr. Lui Temelkovski (Oak Ridges—Markham, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Mr. Lui Temelkovski |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Mr. Lui Temelkovski |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Mr. Lui Temelkovski |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Mr. Lui Temelkovski |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Hedy Fry |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
|
|
The Chair |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Mr. Paul Forseth |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
The Chair |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
|
The Chair |
|
|
(All Citizenship and Immigration votes reported)
|
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
[S .O. 31]
* * *
(1400)
[English]
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
[Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[S. O. 31]
* * *
(1400)
[English]
Canada Day Poster Challenge
Hon. Shawn Murphy (Charlottetown, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, each year the Department of Canadian Heritage invites Canadian students from across the country to submit their artwork to the Canada Day poster challenge. Students were challenged to come up with a design and a statement that celebrated their pride as Canadians within the theme “Canada from east to west”.
I would like to congratulate Anthony Yu, a 13-year-old student from Queen Charlotte Intermediate High School in Charlottetown for being the Prince Edward Island winner. Anthony's winning design captures the spirit of Canadian identity from east to west to north. He will be joining the contest winners from across the country in Ottawa to celebrate Canada Day.
I would also like to congratulate Moonkyoung Cho, Carley McQuaid and Nicole Arsenault for being the other top finalists from Prince Edward Island. These students, and their peers across Canada who participated in the poster challenge, show us all the true meaning of Canadian pride.
* * *
Gananoque Remembers
Mr. Gord Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 60th anniversary of the end of the second world war and around the world people are remembering. It is also the Year of the Veteran here in Canada.
I rise today to recognize two people who worked diligently over many months to publish a book that remembers residents of the small town where I live who gave their lives in service to their country. Earlier this spring, at the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 92 in Gananoque, Bill Beswetherick and Geraldine Chase unveiled their new book Gananoque Remembers.
Thanks to their efforts, we shall never forget.
* * *
Craig Manufacturing
Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Saturday May 7 one of Hartland, New Brunswick's oldest businesses and largest employers burned to the ground. Craig Manufacturing, a plant which builds industrial attachments for heavy equipment, employs approximately 90 people in my riding.
Having that many people out of work could have had a considerable economic impact on the entire riding, but instead, John Craig, Betty Lou and their team began immediate plans to resume business. A temporary office was set up less than 48 hours after the fire to continue serving customers, employing office staff and organizing the rebuilding.
I commend everyone at Craig Manufacturing for staying positive and looking to the future in spite of this disaster. But even more so, I commend the bravery and selflessness of the volunteer firefighters in Carleton County. They worked together and risked their lives to prevent what could have been an enormous tragedy. Several blocks of downtown Hartland were at risk of being blown up by giant propane, argon and oxygen tanks. Thanks to the skill and courage of the volunteer firefighters, such a catastrophe was fortunately avoided.
I thank the volunteer firefighters for their indispensable service and I wish everyone at Craig Manufacturing the best of luck.
* * *
(1405)
[Translation]
Tembec Mill
Mr. Guy Côté (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for years, the Bloc Québécois has been calling upon the government to come up with an effective plan to assist the forestry products industry in Quebec.
Some 403 workers have been hard hit by this government's inaction and incompetence. Tembec has announced it is closing three sawmills in Quebec. When the Tembec mill in Saint-Raymond ceases operations on May 28, 165 of my constituents will lose their jobs.
However, both Tembec and the workers tried to keep the mill profitable and operational by proudly manufacturing a high added value product. These many families earn their livelihood doing this work.
The government's failure in international trade and the forestry industry undermines the ability of our companies to compete. To add insult to injury, the Liberal government is accumulating astronomical surpluses in the EI fund, dipping into it freely and steadfastly refusing to correct this program's inequities.
This says a great deal about the Liberal government, which is more concerned with staying in power artificially than with giving any thought to the financial insecurity of workers who lose their jobs.
* * *
[English]
Women Veterans
Ms. Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to honour Canada's women veterans during this Year of the Veteran.
Women played a major role in our nation's military history. Nurses were the first women to be welcomed into the Canadian military. During the first world war, more than 3,100 nursing sisters served in the medical corps.
[Translation]
Women played a greater role during the second world war. Approximately 50,000 women served our country, as members of the armed forces or the ladies' auxiliary and on the home front.
[English]
This afternoon at 4 p.m., the Minister of Veterans Affairs will be hosting a celebration of Canada's women veterans at the National Arts Centre. I invite all my colleagues of the House to join us in saluting our women veterans and honouring their achievements.
* * *
Dental Technology
Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to the Association of Dental Technologists. I am pleased to welcome here today the president of the association, Stephen DeLuca, and Al McOrmond of Oshawa.
The Association of Dental Technologists is an often overlooked but critical association in Canada. It advances the dental profession through education and communication, and is instrumental in pursuing excellence in dental technology services.
Canada is a world leader in dental technology, in large part due to the work of this association. Its members continuously work to improve the standards of their profession nationwide, ensure the health of the public, and continue to advance their professional knowledge. It is instrumental in setting and maintaining the high standard of laboratory skills increasingly demanded of dental technicians in Canada.
The ADT is working to keep Canada at the forefront of the profession. I am honoured to have these members here today.
* * *
Niagara Folk Arts Festival
Hon. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take pride in rising in the House of Commons today to acknowledge and congratulate Mr. Stephen Ruf, the founding father of the Niagara Folk Arts Festival.
The festival is the oldest cultural festival in the province of Ontario and opened its 36th annual edition on Saturday, May 14.
Stephen Ruf's early years certainly shaped the man that he is today. During the second world war he lived in the Freiburg orphanage and saw first-hand the ugliness of racial and cultural discrimination. After immigrating to Canada and settling in the Niagara region, he sought a way to foster and showcase multiculturalism and the Folk Arts Festival was born in May 1969 and is still going strong today.
During the next two weeks, visitors can attend many open houses, allowing them to get an indepth appreciation of the customs and traditions of the various ethnic groups in the Niagara region.
Stephen Ruf's vision of multiculturalism is to be commended. On behalf of the people of St. Catharines and the people of Canada, I thank him for his 36 years of dedication to this wonderful event.
* * *
[Translation]
Canadian Federation of Independent Business
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business is celebrating its 35th anniversary this year. The federation's mission is to act as an advocate for small and medium size businesses. It represents and defends the interests of over 24,000 small and medium size businesses in Quebec.
The federation's policy direction is based on the opinions of its members, which are gathered through regular polls conducted according to the one member, one vote principle.
The growth of the federation and of small and medium size businesses has been remarkable. In addition to being instrumental in job creation and economic growth, small business makes an enormous contribution to the development of communities throughout Quebec.
The Bloc Québécois is proud to draw attention to the 35th anniversary of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business; we wish it every success.
* * *
(1410)
[English]
Etobicoke--Lakeshore
Hon. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to represent the people of Etobicoke--Lakeshore. They have an incredible sense of civic pride and every one of them contribute to making our community the great place that it is.
This weekend we planted flowers in Farrah's Garden. Farrah is a young girl whose life ended tragically at the hands of her father.
We watched the moving of the original Mimico train station, which represents a great part of our local heritage.
We participated in a local waterfront cleanup. So many people rallied together to pitch in and clean up our neighbourhood.
I joined with community members at the sixth annual Lori's Room Walkathon in the name of Lorna-Lynn Martin, a young a girl who battled with and succumbed to cancer.
The numerous local activities show the great spirit in Etobicoke--Lakeshore. Let us continue to make not only Etobicoke--Lakeshore a better place, but our entire country and the world a great place to live.
* * *
Customs Officers
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC): Mr. Speaker, at 7 p.m. Sunday May 1, only 100 yards from the Canadian port of Roosville, a man was murdered.
A U.S. sheriff, who just happened to be at the Canadian crossing, took charge of the crime scene. The RCMP were called but they did not arrive until 8:15 p.m. They checked all around both the Canadian and U.S. ports with a dog while a single Canadian inspector manned the port.
In response to the murder, management wanted to double staff that evening but no one would come to work. Why would they when a man had been fatally shot in the head? Canadian customs officers are denied access to weapons for their self-defence.
The inspector on shift had to work alone until 7 a.m. the following morning.
At this same port of entry just months ago, Adam Angel, customs inspector, while also working alone, also died.
When is the minister responsible for emergency preparedness finally going to respond to the dangers faced by customs inspectors at ports of entry where employees have to work alone, isolated and in danger?
* * *
Official Languages
Hon. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, there was an incident in the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates that demonstrates just how hollow the Conservative Party's so-called commitment to official languages is.
Yesterday, a member of the Conservative Party was questioning a witness in English. The witness chose to respond in French. The Conservative member then asked him, “I understood you're fluently bilingual, sir, is there any reason that you're responding in French at this time?” The Conservative member then asked, “Is there any reason you're responding in French to my questions?”
[Translation]
At their recent congress, the Conservatives voted against a resolution in support of the advancement of francophone and anglophone minorities in Canada. They kept repeating that, at least, they support bilingualism in the Parliament of Canada and other federal institutions, this some 40 years after the bilingualism policy was implemented.
Even that commitment is not so sure anymore. This goes to show once again that old Reform-Alliance attitudes die hard.
* * *
[English]
B.C. New Democrats
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, B.C. New Democrats, led by Carole James, stole the show last night with a fabulous win. With enormous credibility and a progressive platform, she took on the B.C. Liberals' mean policies and won the confidence of B.C. voters.
There will be a huge change in our B.C. legislature as 33 strong New Democrats advocate for progressive values, a sustainable environment and fairness and justice. It is time to end the reckless cuts and decimation of social programs that have hurt women, workers, poor people and aboriginal people.
The strong message from B.C. voters on democratic reform must also be heard. As federal New Democrats, we will redouble our efforts and continue to push the federal government to implement democratic electoral reform in Canada.
On behalf of our leader and all our members, I want to thank Carole, Joy McPhail and Jenny Kwan, who, for four lonely years, battled it out and stood up for all of us.
I congratulate Carole James and her new team for a great win. She led the way and the five B.C. NDP members of Parliament are ready to do the same.
* * *
Member for Newmarket—Aurora
Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I can see many unhappy Liberal faces today as they realize they have fallen prey to the ultimate example of privileged queue jumping.
I am sure many Liberals feel stabbed in the back by their leader after he let the member for Newmarket—Aurora slide straight into cabinet without doing the hard work so many of her new colleagues have done over the years.
Does the Prime Minister really understand what he is getting?
During her leadership campaign, the member advocated term limits for prime ministers. Is she hoping the Prime Minister will accept her idea and resign?
In March 2004, the member for Newmarket—Aurora said, “We have gathered here from all different regions across the country and from all different backgrounds but we have one common goal, and that is to get rid of the tired old Liberal government”.
The member for Newmarket—Aurora has referred to herself as the Prime Minister in a cocktail dress but one who could bake a better economic pie.
I wonder if her new colleagues realize how much of that pie the Prime Minister is taking from them and giving to their new friend.
* * *
(1415)
[Translation]
Speech and Hearing Awareness Month
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am deeply committed to the cause of advocating for the deaf and hard of hearing, who account for more than 10% of the population.
The CRIM, a computer science research centre in Montreal, has made a significant breakthrough; it has developed a captioning system using voice recognition technology.
Despite such advances, much remains to be done, particularly with respect to French captioning, which is miserably lagging behind.
It is not right that, in 2005, francophones who are deaf or hard of hearing do not have access to programming in their own language. It is the federal government's responsibility to take action by requiring all broadcasters to fully caption their television programs.
Since the heritage minister and her government have failed to act, I will be introducing a bill today to amend the Broadcasting Act to make captioning mandatory.
As this is speech and hearing awareness month, I urge every parliamentarian to take concrete action to ensure that silence is no longer a barrier to the development of people who are deaf or hard of hearing.
* * *
[English]
Nappan Experimental Farm
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on May 29 the Cumberland County Federation of Agriculture will hold a rally at the Nappan Experimental Farm. The farm has been serving the farming community since before Confederation but now the Department of Agriculture has announced it will close.
The Nappan Experimental Farm enjoys soils and terrains that are unique to the maritime provinces and are not available at any other experimental facility in Canada. The farm also has a close association with the maritime beef testing station that does necessary research on cattle. The beef testing station needs the farm to survive.
At a time when farmers are hurting, mostly for reasons beyond their control, research should be expanding, not contracting.
I have asked the minister to come to this event, have a tour of the Nappan Experimental Farm and the beef testing station, and meet with farmers who are affected.
Under no circumstances should the farm close if the minister has not even visited the facility.
* * *
The Budget
Mr. Bill Matthews (Random—Burin—St. George's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, when members of the Liberal Party stood up and voted for the budget, members of the Conservative Party sat in their seats and abstained.
Now, in a sudden turnaround, the Conservative Party wants to vote for one part of the budget implementation bill and vote against another part.
Surely the Conservative members from Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia know that voting for one part of the budget and defeating the other will result in defeat of the government and the entire budget.
The Atlantic accords will be lost with it. If this happens, I hope the Conservative members across the way do not have the gall to go back to their ridings and say that they voted for the Atlantic accord.
Premier Williams said earlier this week, “A vote for the budget is a vote for Newfoundland and Labrador”. That is the entire budget and not selective parts of it.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[English]
Sponsorship Program
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there have been reports that the Liberal government is now considering a plan whereby donations that it receives from ad agencies up to their neck in the sponsorship scandal will now be put into a separate trust fund.
Maybe miracles never cease. The Liberals have been resisting this idea for several weeks but a deathbed conversion is better than nothing.
Could the government today commit to putting all the money it has received from ad companies into a separate trust fund?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again the party has been clear from the beginning that if in fact funds were received inappropriately those funds will be returned to the Canadian taxpayer. In fact, it is impossible to complete that transaction to the Canadian taxpayer until we have all the facts, until all the analysis has been conducted and until we have Justice Gomery's report.
If the party establishes an interim action in terms of a goodwill approach, that will establish goodwill, but that will not return the money to the Canadian taxpayer any sooner than the report from Justice Gomery.
(1420)
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that is a bunch of nonsense. All they have to do is just check their records.
Last month the Liberals lost a motion that mandated them to put that money into a separate trust account.
Three elections have been fought on that dirty money. Surely Canadians have a right to know that this next election will not be fought with this dirty money.
Will they do the right thing now and put that money into a trust account?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again, the party leader this afternoon will be making an announcement and that announcement will establish and affirm a goodwill through that.
Beyond that, the actual transaction, in terms of the transfer to the taxpayer, cannot occur until we have all the facts and we have Justice Gomery's report.
In Stevie Cameron's book, On the Take, there are allegations that the Conservative Party operated a tollgating operation in the province of Quebec. Perhaps it ought to establish some sort of trust fund as well or perhaps those members over there ought to take some responsibility for their actions.
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there is one bit of good news. Apparently Elections Canada is in the process of sending out party subsidies to all the parties and the Liberal Party is supposed to get a little over $2 million.
I can appreciate, if all the stories about the Liberals' financial troubles are true, that they did not have the money before, but now that they have the cheque, why not do the right thing and let Canadians put their trust back into the electoral system, and put that money into a trust account?
The Speaker: I think perhaps if the member had phrased his question as to whether the money was being returned to the government, it might be in order, but it seems to me that asking a party to do something with money it is receiving for election returns is another matter and we will leave it at that.
The hon. member for Edmonton--Strathcona.
[Translation]
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this Liberal government lost a vote which obliged it to create a trust fund for the dirty sponsorship money. So far, it has not done so. Elections Canada is now preparing to pay $2 million back to the government.
Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he is going to put that dirty money into a trust account, or fund a fourth election campaign with it?
The Speaker: I have the same reservations on this question as on the previous one. The question must be asked in other terms. Calls have often been made in this House for the Liberal Party to reimburse the government. I trust that the hon. member will be able to use acceptable language for his second question.
[English]
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, while I did ask if they would return it as a government, the Liberals have rigged every rule in the book to benefit themselves. They have laundered thousands if not millions for ad scam. They rewrote election financing laws to get millions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies.
The only way Canadians can be sure the Liberals are not campaigning with dirty money is to put the Elections Canada subsidy in trust. Maybe it is their intention to buy another election campaign using that dirty money.
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again, the Prime Minister has always been clear on this and the party has been clear on this, that if funds were received inappropriately they will be returned to the Canadian taxpayer and we will do that when Canadians have all of the facts.
Any interim step to establish goodwill is a step in that direction but it does not achieve that transaction until we actually have all of the facts from Justice Gomery's own audit process. He is working with party auditors to achieve that.
We are cooperating fully because we want to ensure that justice is done on behalf of the taxpayer and on behalf of all Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
Employment Insurance
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the new Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development says she is a woman of principle. On April 13, she voted in favour of the establishment of an independent EI fund, a measure proposed by the Bloc Québécois to prevent the government from continuing to divert money from the fund at the expense of the unemployed.
Will the government honour the principles of its new minister by creating an independent EI fund right now, so that money for the unemployed can be set aside?
[English]
Hon. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has made considerable changes in EI, including changes in the independence of the commission. I believe a report was tabled yesterday in the House dealing with these matters.
(1425)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, that is the very question. Yesterday the government rejected all the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, recommendations Liberal MPs had voted for.
I put my question again. The new minister, this woman of principle, voted in this House in support of the establishment of an independent employment insurance fund to ensure that the government would not divert funds, as it had in the past to the tune of $47 billion. I am now asking whether the government will honour the principles of the new minister by creating an independent fund, yes or no. The question is simple, as is the answer.
[English]
Hon. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, steps have been taken to make the fund more independent. Also, in the last budget an additional $300 million was applied in the general EI area. We now calculate the benefits on the best 14 weeks. It is much easier for workers on benefits to work without losing their benefits. We have extended the benefits in high EI areas where unemployment is over 10%.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Lessard (Chambly—Borduas, BQ): Mr. Speaker, $300 million is peanuts compared with $47 billion in damages.
Three months ago, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities made 28 recommendations aimed at substantially improving the employment insurance program. According to advocacy groups for the unemployed, the current budget contains nothing of note for the unemployed. The government has turned its back on the committee's report.
Now that the Prime Minister has treated himself to a new Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, could he assure us he will give her free rein to correct the situation?
[English]
Hon. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister is very grateful to the subcommittee for its recommendations. It is very grateful to the Prime Minister's task force of Liberals who made similar recommendations.
As I mentioned, the department has tabled a report on this matter. That report is now available to all members of the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Lessard (Chambly—Borduas, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the negotiations with the NDP, the Prime Minister once again wanted nothing to do with improving employment insurance.
Can the Prime Minister tell us whether his human resources recruit negotiated only her own conditions of employment or whether she used the opportunity to negotiate the needs of the unemployed which she says she agrees with?
[English]
Hon. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am here and pleased to answer questions on employment insurance, which is of great concern to the government. Matters such as this should be left to other forums.
I will repeat, EI has been improved by the government. The government, in the report that was tabled as recently as yesterday, makes even further improvements. We can be proud of what we have done and we continue to improve EI for the benefit of all Canadians.
* * *
Maher Arar Inquiry
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans because we have no Minister of Justice when it comes to the case of Maher Arar. The hon. member for Halifax is testifying at the Maher Arar inquiry today and we share her concerns.
Could the minister please explain how justice is served when the people who are demanding an open and public inquiry here are referred to the Deputy Prime Minister who oversees the very organizations that trampled on the rights of Maher Arar?
Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to a full and public inquiry while balancing the need for national security or international relations and the safety and security of police investigations.
This is a very important inquiry. I will not comment on the actual testimony before the commission, but it is important to let it do its work.
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, pardon me but this is a little difficult for people to follow now. The Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for CSIS and the RCMP. The justice minister is responsible for protecting people's rights from being trampled upon, but he is standing aside in the Arar case. He is passing the responsibility over to the fisheries minister who then abdicates all responsibility and passes it right back to the Deputy Prime Minister, who, by the way, wrote the law that tramples on rights and civil liberties and who oversees the security organizations involved.
What kind of government has no justice minister for Maher Arar?
(1430)
Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well what has happened and why it is my responsibility to answer questions in relation to this matter. He also knows that we have a responsibility to balance the important interests in this matter, the interest in openness, the interest in a full and complete inquiry and the interests of protecting Canada in terms of national security or international relations and the security and safety of police work.
* * *
Sponsorship Program
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government continues to suggest that things must wait for the Gomery report before people can make up their minds about ad scam wrongdoing. Clause k of Gomery's mandate prevents him from telling who is responsible.
Yesterday government bureaucrats admitted they were not waiting for Judge Gomery's report to implement reforms to the system. Why should Canadians have to wait to make a political judgment on the government?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the circular logic over there is almost laughable. I know I am not allowed to say that was a stupid question because you chastized me once. That was an obtuse question.
The fact is that if we were not taking action, Canadians would have every right to be angry at us. We are doing the right thing by taking action and changing our processes to ensure better value for Canadian taxpayers, more open and competitive processes and accountable and transparent ones.
She is out to lunch if she actually thinks she makes any sense with a question like that.
The Speaker: I encourage hon. members to be judicious in their choice of language. The hon. member for Calgary--Nose Hill.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians would like to make some changes too in the government over there and they need the opportunity to do that.
The Prime Minister told Canadians on national TV that only Gomery could tell who was responsible for the organized ad scam scandal, but all the while he knew that clause k explicitly prevented Gomery from naming names.
Day after day televised evidence leaves no doubt that the stain on our nation's honour was put there by the Liberal Party. Gomery's report will just be a summary of facts we already know.
Is it not true that the government is just inventing excuses to hold off the day of reckoning?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, those members are attacking the mandate of Justice Gomery in another attempt to try to smear the work that he is doing. They realize that when he reports to Canadians, Canadians will have a balanced review and analysis of all the facts and that will be exactly the opposite of what they provide to Canadians on a daily basis on the floor of the House of Commons. Those members amplify and magnify the testimony that suits their particular partisan position.
Canadians want the whole truth and they trust Justice Gomery to give them exactly that. His mandate provides him with every opportunity to do that.
* * *
Justice
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a top Liberal has given sworn testimony at the Gomery commission that many court appointments in Canada have been based on political consideration and merit plays a secondary role. As long as the Liberal government controls the process, the political pedigree of any candidate will be the overriding consideration.
The Minister of Justice has stubbornly refused to turn the matter over to an independent body for examination when he knows Gomery has no jurisdiction. What is he afraid it will uncover?
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the body is not controlled by the Liberals. It is an independent body. It was the same body that the hon. member presided over. It was good enough for him when he was the attorney general of Manitoba and it is good enough for us when we are the Government of Canada.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the justice minister understands perfectly well the distinction between an independent body and the body that controls federal judicial appointments. The denials of the minister are simply not enough. An independent investigation is needed to clear the air. It is more than a coincidence that predominantly Liberal Party loyalists get appointed to the bench, including the minister's former chief of staff.
Why does the minister refuse to put into place a transparent public process that actually limits political patronage?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member earlier referenced Gomery and the work of Justice Gomery. It is important to realize that recently constituents of the hon. member started receiving householders that he sent out. In that householder he said:
|
--we in the Conservative Party, believe that more testimony must be heard. And we believe that the Canadian public deserves a chance to hear, understand, and evaluate this evidence. This will obviously take some time. Our party is not interested in the electoral calculations of the Bloc Québecois, nor do we wish to have any part of pre-empting further evidence...We will not allow the separatists’ dangerous, narrow electoral agenda to dictate that of the entire country. |
That is what he said--
(1435)
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot.
* * *
[Translation]
Transfer Payments
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the budget implementation bill is unacceptable to Quebec. It does not include any measures to eliminate the fiscal imbalance. Yet, Jean Charest and Benoît Pelletier expect the federal government to provide better funding for post-secondary education, something which, in their opinion, would be a first step in solving the fiscal imbalance issue.
How can the government explain that its budget does not include any solution to the fiscal imbalance, even though it recognized its existence in the throne speech?
[English]
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no such thing as a fiscal imbalance. I would remind the hon. member that 25 years ago the argument was that all the money was in the provinces and all the needs were in the federal government. Now they argue that all the needs are in the provinces and all the money is in the federal government. Twenty-five years ago they found that there was no structural imbalance. Provinces have the same access to resources and to revenue sources as does the federal government.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the federal contribution accounts for 11.5% of the funding for post-secondary education, while at one time it accounted for 50%.
Does the government realize that, if it really wants to follow up on its commitments set out in the throne speech and provide a real solution to the fiscal imbalance, it must increase transfers for post-secondary education?
[English]
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is a very simple solution to the hon. member's inquiry, and that is on Thursday night support Bill C-43 and Bill C-48.
* * *
[Translation]
Social Development
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, during the last election campaign, the Prime Minister was as proud as could be to announce that Quebec would receive money for child care with no strings attached.
How does the Prime Minister explain that a year after making that promise there is still no agreement with Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times in the House, we have ongoing negotiations and discussions with the province of Quebec. We are very hopeful that those negotiations will end up in an agreement.
[Translation]
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister should know that an unconditional transfer would be very easy to negotiate.
In that context, how can the Prime Minister sign agreements with five provinces and tell us that negotiations with Quebec are ongoing when it should be a mere formality? Let him explain.
[English]
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the first step that needs to be taken in all of this, in order for money to be transferred to the provinces under any agreement, is to pass the budget on Thursday night.
* * *
Canada Post
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it does not appear that the government has any interest in solving the case of André Ouellet's missing receipts. As recently as March of this year, the Canada Post minister told this House that he still did not have the receipts. Yet yesterday, before the government operations committee, Mr. Ouellet testified under oath that he sent the minister the receipts in December of last year.
Will the minister now admit that his department has had the receipts since December of 2004?
[Translation]
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in a parliamentary committee, the hon. member challenged the right of a witness to respond to him in French. I hope today he will be so kind as to allow me to respond to him in French.
My response is that what he just said is not true. There was no political interference in the past and there will be none in the future.
(1440)
[English]
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister is as evasive today as Mr. Ouellet was yesterday.
The Liberals are not interested in getting to the bottom of this issue. For every other Canadian, tax rules are straightforward: no receipts and we pay a taxable benefit. Mr. Ouellet claims he lost almost $200,000 worth of receipts and “the dog ate my homework”.
The same rules that apply to everyone else must apply to Liberal fat cats in this country. Or is “I lost the receipts” now an acceptable excuse for Revenue Canada tax officials?
[Translation]
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the matter is still being investigated.
Not only did this member insult French Canadians with his remarks on bilingualism, but he is also challenging the professionalism of 30,000 public servants at the Canada Revenue Agency. He should apologize to French Canadians and those public servants.
* * *
[English]
Aboriginal Affairs
Mr. Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister continues to struggle with the residential school file. To date the government has spent $625 million on the residential school fiasco and has settled with less than 2% of the possible claimants.
Now the government is reportedly negotiating a $3 billion to $4 billion deal with the AFN to settle the claims of 80,000 people who have not sued the government, yet it ignores the class actions of 15,000 people who have sued the government.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House what she is doing and what happened to the ADR--
The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the ADR process continues as it should. We are working with the claimants, the claimants' lawyers, the AFN and other interested parties.
This is a very difficult issue. It is part of a horrible tragedy that happened to a significant number of aboriginal Canadians. I think the hon. member acts in good faith on this issue, but I would encourage him to be patient and to understand that we are working with all the key interested parties to try to reach a fair and transparent result for--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Centre-North.
[Translation]
Mr. Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is terrible. The proposed settlement with the AFN should exceed $3 billion. Neither the February 2005 budget nor the budgetary fireworks since created by the Liberals and the NDP include any funding for this settlement.
Could the Minister of Finance explain to the House where this money will come from? Are we talking about an informal budget?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I think the question was perhaps not as clear as it could have been, but if the hon. member is in fact talking about our negotiations with the AFN, the claimants, the claimants' lawyers, the churches and other interested parties, let me say that those discussions continue.
We have a shared objective to try to deal with as many claimants as possible, as fairly and as quickly as possible. That is what we are doing. That is what the ADR process is about. That is what our discussions with all interested parties are about.
* * *
The Budget
Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Conservative members from Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia sat on their hands when the Liberal Party stood in favour of the budget and the Atlantic accord. Now the Conservatives want to vote for one budget implementation bill while voting against the other.
Could the minister clarify what the status of the Atlantic accord would be if the opposition defeats the second part of the budget implementation bill?
(1445)
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member said, the Conservatives are now saying that they will vote to support the budget and the government, and then, 10 minutes later, they will vote no confidence and bring down the government.
There are two confidence votes tomorrow. It does not matter which one they defeat. If they defeat a budget bill, they defeat the government and they defeat the Atlantic accord. They defeat the new deal for cities. They defeat child care. They defeat funding for the environment. They defeat funding for post-secondary education. They defeat affordable housing.
Conservatives need to be straight with Canadians. Canadians will not be fooled. The Conservatives need to take responsibility for defeating the budget.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the new NDP budget provisions certainly improve the lives of people and improve our environment. They have received a favourable response from Canadians right across this country.
We expect that the government will soon be introducing measures to implement these very important new budget provisions. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance to update Canadians about progress by the government for implementing these measures and ask if he could give some details about where we are with respect to these very important new budget provisions.
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think what the hon. member is referring to are the votes on Thursday evening, which are votes at second reading. Subsequent to that, the budget bills, if successful, will flow to committee where in fact I am sure there will be committee deliberation.
An hon. member: Is that how it works?
Hon. Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, it seems that I have to explain to those hon. members across the way how it works, because there is some confusion. While those members expect to vote for one budget bill and defeat the other, they actually presume that they are not defeating the government. In fact, they are.
I would say to them to support the budget, support the Atlantic accord, support the increase in tuition fee funding, support the increase in foreign aid, support the new deal for cities and communities, and do what is right for Canada.
* * *
Shipbuilding Industry
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Industry is quite simple. For years now the industry minister has had on his desk a shipbuilding policy designed by the industry and shipyard workers throughout the country. From Victoria to Marystown, Halifax, Lévis and Port Weller, we have the capability, we have the industry and we have the workers to build these ships that Canada so desperately needs.
We cannot help but notice that the federal government is moving to assist the auto sector, which we support, and it is willing to assist the aerospace sector, which we support. We would also support the government if it put in a new shipbuilding policy so that our industry and our workers can get back to work.
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government has had a shipbuilding policy in place since 2001. In fact, I met on Monday of this week with members of the shipbuilding and marine industrial sector from across the country.
We are having a discussion about how to update that strategy to ensure that our Canadian shipbuilding industry is technologically sophisticated and competitive, so that it can be competitive in the world economy and win government contracts for Coast Guard and other defence vessels.
* * *
Oil and Gas Industry
Mr. David Chatters (Westlock—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is vitally important to the Canadian economy that we have access to our northern natural gas. Esso, Shell and ConocoPhillips have halted their work on the $7 billion Mackenzie Valley pipeline project due to unreasonable demands from aboriginal groups and mounting red tape from this government.
The government is sitting on the sidelines watching this project go down the drain. Why has the government failed to move this project forward?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, far from sitting on the sidelines, we are working with the government of the Northwest Territories. Premier Handley was in town last week. We are in fact working on the regulatory process. We have met with the producers. Premier Handley on Friday met in Calgary with aboriginal proponents of this project.
It is a very complex project, one of the most complex regulatory processes under way anywhere right now, I think it is fair to say. Everybody has the shared objective to make sure the Mackenzie gas flows south in a timely fashion. That is what we are all--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Westlock—St. Paul.
Mr. David Chatters (Westlock—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the gas is not flowing in a timely fashion.
The government has also dropped the ball on the Alaska pipeline. We have a 27-year-old piece of legislation which is outdated and is now threatening to tie up the entire Alaska pipeline project for years in court. I raised this issue in the House with the minister two years ago and was simply dismissed.
Enbridge is now threatening legal action on this issue, yet the minister is not doing anything to resolve the issue. Why has the government been sitting on its hands for the past 12 years and doing nothing to move this project forward?
(1450)
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would presume the hon. member knows enough about the Alaska gas project to know that in fact it is a project driven by the private sector. The resource is owned by the state of Alaska. In fact, it is up to the producers to undertake discussions with the state of Alaska as to how the project moves forward. Absolutely, there has to be infrastructure to move the gas south below the 49th parallel.
In fact, for the hon. member to suggest that this government has been inactive or that this government is the problem reflects the fact that the member knows nothing about Alaska gas, who owns it or who is going to move it.
* * *
Natural Resources
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, CPC): Mr. Speaker, when the present government was asked in the House if it would get involved in the development of the Lower Churchill project, the minister of the day said:
|
--the climate change issue is not an opportunity for every provincial project in every area that may have a minor climate change element at a high cost to be funded by the federal government. |
Does the government still feel the same way about this project?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the very strong climate change plan we have, which we hope will survive the whirlwind and which we hope the House will unanimously support through the budget, we offered to provinces to have a partnership fund to decrease greenhouse gas emissions in joint priorities.
If it is a joint priority to develop hydroelectricity, for instance, we will do it. We will then strengthen the energy security of the country and we will reach our Kyoto target. It depends on what the provinces want to do with us.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is clawing back 90% of Newfoundland and Labrador's revenues from the Voisey's Bay development. Why will the government not agree to renegotiate its contract with the province of Newfoundland and Labrador in order to provide a more equitable revenue sharing plan?
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as members know, we have an agreement, the Atlantic accord, and we are taking care of Newfoundland and Labrador and its revenues.
* * *
[Translation]
Forest Industry
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Tembec forestry products has announced that it will be closing four plants, which will mean the loss of 459 jobs, 403 of those in Quebec. The government has continued to turn a deaf ear to our appeals and is refusing to create an aid package for the softwood lumber industry.
Is the closure of these four plants not, unfortunately, an illustration and proof of the negligence of the government which, in refusing to follow up on our recommendations for a recovery plan, has brought about the negative outcome we are seeing today?
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, we are injecting an average of $25 million to $30 million specifically into communities affected by the softwood lumber situation.
We and the Government of Quebec have agreed to take part in a co-ordinating committee to lessen the impact of provincial bill 71.
We have never had any request of any kind from Tembec. We cannot respond to a request that has not been made.
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can the minister be boasting about his budget when it contains nothing for companies affected by the softwood lumber crisis, even though that crisis has now been going on for three years and there is no end to the job losses?
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, if I do not keep tight control over my emotions, I will end up in tears over the sudden interest in economic development from a party that is voting against the budget, voting against a $309 million increase in the budget, voting against Bill C-9, and voting against the economic reinforcement of Quebec.
This is the lowest kind of petty politics, and has nothing at all to do with the issues at hand.
* * *
(1455)
[English]
Sudan
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, unilateral action is not the way to resolve the crisis in Darfur. Last week the Prime Minister did not consult with African Union leaders, NATO leaders or even the head of the Sudanese government before rushing to make an announcement that he was sending Canadian military into Darfur without our allies, without the Sudanese government knowing, and without even the means to protect themselves.
Helping people in Darfur is too important to ignore these things. Why did he not at least warn the African Union leaders that he was about to take unilateral action in Darfur?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely wrong. There have been the appropriate consultations. The Prime Minister and I have conducted consultations with the government in Iran, the United Nations, the African Union and the government of Sudan.
I spoke again with the secretary general of NATO two days ago on the telephone. The catalytic leadership that the Government of Canada is providing when there are thousands of people who are dying, who are being raped and who are starving is very much appreciated.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is not catalytic leadership; it is catatonic leadership.
I have a statement which was released today by the leaders of Egypt, Libya, Chad, Nigeria, Sudan, Gabon and Eritrea. They said that they reject any foreign intervention in the Darfur problem. Today in Brussels the African Union president, Alpha Konare, said that there will be no troops on the ground unless they are exclusively African. The Sudanese ambassador to Canada said that her country will not allow Canadian military into Darfur.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have always been very clear that we will be complementary to what the African Union is doing. We will be supporting the African Union exercise. We have always said exactly that.
What we do know is that where the African Union has been in Darfur it has been helpful, but more boots on the ground are needed in the region, more than the 3,000 they have now. They need better communications equipment. Canada can do something about that. They need better transportation vehicles. Canada can help with NATO to do the right thing in Darfur.
* * *
Seniors
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the health and welfare of Canadian seniors is very important to me, and I believe to all my colleagues in the House.
I would like the Minister of State for Families and Caregivers to outline for all of us the improvements for seniors contained in budget 2005.
Hon. Tony Ianno (Minister of State (Families and Caregivers), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this Liberal government believes in the value and the well-being of our seniors. Our seniors have helped build this nation to what it is today. In this budget there is $2.7 billion over five years to ensure our seniors are given the respect and the dignity they deserve.
We ask the members opposite to support our seniors and vote for the budget because they believe in it. We ask them to do so also.
* * *
Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates
Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works often says he is open and accountable, but his actions say he is not. We just cannot trust what he says. The truth is that he refuses to attend the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates to be held accountable on the 2005-06 spending estimates for his department.
Will the chair of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates tell this House and Canadians the truth about the minister's disrespectful treatment of this committee?
The Speaker: The hon. member knows that questions to committee chairs are permitted, but they are to deal with the agenda of the committee and not testimony that is given in committee.
An hon. member: It is about the agenda.
The Speaker: It did not sound like the agenda to me. He asked for comments on the minister's testimony and that is not the agenda in committee. I am sorry, but there are limits.
The hon. member for Cambridge.
* * *
(1500)
Health
Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my first question in this House was with regard to the accreditation process for foreign trained doctors. Forty-four billion dollars later and there is absolutely no change.
The last budget--the first one, I should say--just has 50¢ per Ontarian, and that will not solve this problem. Doctors are driving cabs while the lineups get longer.
Will the minister please get serious and get a plan about helping the one million people in Ontario who do not have doctors, not in 2008, not in 2012, but right now?
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the last health accord $41 billion was provided to the provinces for this purpose and other purposes in health care. There is $250 million a year ongoing in terms of training that is implicit and embedded in that health accord.
We just provided $75 million over five years to create residencies across the country. That money will flow to the provinces. That will create new positions for residencies for foreign trained doctors.
* * *
[Translation]
Clothing and Textile Industry
Mr. Alain Boire (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the textile plants that remain continue to shut down in Huntingdon and elsewhere in Quebec. This clearly shows that, in its present form, the government's improvised rescue plan cannot solve the crisis.
In light of the mediocre results of its plan, what is the government waiting for to put forward a true plan that would include, among other measures, safeguards, a program for older workers, and a program to support the modernization of the clothing and textile sectors?
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, long before plants began shutting down, we had the pleasure, through the Suroît-Sud renewal committee, of meeting with municipal and local economic stakeholders. We were involved in the renewal plan. Through the Canadian apparel and textile industries program, or CATIP, and then through the Canadian textiles program, or CANtex, we offered funding to industry members, but they did not avail themselves of those funds. We are still there.
We have already said that, if there are investment opportunities in infrastructure, we will follow up on a prioritization by the Quebec government. We will always be there for the residents of Huntingdon.
* * *
[English]
The Environment
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on May 2 the Government of Canada announced that a full panel review would be undertaken to assess the cleanup of the Sydney tar ponds. The Minister of the Environment assured the community at that time that a stringent timeline would be followed and there would be no delay in this process.
As the first critical timeline benchmark approaches, does the Minister of the Environment remain committed to the June 2006 deadline for receiving the review panel's report?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, because of the $280 million that the federal government will invest in the Sydney tar ponds and the $120 million the province will invest, after fruitful discussions I may tell the House that I have no doubt that we will reach an agreement on the review process going forward in the near future. There will be no unnecessary delay in the cleanup of this area.
I will receive the review panel report. The panel will report back to me no later than June 30, 2006.
* * *
Presence in Gallery
The Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Dimitrij Rupel, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Slovenia and Chairman-in-Office for the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
* * *
(1505)
Points of Order
Oral Question Period
[Points of Order]
Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my point of order arises from question period and a question which was being asked of me as the chair of the government operations and estimates committee regarding the agenda of that committee. You yourself said that questions are allowed on the agenda of the committee. The member was asking about why the public works minister has twice agreed to come to this committee and has both times broken his word to the committee. He is showing contempt for--
The Speaker: The hon. member's question did not ask about any of that sort of thing. In the preamble what I heard had nothing to do with appearances. He asked if the minister had said something to the committee about something, and it says right here, “Questions seeking information about the schedule and agenda of committees may be directed to chairs of committees”, but that is it.
I will review the blues, but this question, to my hearing, did not ask about the agenda of the committee. It asked about something the minister may have said or not said. That is what I heard and that is why I ruled it out of order. I am quite prepared to review the blues in light of the comments that have been made but I do not feel the question was in order.
Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to reiterate what the chair of the committee has said and ask you to please look at the blues from today's question period. The question was simply about the agenda. No testimony was mentioned in my question.
The Speaker: I will certainly double-check the question but what I heard did not sound like a question about agenda, so we will leave it at that.
* * *
Oral Question Period
Mr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC): Mr. Speaker, first of all, my apologies for not sending you a little note because this question also arises from question period.
One of the questions asked by one of the backbenchers over there in my view is a clear violation of Standing Order 18 where it states, “No Member may reflect upon any vote of the House, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded”.
That question very clearly reflected not on a vote in the House but on one which has not even been held yet. I am amazed that you considered that question to be in order.
The Speaker: I remember vaguely the question to which the hon. member is referring. There were statements in the preamble to the question that appeared to deal with votes, or future votes or past votes and it was hard for the Chair to tell which, but then the question did not appear to have to do with the votes. It had to with whether the thing was a matter of confidence or something like that. That is my recollection of the question, but I will be happy to review it for the benefit of the hon. member for Edmonton--Sherwood Park and get back to the House in due course.
The preamble was risky. I thought the question was fine, but I will double-check.
* * *
Chief Electoral Officer
The Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table the report of the Chief Electoral Officer entitled “Enhancing the Values of Redistribution: Recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada Following the Representation Order of 2003”.
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
[English]
Government Response to Petitions
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to three petitions.
* * *
Interparliamentary Delegations
Hon. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association, which visited South Africa from March 29 to April 1 on the occasion of the third session of the pan-African Parliament held in Midrand, South Africa.
* * *
(1510)
[Translation]
Committees of the House
Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities entitled, “An Examination of New Directions Governing Contribution Agreements for Selected Programs Delivered on Behalf of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada”.
[English]
I wish to thank my colleague, the NDP member for Sault Ste. Marie, for bringing forward this initiative to review the government's new directives governing contribution agreements for selected programs delivered on behalf of HSDC.
Some of the concerns we heard from witnesses included the short timeframes to respond to proposals and how the selection criteria is used at times to the disadvantage of tested and established programs.
[Translation]
Once again, I want to thank and congratulate all my colleagues in the government, the official opposition, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP for their contributions, openness and objectivity during our very stimulating discussions.
* * *
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade on the main estimates, under Foreign Affairs and International Trade, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2006.
I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade entitled “Dispute Settlement in the NAFTA: Fixing an Agreement under Siege”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to these reports.
* * *
[English]
Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. In accordance with its order of reference of Friday, February 25, 2005 the committee has considered Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 under agriculture and agri-food in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2006, and reports the same less the amounts granted in interim supply.
* * *
[Translation]
Income Tax Act
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, BQ) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-395, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (child care expenses).
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill which seeks to help families, where one of the spouses operates a business or is an independent worker, by allowing the spouse with the higher income to claim the child care expenses.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
Broadcasting Act
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, BQ) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-396, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and the Income Tax Act (closed-captioned programming).
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to reintroduce this bill, especially in the month of May, Speech and Hearing Awareness Month. The purpose of this bill is to require broadcasters to provide closed captions for their video programming. It also amends the Income Tax Act to allow a tax deduction for broadcasters for the purchase of closed-captioning technology.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
(1515)
[English]
PETITIONS
Marriage
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a number of petitions which include several thousands of names of residents who draw to the attention of the House the issue that the moral good of society be protected as we elected officials make judgments in the House and as we pass laws.
The petitioners believe that the defence of traditional marriage as the bond between one man and one woman is a serious moral good. They also believe that marriage is the lasting union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of others, and cannot and should not be modified by a legislative act or court of law.
The petitioners request that Parliament take whatever action is required to maintain the current definition of marriage in law and perpetuity, and to prevent any court from overturning or amending that definition.
* * *
Juvenile Diabetes
Mr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition on behalf of some Canadians concerned about type 1 juvenile diabetes. They are asking the government to consider funding research into this type of diabetes over the next five years.
* * *
Autism
Mr. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by 450 individuals from the greater Vancouver area. They are asking Parliament to amend the Canada Health Act to include, as medically necessary, therapy for children suffering from autism.
The petitioners also ask Parliament to contribute to the creation of academic chairs at Canadian universities dedicated to the research and treatment of autism.
* * *
[Translation]
Marriage
Mr. Robert Vincent (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at the request of some of my constituents, I am tabling a petition regarding Bill C-38.
* * *
[English]
Agriculture
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions.
The first two petitions request that Parliament recognize the prices that exist in the entire agri-food industry in Canada, and that the Canadian Ontario BSE recovery program be extended and funded to treat fairly and equitably all those suffering as a result of a single found case of BSE.
* * *
Property Rights
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the third petition calls upon Parliament to correct the mistake of 1982 and amend the Constitution Act of 1867 to include the right to own, use and earn a living from private property.
* * *
Marriage
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of residents of my riding of Mississauga South on the subject matter of marriage.
The petitioners want to draw to the attention of the House that the majority of Canadians believe that the legal definition of marriage is a voluntary union of a single man and a single woman. They also point out that fundamental matters of social policy should be decided by elected members of Parliament and not by the unelected judiciary.
The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to use all administrative and legislative measures possible, 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 being the legal union of one man and one women to the exclusion of all others.
* * *
[Translation]
Correctional Service of Canada
Mrs. Carole Lavallée (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition signed by more than 1,000 members of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers-CSN, who have been working without a collective agreement for three years. They are calling on the Treasury Board to negotiate a suitable pension plan.
* * *
[English]
Marriage
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Newton—North Delta, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the residents of Newton—North Delta to present several petitions calling upon Parliament to use all possible legislative and administrative measures to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
* * *
Immigration
Mrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells to present a petition signed by hundreds of people from the city of Surrey and surrounding communities.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to review the deportation order against the Funes family of Surrey. In particular, they wish parliamentarians to consider the probable consequences if the family is forced to return to El Salvador. They wish us to review the case and allow the Funes family to remain in Canada.
* * *
(1520)
Autism
Mrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present another petition on behalf of my constituents in Fleetwood—Port Kells who wish to bring to the attention of the House that children suffering from autism spectrum disorder are among the weakest and most vulnerable sector of Canadian society, and that the rate of children being diagnosed with ASD is high and increasing at an alarming rate.
The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to amend the Canada Health Act and corresponding regulations to include intensive behavioural intervention therapy for children with autism as a medically necessary treatment and for the creation of academic chairs at a university in each province to teach IBI treatment, so that Canadian professionals will no longer have to leave the country to receive training in this field.
* * *
Taxation
Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition to the House of over 800 names from the people of my riding of Simcoe—Grey. All of these constituents call upon the Government of Canada to change the Income Tax Act to allow spouses to pay taxes as if the total family income were earned equally. This is known as income splitting.
* * *
[Translation]
Refugees
Ms. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at the request and on behalf of thousands of individuals, I am tabling a petition calling on the government to immediately implement a refugee appeal section, as passed by this House.
* * *
[English]
Marriage
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my first petition is from a number of petitioners calling on Parliament to use all possible legislative and administrative measures, including the invoking of the notwithstanding clause if necessary, to preserve the correct definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
* * *
Canada Post
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, another petition that I am tabling is from several hundred residents of Hepburn, Saskatchewan, who are concerned about the possibility of their rural post office being closed by Canada Post. The petitioners are calling on the government to ensure that such a move does not take place.
* * *
Stem Cell Research
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a third petition I am tabling today is from 46 Canadians who are calling on the government to focus its stem cell funding dollars on adult or non-embryonic stem cell research. They say that non-embryonic stem cell research has produced beneficial health results and it does not result in the taking of human life.
* * *
Citizenship
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of tabling a petition from people in Prince Edward Island who call on the government to return to its previous policy of allowing holy books to be made available to new citizens at citizenship ceremonies around the country.
These petitioners note that a citizenship judge terminated this policy alleging that the policy discriminated against non-religious immigrants. Up to last year holy books were simply displayed on tables at the back of the hall free for new citizens to take. These new citizens were not handed the books. They were not forced on them. The judge produced no evidence to justify his inappropriate decision to ban the availability of holy books.
Therefore, these petitioners ask for the citizenship commission to return to the previous policy of just a few years back which has served our multicultural nation so very well over so many years.
* * *
Marijuana
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise today to present a petition in memory of RCMP officers Brock Myrol, Leo Johnston, Anthony Gordon and Peter Schiemann.
The petitioners state:
“We the undersigned residents of Canada draw the attention of the House to the following:
That the tragic deaths of four RCMP officers reinforces our belief that decriminalizing the possession of marijuana will only serve to increase the number of grow operations throughout the country; that the number of Canadian youth using marijuana will increase throughout our country; that the use of marijuana damages the health and well-being of our citizens; that the decriminalization of possession of marijuana signals to the--
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member knows she cannot read the petition to the House. I know she will give a brief summary.
Mrs. Betty Hinton: Mr. Speaker, the petitioners ask that Bill C-17 and any legislation designed to decriminalize the possession and use of marijuana be withdrawn.
* * *
Canada Post
Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have a series of petitions that I would like to table with respect to the closure of rural post offices. The petitioners call upon Parliament to keep the Grenfell post office open and retain the moratorium on rural post office closures. It is signed by 120 residents of that community.
There is another petition similar in type and vein relating to the Fleming post office signed by 59 residents of that community, as well as the community of Minton, Saskatchewan.
I have 108 residents of Torquay, Saskatchewan asking that the Torquay post office remain open and that the moratorium on rural post offices be maintained.
Additionally, I have 248 residents from the community of Stoughton, Saskatchewan asking that the petition be filed as well.
* * *
(1525)
Autism
Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have another petition relating to autism. The petitioners are asking Parliament to amend the Canada Health Act and corresponding regulations to include therapy for children with autism as a medically necessary treatment and require all provinces to provide or fund this essential treatment for autism.
* * *
Marriage
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions from my riding of New Brunswick Southwest, mainly the citizens of the Grand Bay-Westfield area, Nerepis area and that section of the riding.
The petitioners are calling on Parliament to pass legislation defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
* * *
The Environment
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have another petition which I know that you would be interested in because the petitioners are from Saint Andrews, New Brunswick, and I know you are familiar with that area as well as Bayside and St. Stephen.
The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to enact legislation that would prohibit the transport of LNG tankers through Head Harbour Passage bound for a refinery or an LNG terminal in Eastport, Maine.
I know the House wants clarification on this. Basically those LNG tankers can only get to the United States if they pass through this very dangerous Canadian passage. The petitioners are asking the Government of Canada to say no to the passage of those ships. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you would like to see that happen.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to revert to the presentation of reports from committees. I have changes in committee membership to make for both sides of the House.
The Speaker: Does the House give its consent to the hon. member to return to presenting reports from committees?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Committees of the House
Procedure and House Affairs
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 39th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of certain committees of the House, and I would like to move concurrence at this time.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
Questions on the Order Paper
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 122 and 123.
[Text]
Question No. 122--Mr. Dean Allison:
Since October 23, 1993, did Ekos or its principals receive any: (a) grants, contributions or loan guarantees and, if so, (i) what was the source (i.e., department, agency, crown corporation, special operating agency or foundation), value, date made and reasons for providing the funding in each case, (ii) what is their present status, whether paid, repaid, or unpaid, including the value of the repayment, (iii) what was the total amount received; and (b) contracts and, if so, (i) were the contracts fulfilled, (ii) what were their contract number, source, value, date made, reasons for providing the funding, (iii) were these contracts tendered and if the tendering was limited what would be the reason for the limitation, (iv) what was the total amount of contracts obtained, and what was the total amount of all the funds provided to Ekos or its principals, (v) was it a standing offer, and, if so, what was the number and type of standing offer?
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Question No. 122 is extremely broad. It targets over 140 government organizations, many of which have undergone significant organizational and systems changes over the 12 year period covered by the question. The length of the question makes the task all the more difficult given that, under the applicable government records retention policy, federal departments usually keep their records for a period of six years only.
Extensive work has already been done to collect the relevant information from more than 140 government organizations in answer to this question. However, and in spite of the extensive efforts invested so far, the work is not yet finalized and a verification of the information has not yet been completed. Thus, more time is needed to perform the type of quality control that is necessary to ensure that the information provided to the House is as comprehensive and reliable as possible.
The government will provide a supplementary reply to this question as soon as the requested information is ready.
Question No. 123--Mr. Dean Allison:
Since October 23, 1993, did Earnscliffe or Veraxis or their principals receive any: (a) grants, contributions or loan guarantees and, if so, (i) what was the source (i.e., department, agency, crown corporation, special operating agency or foundation), value, date made and reasons for providing the funding in each case, (ii) what is their present status, whether paid, repaid, or unpaid, including the value of the repayment, (iii) what was the total amount each company received; and (b) contracts and, if so, (i) were the contracts fulfilled, (ii) what were their contract number, source, value, date made, reasons for providing the funding, (iii) were these contracts tendered and if the tendering was limited what would be the reason for the limitation, (iv) what was the total amount of contracts each company obtained, and what was the total amount of all the funds provided to these companies, (v) was it a standing offer, and, if so, what was the number and type of standing offer?
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Question No. 123 is extremely broad. It targets over 140 government organizations, many of which have undergone significant organizational and systems changes over the 12 year period covered by the question. The length of the question makes the task all the more difficult given that, under the applicable government records retention policy, federal departments usually keep their records for a period of six years only.
Extensive work has already been done to collect the relevant information from more than 140 government organizations in answer to this question. However, and in spite of the extensive efforts invested so far, the work is not yet finalized and a verification of the information has not yet been completed. Thus, more time is needed to perform the type of quality control that is necessary to ensure that the information provided to the House is as comprehensive and reliable as possible.
The government will provide a supplementary reply to this question as soon as the requested information is ready.
* * *
[English]
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 124 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 124--Mr. Daryl Kramp:
What suppliers have received current standing offers with the government, including all agencies, crown corporations, and foundations and, in each case (listed in order of the greatest amount to the smallest amount of business), specifying: (a) the standing offer number; (b) name of the supplier; (c) the name and address of the company (if different from supplier name); (d) type of standing offer; (e) date the standing offer was granted; (f) type of goods or services provided; (g) department, agency or crown corporation that awarded the contract; (h) total amount of business assigned to the supplier by the department, agency or crown corporation; and (i) the total amount of untendered business to the supplier by the department, agency or crown corporation?
(Return tabled)
[English]
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[Translation]
Motions for Papers
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity as Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to address one of these questions. I would ask you to call motion No. P-11
[English]
|
That an Order of this House do issue for: (a) the significant incident report(s) or a summary of significant incident reports issued with regard to HMCS Chicoutimi between October 2 and 6, 2004; (b) after-action reports issued in regard to HMCS Chicoutimi between October 2 and 6, 2004; and (c) a summary and/or a list of sea trials conducted by HMCS Chicoutimi prior to its departure from the United Kingdom for Halifax, Nova Scotia. |
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc: Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-1, in the name of the hon. member for Cumberland--Colchester--Musquodoboit Valley is acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential information, and the documents are tabled immediately.
(1530)
The Speaker: Subject to the reservations or conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary is it the pleasure of the House that Notice of Motion No. P-1 be deemed to have been adopted?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I would ask you to call Motion No. P-3.
|
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the call log and all documents pertaining to the call log, including ministerial briefing notes, referred to in the exchange in the House on Thursday, October 21, 2004, between the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and the Member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. |
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-3, in the name of the hon. member for Saanich--Gulf Islands, is acceptable to the government and the documents are tabled immediately.
(Motion agreed to)
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I would ask you to call Motion No. P-6.
|
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all studies and reports prepared by Donald Savoie for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, relating to the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy. |
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers and No. P-6 in the name of the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest, is acceptable to the government and the documents are also tabled immediately.
(Motion agreed to)
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all other Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is it agreed that the remaining Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Business of Supply
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among all parties.
[Translation]
I have two motions to present for this evening's debate.
[English]
I will present the first motion and then the second motion. I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
|
That during today's debate on the business of supply, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be entertained by the Speaker. |
The 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.
(Motion agreed to)
[Translation]
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, there have been discussions among all parties and I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.
[English]
The motion regarding this evening's debate in the committee of the whole of the main estimates is this. I move:
|
That notwithstanding Standing Order 81(4)(a), within each 15 minute period, each party may allocate time to one or more of its members for speeches or for questions and answers, provided that, in the case of questions and answers, the minister's answer approximately reflects the time taken by the question, and provided that, in the case of speeches, members of the party to which the period is allocated may speak one after the other. |
The 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.
(Motion agreed to)
Hon. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek the unanimous consent of the House to return to the tabling of documents.
The Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to return to the tabling of documents?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Budget Implementation Act, 2005
The House resumed from May 17 consideration of the motion that Bill C-43, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23, 2005, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today. We look across the floor at a government that is corrupt and ruining our country's finances. We have seen this corruption exemplified by the Liberal ad scam, the $2 billion gun registry and the $1 billion boondoggle of HRDC. However, in the latest effort of the government in its NDP budget, we find a more egregious waste of tax dollars.
I suggest that perhaps the most outrageous example of hidden costs contained in the budget are found in its seemingly altruistic promise to bring in a government day care bureaucracy. Liberals are telling the Canadian people that they can bring in a government day care bureaucracy, applicable to every child, at the cost of $1 billion a year. In reality, we know the cost of this program is approximately 10 times that amount.
The government day care bureaucracy will impose a $10 billion a year burden on taxpayers and take away choices from women and families. I will demonstrate that today irrefutably with the evidence I have on my desk. However, better than that, I will bring hope to Canadians by proposing an alternative that gives choice to women and families. The Conservative Party and its leader believe in a woman's right to choose how to raise her children. That right we are prepared to defend on the floor of the House of Commons.
Let us start by demonstrating that the Liberals' plan is 10 times more costly than they are prepared to allow Canadian people to understand. Recall that the Liberals said that the gun registry would cost only $2 million. It is now 1,000 times over budget. We on this side of the House gave warnings, which were unheeded. Thus, today we have a $2 billion monstrosity that not only harasses duck hunters and farmers and takes choices away from them, but imposes greater burdens on taxpayers.
Likewise, we have before us the government day care bureaucracy. I will look at the evidence. The government tells us that the program will cost only $5 billion over five years, in other words, approximately $1 billion a year. However, let us look at the words of minister responsible for social development. I do not know if he realized that he was being recorded when he made this promise at a community event. He said:
|
And the nice thing about it all $5 billion over five years does not create a system. What it does is set things in motion. |
He went on to say that the $5 billion would only be enough to create bits and pieces and fragments of a system. If it is going to cost $5 billion over five years to create bits and pieces and fragments, how much is it going to cost to make universal the government day care bureaucracy?
It is not just a rhetorical question. I have with me a list of organizations, most of them government funded, that support the day care bureaucracy proposed by the minister and the Liberal government. I have visited their research studies on the cost of the program. Remember that all these organizations are supportive of a government day care bureaucracy. Let me give an example of what they have said.
I have here a document from the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada. It indicates that the full cost of a government day care bureaucracy, the kind that the Liberals are proposing, is 1% of GDP. That does not sound like a lot, but that 1% is deceptively large. We are talking about $10 billion per year, not $1 billion as the government claim. This means there is a $9 billion black hole in the government's day care bureaucracy promise.
(1535)
Where will the government get that $9 billion? It cannot merely be pulled out of thin air. It will have to be taken from the pockets of parents through higher taxes. A $9 billion obligation, whether it is borne partly by the provinces and partly by the federal government, there is only one source of revenue from which that $10 billion can come and that is out of the pockets of taxpayers. If the government claims otherwise, it has to demonstrate which other programs it is prepared to cut, health care perhaps, or whether it is willing to run a budgetary deficit.
However for the government to claim that it can bring in a universal day care bureaucracy for only $5 billion over five years is deceptive, as has been admitted by the minister responsible who says that $5 billion over five years “does not create a system”, and who then goes on to say that it will merely create bits and pieces.
The organization I quoted gave us this document entitled, “From patchwork to framework: A child care strategy for Canada”, which is the same strategy that the Liberal government is proposing. Actually the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada is very accurate because if we take the cost of the Quebec day care bureaucracy and calculate it over the size of the entire Canadian population, the cost would be in the neighbourhood of $10 billion.
We have evidence that the Liberal Party is trying to hide $9 billion worth of costs associated with its latest election promise. That is the Liberal hidden agenda on child care.
Now that we have addressed the enormous cost with which taxpayers will be faced by this Liberal day care bureaucracy, I would like to address an aspect of this issue that is even more troubling yet.
I have before me a quote that illustrates the very unfortunate attitude of the social development minister, the misogynistic attitude, the paternalistic attitude, the attitude that borders on sexism. I want to read this to the House. I was here when these words were stated on the floor of the House of Commons on February 15. He said:
|
A recent study, as was cited by the Vanier Institute of the Family, has found that most moms and dads with pre-school children would prefer that one parent stay home and take primary responsibility for raising the children. Again, that is not surprising. As parents we all feel guilty about the time we are not spending with our kids. However, if we asked the same group of people or any group of people if they would like to lose weight, 90% would say yes. If we asked them if they would like ice cream once a week and chocolate twice a day, about the same percentage would say the same. The question, as in all of these matters, is not what we would like to do, but what we will do, and what we do. |
Let us review. The fact that the Vanier Institute demonstrated that the vast majority of parents prefer an at-home child care option over the day care bureaucracy could merely be explained away by feelings such as guilt and the desire of a parent to stay in the home with the child is akin to nothing more than a frivolous desire for ice cream or chocolate. That is the attitude that drives the Liberal commitment to this day care bureaucracy.
(1540)
This is an outright contempt for a woman's right to choose how to raise her own children. The government would take away that choice by imposing higher taxes on families that make the sacrifice to keep a parent in the home or pursue another child care option.
We in this party pursue a more hopeful and choice driven option. We would put child care dollars right into the pockets of parents to let them decide how to raise their own children. We would work our way toward income splitting that takes away inequities that are imposed on families with a stay at home parent.
This is all in the interest of choice and economizing taxpayer dollars and I am proud to stand for these values.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP): Madam Speaker, I want to begin by commenting on the Conservative member's speech which I found to be an attack on all families that are trying to juggle work and family responsibilities.
The member talked about patronizing, chauvinistic and sexist attitudes. Let me point out that is the member who is suggesting that this is a woman's problem, that this is a matter of choice for women, not a matter for families, for parents with children who are trying to do the very best for their children.
Let me ask a couple of questions of the member based on two aspects of this issue, the first one being economic.
The member likes to pretend that this is a lot of money going into a deep, dark hole and tries to gloss over the fact that the proposal by the Conservatives will cost a lot more than the perhaps $10 billion we are talking about today. If he is genuine in providing real choice for families, then he must actually acknowledge that his program will cost well over $40 billion a year if one includes the fact that he would have to provide tax breaks of such a magnitude that day care spaces can be built and created and parents can access them at a reasonable cost.
He also must factor in the lost revenue by virtue of the fact that many women will be forced to return to the home full time when they would like to be in the workforce contributing to our society, when they have made a choice to be both good parents and good contributors in terms of our paid labour force.
Let us not forget that for every $1 invested in child care in this country there is a $2 return for children who are growing in nurturing, caring environments under the care of professionals who have been trained to provide absolutely safe, secure, high quality care.
Finally, let me suggest to the member that he should stay calm for a moment and try to understand this issue. I doubt very much that he has had children and I want to speak from the point of view of someone who has had two children, who has benefited from the use of quality non-profit day care in the province of Manitoba, and who could not do this job if it were not for the fact that we have such high quality day care in the province of Manitoba.
For the member to stand in the House and suggest this idiosyncratic approach, this idiotic approach that giving money to families through taxes will magically create day care centres out of the blue that parents can access at reasonable cost, he is absolutely living in Technicolor. He ought to reassess his position and actually talk to some women, perhaps talk to women in his own caucus to get a full understanding of his approach and perhaps understand the reality of working women and working families in our society today.
(1545)
Mr. Pierre Poilievre: Madam Speaker, I am saddened by the hon. member's extremely intolerant approach and the fact that she is suggesting that this is not an issue that affects women. She is suggesting that I was wrong to point out that this is a matter that is deeply concerning to women, particularly young women.
In my constituency I probably have the highest percentage of young families of any constituency in Canada. They are telling me that they do not want to pay higher taxes to afford a $10 billion day care bureaucracy. They are telling me that they would rather have the dollars put right into their pockets.
The hon. member asked about the cost of our program. Because our program puts dollars directly in the pockets of parents, we cut out all the bureaucracy. Second, it is easily calculated because the amount that we will put directly into the pockets of parents is merely multiplied by the number of children for whom that credit is provided. We can provide these dollars without bureaucracy and we can allow parents and women to decide for themselves how those dollars are spent.
The United Nations has recognized that the system of taxation that the government has in place is discriminatory because it does not recognize the economic and social value associated with stay at home parenting. The United Nations points out that it is an offence to basic human rights that the government taxes families with single incomes at a higher rate than families with dual incomes.
We would put an end to that human rights violation. We would put child care dollars directly into parents' pockets and let women and families decide for themselves. I am proud to say that.
(1550)
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy), Lib.): Madam Speaker, before I proceed I want to put it on the record that what the hon. member is referring to is a $300 tax break but he forgets that we also have a national child tax benefit that is provided to all families. The party seems to somehow forget that. In any case, I will get to that in my speech.
I also want to ask the hon. member, perhaps when he asks me a question, why the hon. member for Edmonton--Spruce Grove said that her party will honour all the agreements that we have signed with the five provinces.
I will begin my speech first by emphasizing this government's commitment to early learning and child care. We are not only talking about child care. We are talking about a national system of early learning, our commitment to seniors and our commitment to unpaid caregivers. Each has been identified as key priorities in the budget 2005.
We know that a healthy social and economic environment leads to healthy communities and ultimately to an improved quality of life. On this note, allow me to also outline our advances in the area of the social economy, which is my specific area of responsibility.
[Translation]
The social economy is made up of all entrepreneurs and non-profit corporations. These enterprises produce goods and services for the market economy, but they manage their operations with a view to redirecting their profits in pursuit of social and community goals; basically, they are reinvesting their surpluses in the community.
[English]
These businesses use their skills and services for social goals, whether it is protecting the environment, revitalizing neighbourhoods or helping disadvantaged groups reach their full potential.
The Government of Canada is determined to foster the social economy in all its diverse forms so that it becomes a key component of Canada's social policy tool kit. May I say that in Quebec, the province in which I was elected and in which I have spent most of my life, some of the day cares are run under the auspices of something called the social economy.
[Translation]
This government has made a commitment to inject $132 million over five years in the social economy, to support financial initiatives to increase lending to social economy enterprises, reinforce the capacity of community organizations involved in economic development, support community based research on the social economy, and improve the access of social enterprises to programs and services for small and medium-sized enterprises.
Just last month I announced, together with my colleague, the hon. Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, the key measures that will be implemented in Quebec to promote the social economy and contribute to the success of the enterprises operating in Quebec. These measures will include $5.1 million over two years for capacity building, and $30 million over five years for the Social Economy Patient Capital Fund.
[English]
These measures will enable the social economy to reach its potential and they will benefit all Canadians. We must invest dollars now if we wish to secure a healthy social economy for Canada's future.
This government has always focused on the priorities that are important to all Canadians: our children, our youth, our cities and communities, and the health and well-being of all Canadians. Our record of balanced budgets proves this. The budget and its accompanying bill once again prove this. The Liberal government has always and will always put Canadians first, and it also puts a united Canada first.
[Translation]
I would just like to make it clear to certain members of this House in connection with this budget and the accompanying bill that it is good for Quebec, good for Canada, and good for all Canadians.
Our vision of Canada on this side of the House has always encompassed all the provinces, all the territories, all Canadians, and Quebec. We have always believed, and continue to believe, in a united Canada.
The Liberal government's record has always demonstrated our commitment to all Canadians. This budget and the accompanying bill reinforce that commitment. I see that in my own riding of Ahuntsic.
Human Resources and Skills Development has announced $215,000 for older worker pilot projects, which includes the textile and garment workers. There has been $275,000 from the Department of Labour for the supported communities partnership initiative, and another nearly $100,000 for three agencies in my riding of Ahuntsic from the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.
The Liberal government has made a commitment to our children, our young people, our cities and communities, and we keep our commitments. This budget and the accompanying bill respect and reinforce our commitments. They deliver the goods to all Canadians.
(1555)
[English]
I am sure we will all agree that our children are this country's most precious resource and that they deserve early learning experiences that will point them toward a positive and successful future.
I assure the House once again that this government's heart is in the right place when it comes to family. We actually give real choices to families. That is why the Government of Canada made children a priority in the budget. We cannot and must not let them down.
Budget 2005 will provide $5 billion over five years for an early learning and child care national program. The impact of this $5 billion will vary across the country depending on the priorities identified by each province and territory.
I am very proud to say that in the province of Quebec, as always on other important issues in the country, we already have a system in place. I want to tell the hon. member who preceded me that in fact I was also a working mother. When I was elected, my children were a year and a half and three and a half years old. They had nine months with their mother, two years with their grandmother and the rest of the time in day care until they entered kindergarten and school. I have known the benefits of all three systems. I still believe that for those working mothers there is a great need in this country to have an accessible universal day care and early learning system.
[Translation]
We already have agreements in principle with five provinces, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia. Others are slated for signature with the other provinces and territories in coming weeks.
[English]
We must not confuse child tax deductions with child care, as did the hon. member who preceded me, along with other members of his party.
This government made a commitment to build a national early learning and child care system, one that will not in any way infringe on parental rights or choices. Rather, the goal of this initiative is to ensure consistency and quality in the delivery of early learning and child care.
Aboriginal children, too, will benefit from a national early learning and child care initiative. The Government of Canada already has committed $45 million over four years in the 2003-04 budget to enhance the established federal aboriginal head start on reserve program and first nations and Inuit child care programs.
Budget 2005 will provide an additional $100 million over four years to further enhance these programs, with an emphasis on quality early learning and child care for first nations children living on reserve.
[Translation]
Our government has not forgotten its commitment to seniors either. We want to give them an income supplement and care when these are needed. This is one of the ways the government plans to strengthen the social foundations of this country.
[English]
Budget 2005 contains a number of initiatives designed to address the needs of today's seniors and the aging population that will follow in their footsteps. To help address the immediate needs of low income seniors, the government will increase the guaranteed income supplement, the allowance and survivor's allowance by 7%.
Starting January 1, 2006, the guaranteed income supplement will increase by $18 a month for single recipients and by $29 a month for couples. Those rates will increase by the same amount again on January 1, 2007, putting an extra $432 a year in the pockets of single seniors and an extra $700 a year for couples. Over 1.6 million seniors who currently receive the GIS will benefit from this increase and up to 50,000 more seniors will qualify for partial GIS benefits.
The government also wants to help those seniors who are financially able to plan better for their future. Budget 2005 will raise the annual contribution limit for registered retirement savings plans to $22,000 by 2010 and will increase corresponding employer sponsored registered pension plans.
Although I have more to say, my time is up, but let me note that funding for the new horizons program for seniors, which I had the pleasure of announcing in my riding with the minister responsible, will grow to $10 million in 2006-07 and $15 million in 2007-08 and subsequent years, bringing the annual budget to $25 million.
I will conclude by saying there is nothing more important than the adoption of this budget. If the opposition members in fact care about children, seniors and our environment, then I encourage them to support Bill C-43.
(1600)
[Translation]
Mr. Marc Lemay (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ): Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to my hon. colleague from Ahuntsic. I would say to her that I am very involved in social economy, and my question concerns it.
I was the chair of the social economy committee in my riding in the region of Rouyn-Noranda at the time of the Chantier Défi-Emploi. We had a social economy table to promote enterprises of this type and develop them. They are very important in regions such as ours and have made considerable advances in recent years.
However, we kept running into the problem of funds for starting up or supporting social economy enterprises. In the budget we will be opposing, there is no provision for helping establish or start up social economy enterprises, which need such funds. Reference is made to a capitalization fund. Such a fund would help provide capital for a business already up and running, needing just a little help to make it.
So, my question is as follows: why does the budget contain no provision for a start up fund for social economy enterprises?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Madam Speaker, it is a good question. The hon. member might look at the announcement we made a few weeks ago. There were two parts to it: one concerns a fund and the other, pilot projects. The aim of the pilot projects is in fact to get new enterprises up and running.
Once again, congratulations go to Quebec. In social economics terms, it is in the lead. The social economy has existed there for 20 years. This is the first time the Canadian government has wanted to invest in a sector of economic development that is very important to Quebec's regional development. I am very proud we delivered that at Economic Development Canada.
I would like to know why the Bloc Québécois did not support the bill for Canada's economic development and why it is not supporting the budget, since they do have an interest in advancing the social economy?
[English]
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC): Madam Speaker, I want to talk about choices and child care. Home schooling is very popular back home in my riding of Essex, as it is in Ottawa.
Home schooling parents in Canada will be paying high taxes to build what will eventually be a $10 billion per year Liberal child care and early learning system. What benefit will they get from this system?
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos: First of all, Madam Speaker, that figure of $10 billion is a figure that the hon. members are throwing around. We are talking about putting together a national system of early learning, and they keep forgetting the early learning part of it; it is early learning and child care.
As far as families are concerned, I did mention in my opening remarks that what those members are proposing is a $300 tax break when the cost of day care is $8,000. Second, I did underline the fact that there is a national tax benefit which benefits families with children, something that those hon. members always forget to mention whenever they are making their remarks.
Mr. Tony Martin (Sault Ste. Marie, NDP): Madam Speaker, I have a question for the member, who is very familiar with this program, being the parliamentary secretary to the minister. It is also, from what I understand, a good investment economically. I believe that David Dodge, the governor of the Bank of Canada, and Charles Coffey, vice-president of the Royal Bank of Canada, are on the record as saying that this is a good investment in the future of our country and our economy.
In fact, there is a return of I believe $2 for every $1 invested in early learning and child care, as later in life these children are successful in high school and in the workplace. Could she talk a little about that economic investment and how important it is to this country?
(1605)
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos: Madam Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly with what the hon. member has said. In fact, there are economic rewards in terms of setting up this system. I used the example of Quebec. In Quebec a lot of small enterprises are day care centres and employ teachers or other child care workers within that system. I have two children who were in that system and they benefited enormously in terms of what they learned.
As I said, and I want to underline this, we are creating a system, not what the hon. members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition are suggesting, which is just giving tax breaks. I thank the hon. member for putting that on the record too.
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Madam Speaker, as I rise to speak on the budget bill I wish to congratulate Carole James, who is the leader of the B.C. New Democratic Party, for her tremendous breakthrough yesterday with over 40% of the vote in British Columbia. I would also like to congratulate the new member of the legislative assembly for New Westminster, Mr. Chuck Puchmayr and the new member of the legislative assembly for Burnaby-Edmonds, Mr. Raj Chouhan, for their clear victories in that election yesterday.
I mention my communities because the context of this budget discussion is extremely important. When we arrived on the Hill last fall, we were dealing with a series of crises that have not been addressed for over a decade. We are talking about a crisis in homelessness where there are increasing numbers of homeless across the country. In my region of the lower mainland we have tripled the number of homeless at a time when we are reaping record corporate profits.
We have an increase in child poverty. As we saw last fall, we are now looking at over 1.1 million poor children in Canada which should be a source of national shame.
When we talk about the education system, I met, when I knocked on over 6,000 doors in the election campaign last year, dozens of young people who could not go into post-secondary education because of tuition fee increases. Not being able to go into post-secondary education is not just something that affects those families, it affects the entire community. It affects the entire nation when young people cannot go on to post-secondary studies because they are cut off. Increasingly post-secondary studies are for the wealthy.
We have also seen the environment deteriorating. There was a the Kyoto plan to decrease greenhouse gas emissions by 20%. We have actually seen an increase of 20% in greenhouse gas emissions.
That is the context in the community for the budget bill that was originally presented earlier this spring. This budget bill as we all know, presented as one of its foremost planks corporate tax cuts of $4.6 billion. We had just gone through an election campaign and there had been promises made and commitments made as they had been in previous elections by the Liberal Party, and indeed by the Conservative Party, to address some of these issues.
One of the fundamental aspects of the bill was corporate tax cuts of $4.6 billion and to my surprise, we saw the Conservative opposition actually supporting this kind of budget mismanagement. Some $4.6 billion shovelled out the door to the corporate sector that is currently experiencing record profits and the Conservatives did not say a single word.
That is the context for the NDP budget amendment, Bill C-48, which now makes Bill C-43 much more responsive to what we are actually seeing in communities across the country. I understand the Conservative opposition is going to oppose this because the Leader of the Opposition actually stated a couple of weeks ago he did not want to listen to what the MPs were hearing from their ridings and the public. Indeed, he said he would disregard those comments when it came to forcing an election.
However, in reality Canadians have had over the past 10 to 12 years a deterioration in their quality of life. The original budget did not address in a meaningful way all of those substantive issues that needed to be addressed.
The NDP pushed the Liberal government and negotiated effectively with it in order to bring in budget amendments that finally dealt with those issues. There is $1.6 billion in investment to finally start dealing with the housing crisis and the homelessness crisis that is growing, particularly in British Columbia. It was an issue in the provincial campaign and led to the substantial breakthrough that I mentioned earlier.
There is $1.5 billion to deal with the post-secondary education crisis to finally start lowering tuition fees, so that more young people and more adults can access training, post-secondary education, and those things that should be a right of all Canadians, and also in that way contribute to our economy and communities.
(1610)
There is $900 million for the environment, finally providing back to cities support for rapid transit which is something extremely important if we are going to deal with the environmental crises and the environmental issues that we face.
At a time when we must be seeking more stability around this planet, there is $500 million in foreign aid, so that Canada starts to meet its commitment for foreign aid to address the appalling poverty that people around the world and that children around the world are facing.
We know that today, in this 24 hour period, 29,000 children will die of starvation and disease. These are preventable deaths, but they die these horrible deaths in part because there is not sufficient foreign aid to address the grinding and horrible poverty in which they live. The NDP budget amendment, Bill C-48, that now takes Bill C-43 and makes it a better balanced budget, addresses that in talking about $500 million in foreign aid.
What has been the response to these issues and the fact that the NDP has stood up on these issues that for so long have not been addressed? I would like to read into the record some of the comments. From the chair of the Canadian Urban Transit Association:
|
This move shows true leadership in making transit a focal point for sustainable urban development. |
From the chair of the National Coalition on Housing and Homelessness:
|
Thank goodness reason prevailed. Canadians need to see real progress on social housing. We don't need another time out for an election. This revised budget should be passed. |
From the president of the Canadian Council for International Cooperation:
|
With this deal, the NDP has pushed the Liberals closer to meeting Canada's international aid obligations. |
From the Canadian Federation of Students:
|
The [Liberal-NDP] deal ensures that the funding will be available for provinces who are willing to take steps to make post-secondary education more accessible to low- and middle-income families. |
From the Sierra Club of Canada:
|
There is no more time for politics on this issue. All parties must work together and for now that means passing the budget and getting action underway. |
These are the kinds of comments that are being voiced in communities and main streets across Canada from coast to coast to coast. This budget now, because of the NDP amendment, finally addresses urgent needs that Canadians are facing.
[Translation]
The question we must ask ourselves is this. Given that the issues of education, homelessness, with numbers on the rise unfortunately, and the environment are being addressed, why do the Bloc Québécois members object to a measure that moves forward on things that Quebeckers need so much? Several elements of Bill C-48 are designed to improve people's the quality of life. That is not insignificant; it is important. I know that the Bloc Québécois shares these values.
This is incomprehensible to me, given that we are trying to introduce improvements. Granted, not all needs are covered. But there are only 19 NDP members. Had there been more of us, we might have been able to do more. Nevertheless, this budget is a definite improvement that will make a difference for Quebec, with $1 billion over two years. It will make a difference for Montreal and for public transit, as $20 million is earmarked for that. That is not insignificant. These are important elements.
I mentioned that, with 19 members, we had nevertheless managed to make considerable advances on issues of concern to people in the regions of Canada. We will continue to work in that fashion, to improve legislation in the House of Commons to ensure that Canadians can benefit from it.
(1615)
[English]
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CPC): Madam Speaker, it is a distinct pleasure to speak to the comments raised by the NDP member. I come from the province of Saskatchewan and I can tell members I have some concerns with this budget bill that the NDP has arranged with the Liberals.
I know NDPers wake up in the morning along with a lot of socialist friends in the Liberal Party and ask, “How do we regulate people more? How do we interfere more and more in the day-to-day lives of Canadians? How do we tax them more? How do we get them under our thumb so they have to come, cap in hand, looking for subsidies or something?” That is the way they envision society.
In 1944 a Baptist premier was elected in Saskatchewan who said, “I'll take care of you people”. A few years earlier another Baptist minister from Saskatchewan moved to Alberta. He became a premier in 1944 and he had a totally different message. His attitude was, “Let's be fair with business. Let's have fair tax policies. Let's encourage entrepreneurship, investment and things along that line”.
Saskatchewan had 1,250,000 people in 1944. How many does it have today? It has 940,000 people. Alberta had 700,000 in 1944. How many does it have today? It has 3 million. Saskatchewan has the second largest out-migration of 22 year olds in this country. Where are they going? They are going to Alberta. They are doing that by choice. If we want a damning indictment of NDP policies and the effect they have on society, we have to look no further than Saskatchewan.
However, I do have a question for the member. When the champagne socialist leader got together with the leader of the Liberals and Buzz Hargrove in their five star hotel in Toronto, why did they not strike a deal to address a serious injustice in Saskatchewan and the unfair treatment of Saskatchewan in terms of equalization?
The province of Saskatchewan is simply getting, and I had better not use that language. The equalization formula is abhorrent for that province. It discourages real true economic development in that province. That province actually gets poorer by trying to develop its resources. I am ashamed that the NDP leader, in making his budget deal with this shameful outfit, did not address that issue and I would like an explanation.
Mr. Peter Julian: Madam Speaker, the member referred, I thought somewhat derogatorily, to a Baptist minister from Saskatchewan who recently, with Canadians from coast to coast to coast, was voted the greatest Canadian of all time, bar none. After the most extensive voting process in Canada's history, people chose Tommy Douglas as the greatest Canadian of all time.
I know, having been to Saskatchewan often, that the people of Saskatchewan are extremely proud of that heritage, and extremely proud to have founded the first medicare system that was brought in right across the country because of the efforts of Tommy Douglas. They are extremely proud of the incredible work of the administrations of the CCF and the NDP that brought a province into the modern age in the most effective way possible.
So, for that member to speak derogatorily about someone who is not only dear to the hearts of people from across Saskatchewan but indeed the greatest Canadian, as voted by Canadians, I find somewhat perplexing.
However, I do want to touch on another point. He referred to fiscal management. As the member should know, and I am sure he does not because there seems to be some difficulty with financial literacy within that caucus, there was a study done of a 20 year period, comparing Conservative, Liberal, Parti Québécois, Social Credit and NDP administrations across this country from 1981 to 2001. It would be no surprise to the member that the worst fiscal managers, from the actual fiscal period returns, were actually the Liberals. Some 85% of Liberal fiscal returns were actually in deficit. The second worst were the Conservatives, where 66% of the fiscal period returns, not the budgets, were in deficit. The best record belonged to the New Democrats, where most of the time, when we projected surpluses, we achieved them and we did them without harming people and by building provinces where every one mattered.
(1620)
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine): Let me note for hon. members that the period for questions and comments is only five minutes long. When members use three minutes for the question and comment, then we have very little time left for the answer and cannot have more than one question and comment. I want to bring that to the attention of members.
Mr. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the budget. I have had time since this budget was presented in the House in February to really reflect on it. I have also had the opportunity to speak to many constituents in my riding of Mississauga—Brampton South. I believe that as a government we are in a position to make difference.
I want to remind members across the way and other individuals listening of how we got to the position of having surpluses and thus can invest. If I recall correctly, in the early 1990s the Liberal government inherited billions of dollars of deficit. The Prime Minister, the finance minister at the time, showed great leadership, not only in eliminating the deficit but in putting us in the position of also being able to reduce our debt. And we did reduce the debt.
In the past few months I have talked to many constituents in Mississauga—Brampton South. They have given me much positive feedback on this budget. I also have talked to municipal councillors and my provincial colleagues. All levels support this budget. Why they do is very simple: this budget addresses their concerns. It addresses their concerns with respect to health care, cities and urban development, child care, seniors, including the seniors in my riding, the environment, which is very important, and international assistance.
I want to talk about sound fiscal management. That is the first area I want to address in my remarks today. As I indicated, there is a reason why we are in a position to spend money today. The opposition will argue that the government is spending billions of dollars. It is true that we are spending billions of dollars. The reason we are spending it is that we have saved approximately $3 billion annually due to the fact that we reduced the debt.
We conducted an internal expenditure review and saved $11 billion. That is billions of dollars of savings because of sound fiscal management. That has put us in a position where we can invest in our social infrastructure. Not only that, but in the budget development process and fiscal framework we have put in contingency funds to allow us the flexibility to deal with concerns such as BSE. It provides us with the cushion we need for any emergency and allows us to deliver on our promises. This budget is all about delivering on commitments.
It is a budget that speaks to the commitments we made during our campaign. It is a theme that I think resonates well among all Canadians. The first commitment we made, and the concern that many Canadians brought forth, was to health care. We invested $41.3 billion over a 10 year span and, on top of that, $33 billion for equalization. That is approximately $75 billion over a 10 year period to help the provinces and municipalities. I see nothing wrong with that.
I do not have a hospital in my riding, but there is one hospital just south of it and one just north. When I knocked on doors last weekend and spoke to my constituents, they told me they were concerned about the waiting times and the state of our health care system. They truly felt that this budget was very important to investment in our health care system, to sustainable investment for a long period of time. The health care investment in this budget also addresses the Romanow report, the same report that many people across this country appreciate and which reflects the type of health care system we want to develop and maintain in this country.
The second area in this budget that really pertains to the constituents of Mississauga—Brampton South is the cities and communities agenda. Highways 401, 403, 410 and 407 are in my riding. Gridlock and infrastructure concerns are a major priority for the constituents of Mississauga—Brampton South. Many people live in that riding and travel to downtown Toronto or further west to Oakville and so forth. They want to make sure that there is sound investment in our infrastructure.
(1625)
I want to remind the members sitting opposite me and all members in the House that the government committed $7 billion in the GST rebate in last year's budget. That is a GST rebate of $7 billion.
What did we do in this budget? We allocated $5 billion over a five year period in gas tax transfers. Not only does that speak to the commitment we have for municipalities, but it speaks to developing the new relationship that we want to build with cities, a relationship that we consider very important.
On top of that, another issue that has been brought forth is child care for the children in my riding. There is a portion of my riding between Highways 407 and 401 and Mississauga Road. A lot of new homes have been developed in that area. When I went door knocking, I had the opportunity to meet many young couples, young individuals who both have jobs and want to raise their kids. These individuals really valued the input that we had in terms of our early learning and child care program. They felt it was paramount in their lives.
We have seen the Prime Minister travel across the country, working on and signing the child care deal with various provinces. It is something that is very important to the people in my riding of Mississauga—Brampton South. It speaks to the commitment that government makes in terms of our role in regard to families. It speaks to the concerns that have been raised by constituents in my riding.
I have about eight seniors centres in my riding. I travel to a few of them each month. I make an effort to speak to seniors and listen to what they have to say. I make an effort to listen to their concerns. Many of them said they were very happy with the $2.7 billion investment in guaranteed income supplements. They recognize that it works out to about $400 per person and $700 per couple on an annual basis.
They recognize that this is not sufficient, but it is a step in the right direction. They believe it is a sound commitment. They also value the leadership of the Prime Minister when it comes to seniors' issues. I have also had the opportunity to have the minister responsible for seniors come to my riding to speak to them and listen to their concerns.
Another element in the budget that I think is very important and needs to be highlighted is the environment. On the weekend I was at a youth awards presentation in Mississauga with the mayor of Mississauga. The mayor said that Mississauga is probably one of the safest places in Canada, but she wants to make Mississauga one of the cleanest places in Canada. She wants it to be the cleanest city in Canada. That is a bold initiative and I think it is one that speaks to what is put in our budget. This is a green budget, and not only because I say it; this point has been raised by many experts across this country who have said that it is a sound investment to make sure we have clean air and clean water.
I believe that the residents of Mississauga will really value that, especially the clean fund that the mayor talked about. She said that is something that attracts her and she wants to make sure that Mississauga can make a presentation for a special project to invest in that.
I have quite a few university students in my riding. In Erindale there is a university campus. Many of the university students and college students who travel to York and so forth live in the riding of Mississauga—Brampton South. They really have a desire to make sure that Canada continues to play a strong role in the world.
They were very much impressed by the recent Darfur announcements made by the Prime Minister. This speaks to the commitment we made in our budget of $3.4 billion for international assistance. Not only that, we invested $13 billion in our Canadian armed forces, which now will enable us to further our reputation as a nation of peacekeepers and to go into nations where we can make a difference.
In conclusion, I note that this is a balanced budget, a budget that is fiscally sound and socially very progressive. I know that the opposition members will stand up and say they will not support the NDP-Liberal budget. Let me remind the members opposite: $4.6 billion over a two year period amounts to 1% of the base amount of our budget annually.
Over 1%, the opposition wants to bring down the government. Over 1%, the opposition members want Canadians to pay millions of dollars. Over 1%, they want to align themselves with the separatists. I want to remind the House that this is not the way to go.
(1630)
This budget is very important. It is a budget that I believe reflects the type of Canada we want to build. It is a budget that many people can be proud of for generations to come. It is a budget that delivers on key commitments on health care, cities, children, seniors and the environment and makes sure that we have a better role to play in the future.
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC): Madam Speaker, I am glad the hon. member prefaced his speech with pride for budget surpluses. I have a preface and then a quick question.
When he was the Liberal finance minister, this Liberal Prime Minister cut $25 billion from health care. He closed offshore tax havens except for the Barbados, where he registered his ships to pay 2% tax in Canada. At the same time and in fact in the same piece of legislation, he imposed a cruel 70% tax hike on Canadian seniors collecting U.S. social security for their retirement, forcing thousands from their homes.
The question is breathtakingly simple. Is this a humane way to create budget surpluses: on the backs of senior citizens?
Mr. Navdeep Bains: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question as I think it speaks to what I was trying to highlight. In my remarks I made it very clear that today we stand to have surpluses as the reflection of very tough decisions made by the government to eliminate a deficit of billions of dollars, $42 billion or $43 billion, if I recall correctly, which we inherited from the Progressive Conservative government.
I think the decisions were sound decisions. They were tough decisions. Now, because of a strong economy, political stability and the fact that we are no longer bankrupt or about to become bankrupt, we are in a position of surpluses. What are we doing with those surpluses? Yes, we are paying down the debt, but we are reinvesting that money in our seniors, our health care system and our cities.
If the member has an issue with that, I guess that is why he might choose to oppose it, but I think most Canadians support our strategy.
Hon. Robert Thibault (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for his reflective speech and the points he brought out. In the last question I think he brought out an interesting point, which is the question of the elimination of the deficit, the creation of a surplus and maintaining and sustaining surpluses year after year. That has permitted this government over time to reduce the national debt by some $50 billion, giving the government some room to move, some room to manoeuvre, with less money going abroad to pay debt servicing charges, money that the government can invest in Canadians.
I think we have to recognize the work that was done in negotiations between the Liberal government and the NDP in looking at priorities. I ask the member if he would not agree that those are priorities shared by the Liberal government, which were in the platform and which were part of the Speech from the Throne, but this is advancing them forward.
A lot of investments have been made in post-secondary education, research and capacity building within post-secondary education, including research chairs and millennium chairs. There is one very important element in this, which we can afford because we are paying less debt, and it is the question of the assistance directly to students in maintaining lower tuition costs. Would the member not agree that this is important to all our communities?
(1635)
Mr. Navdeep Bains: Madam Speaker, first I would like to acknowledge the remarks made by the member. I think he again speaks to the major theme in the budget and of this government.
As I said, these were tough decisions, which we made to eliminate the deficit and put ourselves in the position where we have surpluses. Making these investments in the areas of post-secondary education, health care and the cities is a sound thing to do. Also worth noting is that we also have a plan in place to make sure that we continue to reduce our debt, to make sure that we have a plan in place in which we reach the goal of 25% of debt to GDP ratio.
I think that again shows the balance. It speaks to our track record when it comes to balancing the books and it speaks to the Prime Minister's track record. If the opposition has an issue with that, so be it, but I think Canadians really value this and they expect this from the Liberal Party.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CPC): Madam Speaker, I want to remind the member that tax freedom day in Canada is now July 4, I think, so most Canadians work the first half of the year just to pay the government bills that the government is imposing on them. All this new extra spending, this $22 billion plus the $4.6 billion the government has agreed to with the NDP, is just going to lengthen out the year so that there is less change in people's pockets, less money to spend in their own community and to invest in other things in this society. It is just more government.
I have a specific question. It has been asked today and we have not received an answer yet. I am sure the member will give me an answer. A fair number of Canadians have decided that the best care for their children is for them to stay at home and take care of those kids during their younger years. Could the member tell me specifically how the NDP-Liberal alliance program will address and provide benefits to those people who decide to stay at home and raise their kids?
Mr. Navdeep Bains: Madam Speaker, the question has two components. One had to do with taxation and the notion of taxation with respect to the government. The other had to do with the track record of the government when it comes to tax reduction.
It has been brought to my attention that the government has reduced taxes approximately 21% for individuals since it has been in power and 27% collectively for families.
With respect to child care, I can only speak for the constituents of Mississauga--Brampton South. When I knocked on doors and met with families, young couples with children, they truly valued the program that we had put in place. My job as an elected member of Parliament for Mississauga--Brampton South is to reflect the views and concerns of my constituents who do appreciate, value and want the government program when it comes to child care.
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine): It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for South Surrey--White Rock--Cloverdale, Air-India; the hon. member for Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke, the Environment; the hon. member for Langley, the Environment.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam, CPC): Madam Speaker, Bill C-43 is an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23, 2005. However I am critical of it because, in the usual Liberal fashion, parts of it sound good but it falls short of the goodness it could have been.
For example, right off the top, printed in the summary of the bill is the following:
|
Part 1 amends the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Application Rules to |
|
(a) increase the amount that Canadians can earn tax free... |
That sounds good but when the calculation is done, the average person would benefit from that provision by about $16 for the whole year, about the cost of taking the kids to McDonald's once. The Liberals give the kids a happy meal and in exchange they want to be kept in power and thanked for their benevolence to us all.
In this bill we are rightly concerned with the Liberal approach to this country's finances: spending without a plan; the Kyoto measures in Bill C-43; the wasteful potentials in Bill C-48, which is about the misguided and hurtful NDP; and the $25 billion in spending announcements in the last few weeks. This irresponsible fiscal approach will hurt families, children, seniors, government workers and new Canadians.
However there are some initiatives in Bill C-43 which Conservatives support and will implement if we form the government, such as the Atlantic accord, better tax relief, gas tax money for municipalities, RRSP initiatives, increases to seniors' pensions, et cetera.
However this bill must be looked at in the context of the overall Liberal-NDP budget. The Liberals have mixed some policies of going in the right direction with initiatives that would prove hurtful to the well-being of Canadians.
Then along comes Bill C-48, the Liberal-NDP deal, that undermines Bill C-43. It should be apparent to all who follow these things that the government is now ruining the country's finances with runaway spending commitments without real implementation or monitoring plans. It is sad to observe that the Liberals are spending billions in an effort to buy votes.
First, they bought 19 NDP votes for $4.5 billion. Now the Prime Minister is travelling the country trying to buy votes of sectors of Canadians by making huge promises. He then attaches a threat that the power hungry Conservatives want to take away this Liberal joy. This Liberal vote buying spree is nothing more than an attempt to distract from its ad scam, which itself is a vote buying scandal worth about $250 million.
It has all come down to the axiom that a vote for the Liberals outside of Quebec is a vote for separation inside Quebec. Voting for the scandal ridden Liberals sends the wrong message to Quebecers who do not like corruption in their name. In view of their sense of being insulted, sadly, Quebecers are choosing the separation option. The Liberals have been creating separatists and this budget bill is part of it.
Canada could have more and better paying jobs and a much higher standard of living but Ottawa taxes too much, spends too much and winds up still owing too much.
Since 1999-2000, program spending has gone up 44%, a compound annual growth of 7.6% when the economy itself managed to grow only 31.6%. That record is a fundamental flaw in Liberal management which will come to haunt our country if continued. It is not surprising that there is so much waste in the government.
Often the government responds to problems with a knee-jerk way of throwing money at a problem. It does not know what to do but it sounds good if money is sent along the way. The Liberals confuse spending money with getting results and value.
Throwing money at the firearms registry, for example, is their way of dealing with the criminal misuse of firearms and the gunplay on our streets and it reveals the general unprofessional approach of Liberal administration.
The gun registry was to cost $2 million. Media reports now say that the actual cost is about $2 billion and the program does not work. One can imagine the community benefit if Alan Rock had taken my advice in the beginning when I told him, in very strong terms in a consultation meeting I had with him, that I would rather have the registry money assigned to various crime prevention and community protection measures than waste it in the registry. Time has shown that I was right and he and his many advisors were wrong, very wrong.
In Quebec, the 1995 referendum was a scare for the nation. The Liberals responded by throwing money at it but without a real plan or a system of accountability. The result was the sponsorship scandal where $250 million were wasted, $100 million probably illegally funnelled to Liberal friends in the Liberal Party. It had the opposite effect of the intended purpose. In fact, it reinvigorated Quebec separation.
(1640)
Between 2003-04 and 2004-05, the Liberals could not help themselves: program spending skyrocketed by 11.9% and per capita program spending by the federal government has reached its highest point in over a decade and is scheduled to go even higher in the future. However increases in real government spending do not equate to solving problems or getting better results.
Imagine if some of that money was left with families, in the form of lower taxes. The multiplier effect of that would bring more jobs and eventually greater tax revenue for health care and education. An administered tax dollar is an inefficient dollar for our general welfare, in comparison to the same dollar that was never taken from the taxpayer in the first place.
Of course, we need public services and it is for that reason that compassionate Conservatives are so concerned about wise fiscal management, for without care there will not be the revenue available to pay for the social programs that we want.
The NDP-Liberal finance bills have it all backwards and that is why NDP spending on services beyond the capacity of the economy puts into play a doomsday financial problem, when the predicted job losses surely will come and the welfare rolls will skyrocket. The heartless social consequences of NDP thinking and economics hurts people.
I believe it is more compassionate and wise to ensure that we have more people working than just getting by on a meagre public subsidy. A growing sound economy is the most compassionate thing a government can provide so that we are able to help those who cannot help themselves. In the long term, it is a truism that NDP socialism hurts people.
Recently, while government spending went up, according to Statistics Canada, Canadian families saw their after tax income stall in 2002 and in the fall of 2003.
Under pressure from the NDP to remove the tax relief for business, the finance minister told the House that his budget could not be “stripped away piece by piece”. However, within days, without telling his minister, the Prime Minister tried to cover up his sponsorship vote buying scandal by buying the votes of the NDP.
The $4.6 billion, now Bill C-48, will be allocated through order in council in 2005-06 and 2006-07 to programs for the environment, housing and post-secondary education. However the money will not flow unless there is a surplus of $2 billion in those years, and that will not be known for 2005-06 until the books close in August, 2006. That means that the money will not flow for at least 18 months. If it ever does flow at all, it will be at the discretion of the cabinet which again has not designated a plan or even stated a purpose for the money.
What we see is a familiar pattern of vague objectives, deception even of their own NDP partners and no concrete plans.
The Liberals and the NDP are falsely giving the impression that money for the budget initiatives will flow immediately after the Thursday vote. Following regular parliamentary protocol, the bill is closer to its beginning stage and needs to go through many steps and many more months of study before the money would flow.
Last year's budget implementation bill just passed the Senate this last month, a year late.
The bottom line is that the Liberals are corrupt. They are trying to distract the vote buying scandal of the sponsorship program by buying NDP votes and now the public's votes.
In most Canadian families, both parents need to work just for one to pay the taxes. We must never forget that a dollar left in the hands of a worker, homemaker, small businessperson or entrepreneur is more beneficial to the economy than a dollar taken into the hands of a government bureaucrat or politician.
The Conservative Party wants to clean up government. It looks like the finances of the Liberals say they want to clean out government.
Consequently, from a financial administrative perspective, we need an election because the Liberals are corrupt and they are ruining the country's finances. The government has lost the moral authority to govern, has not secured the legal financial authority to govern and, by ignoring Parliament, has become illegitimate.
What Canadians have seen in the last few weeks is truly unprecedented: a government already steeped in corruption attempting to cover-up one vote buying scandal by looting the treasury regardless of the long term consequences for average Canadians.
Canada cannot afford the unholy collusion of the Liberal-NDP financial deal.
(1645)
Mr. Mark Holland (Ajax—Pickering, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have to profess a certain amount of confusion after listening to the hon. member across. The notion that the government, in a minority situation, should not work with other parties and that somehow it is a bad idea that we would reach across the aisle and try to work on our common priorities with other priorities, I would suggest to the hon. member is the very purpose of a minority government and is exactly what we are supposed to be doing.
While the Conservatives, in collusion with the separatists, work so hard to obstruct Parliament and stop business, maybe they should take an example from members on this side of the House who are trying to work with one of the opposition parties to find common ground, to make a better country and to make this Parliament work.
Canadians overwhelmingly do not want an election. We heard the leader of the official opposition say that he would take the time in April to listen to constituents and what they had to say. Why will he not listen to Canadians? Why will he not listen to the overwhelming number of Canadians from all different political stripes, to Conservative premiers and to New Democratic premiers who say that we should pass this budget?
(1650)
Mr. Paul Forseth: Madam Speaker, I think it is the Liberals who do not want an election. What they have done is most unseemly. They have made all kinds of unrealistic promises and then attached a threat. We have tried to respond to that in the media by saying that any signed contract that has the name of Canada behind it will be honoured by us.
We need an election. The member does not understand the concept of responsible government. He does not understand that a government must have the ongoing confidence of the House. He does not understand that when the government loses the votes that it did, it is required to put a simple straightforward confidence motion before the House immediately. The government has failed to do that. That is my point about the illegitimacy of the government.
The role of Parliament is to approve budgets. Governments may propose budgets, but Parliament as an independent entity must finally vote on the appropriation. What we intend to do here is to vote for the appropriations that are realistic. The government should have negotiated with the Conservatives, the official opposition. It should not have gone to the NDP.
Mr. Tony Martin (Sault Ste. Marie, NDP): Madam Speaker, I take exception to the comments made by the member, in particular his comments that NDP plans are not good for Canadians or for the economy. I only have to point to health care which has been identified by numerous studies as one of the most competitive planks in our economic package. It was first introduced by Tommy Douglas in Saskatchewan and then by the NDP here in the House of Commons. I also want to talk about the new NASA program that we hope will take hold in Canada.
I also want to speak for a brief minute about the Conservative approach to that particular challenge in our country and to quote Gordon Cleveland Michael Krashinsky who said:
|
The Conservatives are on the horns of a dilemma here.... That's why they will recycle their $2,000 tax deduction for all families with children (about $600-$800 per child for the typical family). However, no one is going to be convinced that this relatively puny tax break will make a difference. |
|
The reality the [Conservatives] face is that paying parents to stay at home is costly -- much more expensive than good quality learning and care.... |
|
Unless unacceptably large amounts of public money are devoted to paying parents, only a small number will take up the option.... |
|
To encourage many employed parents to stay at home, you would have to pay them at least the rate of maternity and parental benefits, currently 55 per cent of their regular pay, up to $413 per week. Maternity and parental benefits, which cover the first year of a child's life, now cost about $2.7 billion a year. Multiply that by six...[and you're up to] $16 billion per year. |
|
Maternity and parental benefits cover only about 60 per cent of all parents with newborns. To cover all families, it would cost about $27 billion per year. |
This is the cost of the child care program that the Conservatives are talking about. If we add that to the cost to the economy when all those parents come out of the workforce because they cannot find affordable child care, we are talking about another cost of $83 billion per year. If we add $83 billion and $27 billion we are talking about some pretty significant money. That is the cost to this country of the Conservatives' child care program.
The program that the Liberals and the NDP want to introduce at 1% of GDP would max out at $10 billion a year, which would give a return of two dollars for every dollar, $20 billion back into the economy.
I would like the member to explain that to us and to help me understand why his program is so much better for the people of Canada than the one we are suggesting.
Mr. Paul Forseth: Madam Speaker, the gentleman is confused. Unfortunately he continues to live and breathe this socialist literature which is full of myths.
The Conservative plan needs to be carefully explained and tested at the ballot box. The socialists always come up with these hare-brained ideas but they would never dare put those individual programs to the test at the ballot box.
(1655)
[Translation]
Hon. Robert Thibault (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): Madam Speaker, like all the members, I had the opportunity to spend the past several weekends, including Mother's Day, in my riding. I realized that people were concerned about the political situation in Canada. They told me over and over that the last thing they wanted was go to the polls. They feel that now is not the time for an election.
These people have hopes and dreams. Many of them support budget 2005. They believe it addresses many of their hopes and needs. Health care in Canada, including the application of the Canada Health Act, the issue of doctors, hospitals, nurses and home care, remains their number one concern. The last thing they are asking for is an election.
[English]
A year ago the Canadian public elected a minority government. It was a message. I do not think the public got together and decided to elect a minority government so that this or that would happen. Everyone votes individually. But the result is that we have a minority government and our responsibility is to make it work, so there are some negotiations and some discussions.
We presented a budget. The opposition agreed very quickly that it was a good budget. We put some elements in it that opposition members can support, some that we can support, and elements that we can support jointly. We have an amendment to the budget, a second bill, after discussions with the New Democrats that looks at questions that have always been Liberal priorities, always been part of the Liberal agenda, that we said we would accomplish over five years. We advanced those issues.
At the current time people in my riding, among other things, are speaking generally about parliamentary civility, which is something that is of great concern because it casts shadows on members of all parties. When Canadian voters tell me that they do not like their children watching question period because they do not want them to emulate the behaviour, it is very serious. I hope the debate will not degrade to that. I hope civility will be maintained in the House. We have seen it this week, after what happened last week, and I think we are all much improved for that.
People in my riding of southwestern Nova Scotia have told me that they do not want an election. Like all Canadians, like all members of the House, like all members on this side, they are not happy about the sponsorship debacle. They are not happy about what they hear and about the activities that have happened. They want to make sure, as I do, that those who are responsible face the full consequences of the law, but they want to know, as I do, exactly what happened. They want to know from Justice Gomery, from the court; they want things to follow their course. They recognize that if we watch the testimony on TV, we see people contradicting one another. We know things happened that were not right. What the public wants to know is, is this an ongoing matter? Has it been fixed? How do we ensure that this does not happen in the future, and who was responsible? There are many tracks to find that out.
I participated last year on the public accounts committee. We heard from many people. We heard from the Auditor General who told us of the years that these problems existed. That was in the past, some four or five years ago. We also heard from the internal auditors of the government who had been assigned to look at this issue. They assured us that changes had been made to take care of it.
I am comfortable. While opposition members will use the word “corrupt” about this government, they are misleading Canadians. They are knowingly doing that, but they know that no shadow has been cast on any member of the current government.
Mr. Ed Komarnicki: Why didn't the Prime Minister apologize to Parliament?
Hon. Robert Thibault: Madam Speaker, those members cast aspersions. They raise the Prime Minister's name. What did the Prime Minister do when he came into office? He referred this matter to the public accounts committee.
[Translation]
The first thing he did was ask the Standing Committee on Public Accounts to consider this information in order to fully understand what had happened. He gave the committee access to all the departmental documents so it could identify the problems and shortcomings of the current system and determine what the minister and deputy minister had been responsible for, in order to ensure those mistakes are not repeated.
(1700)
[English]
He hired a special counsel and said, “Retrieve the money. Go back, find out if there was money that was illegally paid out, money for which there was no valid work done and retrieve it”. There are now $41 million worth of lawsuits. He appointed the Gomery commission. He cancelled the program. He testified, as did the former prime minister. He was the first prime minister to do that since Sir John A. Macdonald.
If the Prime Minister had any responsibility in it, I could not believe that he would put those things in place. It would be beyond belief that he would put those things in place. He put those things in place because he wants to get to the truth.
He supplied 12 million pages of documentation to the Gomery commission. Investments of $60 million to $70 million, some say $72 million, have been made for the Gomery commission's work. There are forensic auditors, accountants and lawyers. There are teams of experts who are going through the documentation. They will see through the fog of the testimony. People, some under criminal charges, are contradicting one another in their testimony. The Gomery commission will see through that fog and will give us an answer.
My constituents are telling me, “Let us wait for that. We do not want an election now. There are no problems now. The program does not exist. It was fixed four years ago. No one in the current government is being questioned, so let us go forward”.
What do they want to go forward on? The Atlantic accord is one element. Some members of the opposition will suggest that we should move the Atlantic accord aside and vote only on that. I support the Atlantic accord, but I also support ACOA, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. I also support parents and children and the child care proposals.
I also support the military and the defence investments. At the base in Greenwood, $50 million in capital works is going on now. It is a strategic base. Much of that investment is of economic importance to the country and to my community, of military strategic importance. We have investment in the military on many sides. One is a linking with foreign policy, a foreign policy review, a military review, making sure that we are doing what we should be doing.
We are making sure that the military has the equipment. We have the new Cormorant helicopters doing search and rescue. Another procurement process is going on for search and rescue fixed wing aircraft. Much of the other equipment is being replaced and modernized.
There is training for the military that will be needed for the future, that will support our foreign policy, our partnerships with the United States, with NATO, with NORAD, and all the others. We have to make sure that we do that properly.
Another thing we recognize is that we need to recruit in the military. That is very difficult in this context, so we look at what the impediments are. One of them I assume is that after 20 or 25 years, when people leave the military in the prime of their lives, they may not necessarily have the right training for the workplace. They may be suffering from some illness or from disabilities that make them not as employable. What did the government do? It came out with the veterans charter. I do thank all parties for having supported that, and the other house for having moved it so quickly. The veterans charter takes care of our fighting men and women, our service people, after they leave the military. It was a responsible thing that we did.
I remember fighting the election a year ago and my opponent, a good man, was quoting from the policy manual saying that what we needed in the military was an aircraft carrier on each coast. The military never asked for that. It was not tied to any of our policies. This is what I was hearing in seven or eight debates. Then there was a correction that it was not an aircraft carrier, it was for helicopters. A 12-year-old boy corrected him, telling him that helicopters were aircraft.
In my riding they also want money for child care.
I only have a minute left and there is so much more to say. There are many aspirations: the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, money for seniors, defence, child care, so many aspirations in the community that it is important for us to get the budget through.
With the additional work we did with the NDP, the most important thing to me is helping students with their tuition costs, reducing their debt load, making sure that students go to the schools and take the courses of their choice, not based on what they can afford but based on their capacities, their dreams and their aspirations. That will continue to build a great country.
I hope all members of all parties will support the budget.
(1705)
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, since this is about the budget I have a very simple question, but I will give a quick preamble.
It has been two and a half years since the government came to Windsor and announced $150 million for the border infrastructure fund to make improvements to the corridor and there is still no pavement between Windsor and Detroit. The third crossing will cost some $300 million to $400 million, and at least hundreds of millions of dollars more for pavement to link highways to the third crossing, yet there is only $50 million left in this budget.
Why are there no additional dollars in Bill C-43 to solve the problem at the Windsor-Detroit border? Does the government not care about the people of Essex and Windsor?
Hon. Robert Thibault: Mr. Speaker, it has been a big priority of the government to ensure that we have safe border crossings and that we encourage trade with all countries, particularly, our neighbours to the south and largest trading partner.
Since the 9/11 terrorist act, we have invested billions of dollars in security, including some money for border crossings and improvements as well as new technology. We are leading the way internationally. We still have some challenges. We must continue to work with the provinces and cities in certain instances.
I do not know of all the complexities of Windsor, but I understand it is not unanimous in that community as to where and how, but there is debate and there are discussions with the provincial government.
I am seeing some positive activities in the Atlantic at the Holton and Callous crossings. We are making the investments necessary to continue to ensure that trade. I am sure we will be doing that across the country to ensure that we continue to foster the biggest trading partnership and relationship in the world.
[Translation]
Mr. Marc Lemay (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my hon. colleague one simple question.
I listened very carefully, during the preamble to his speech, when he referred to the sponsorship scandal, the Gomery commission, everything that happened, the inquiry, the Prime Minister and so on.
What is his interpretation of the announcement the hon. Minister of Transport made a few minutes ago about the creation of a trust into which $750,000 of the alleged dirty money will be deposited, in order to—perhaps, eventually—repay the money, received inappropriately during the sponsorship scandal?
I want to know why this is being done now at the 11th hour, when we have been calling for this for more than six months now? How does he explain this?
Hon. Robert Thibault: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been very clear. First, he has been saying all along that any money given illegally to the Liberal Party, any money that should not have been given, will be returned.
Now, we do not know what amounts are involved. Was money involved or not? And if so, how much? All these questions remain to be answered. Public confidence must be considered, after all. We have heard the testimony. So, in good faith, we have set up a trust account. If the amount involved is $100, the difference will come back to us. If it is $800,000, then we will put more money into the account. We have created a trust.
I sat on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and we have heard many testimonies. We were told that, before our time, before these ad campaigns and this sponsorship program, a similar situation existed with certain government agencies in Quebec, a PQ government at the time, agencies such as the Société des alcools or Hydro-Québec.
It was later learned that agencies and companies which allegedly received contracts had made contributions. But the Liberal Party opened an investigation. We have the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
An hon. member: Loto-Québec was one.
Mr. Roger Thibault: Loto-Québec was another one.
We have set up the Gomery commission. We are not hiding anything. We want to get to the truth. We will make sure this never happens again and we encourage everyone to do the same.
[English]
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we are on the eve of a confidence vote that is going to take place tomorrow on the budget. This budget seems to have become one of the main issues now facing Canadians with respect to the continuation of the Liberal government. The Liberal government has been going around the country touting that if the government were to fall, there would be major and severe impacts because of the promises it made in the budget it tabled in February 2005.
Today we are speaking on Bill C-43, a budget implementation bill which followed the budget and of course tomorrow we will be speaking on Bill C-48, the other budget implementation bill. We will have votes on both Bill C-43 and Bill C-48.
As we rise in the House to speak to these main issues all we hear from the Liberal government side are all the expenditures that have been promised to everybody in the budget. Should the budget not pass and should the government fall, the Liberals say there is going to be a major impact, as if everything is going to come to a stop. They talk as if the Conservative Party does not have a plan, as if the Conservative Party members would suddenly close their eyes and not do something about faults in the Canadian economy addressed by the budget.
I have stood in the House many times in the past eight years to speak about budgets which contained many of the issues that the government is now saying it will implement. We talked about the gas tax, about royalties to the provinces, infrastructure, raising money for seniors living on fixed incomes, and tax relief for individuals and businesses.
The Conservative Party members have been standing up in the House and pinpointing all those issues. We know that the current Prime Minister, who was the finance minister for eight years, has been talking about surpluses and surpluses, and how he brought the books under control. Let me ask this question. Where do surpluses come from? Obviously, there was something wrong in the way that they were being forecast or Canadians were being taxed and were not being told the truth. They were being taxed and we did not need their money. They should have reduced taxes a long time ago and not announced surpluses over that eight year period.
Today, on the eve of this vote, the Prime Minister is signing and writing cheques all over the country because he says these are moneys that are needed. Obviously, the government did not address this before, and now it has become so urgent. We are talking as if the whole structure of the country will come to a stop if the government falls. No, the Conservative Party is saying that if it forms the government, it has a fiscally responsible platform that talks about where investment would be made in the Canadian economy, starting with tax breaks and infrastructure.
As a matter of fact, the leader of the Conservative Party just met with the Liberal leader of Ontario and told him that the Conservatives would honour whatever has been signed. The Canadian public should not expect that there would be no money to address many of their concerns and issues that we have talked about if the government falls.
Let us talk about infrastructure. The mayor of the city of Calgary has been writing to us for a long time about the gas tax. This was an issue in Calgary that I talked about when I ran to become a member a year ago. Many years ago we pointed out how much tax the government was taking. Why was the government not returning the tax dollars back to the cities.
(1710)
We have been talking about this for a long time. As a matter of fact, I remember having taken part in a demonstration in Calgary to point this out. Lo and behold, today, after the Prime Minister made his deal, he says that this is the most important thing.
If the Conservative Party were talking about that deal, why would we not fulfill that deal? As our leader and finance critic have said, we know where to invest in this country. We have presented a plan on where we have to invest in this country, and that plan is a sound, responsible plan.
There are certain things with which we do not agree. The example is in Bill C-48, the deal that the Liberals made with the NDP to stop corporate tax cuts and, as the NDP likes to say, to make investment in some social areas.
We recognize there is a need for investment in social areas, but not to the extent the NDP expects. The NDP thinks that business is some kind of entity which has a bottomless pit where it can always go and grab money. We have to present a responsible economic environment and we have to see it that way.
Business is already talking about the need for tax cuts as well as for individuals. Money in the pocket of a Canadian business is better spent than money in the pocket of a government run by the Liberals, which we note from the Gomery inquiry that is going on and what the Liberals were doing with the money that they were taking from Canadian taxpayers.
The Conservative Party platform will address the issues. It is wrong for Liberal Party members to stand up and say that if they are defeated tomorrow, all these promises will stop.
The Atlantic accord was signed with the provinces and it is part of Bill C-43. We said we could support that, but it must be changed. Of course, the government did not want to change it. It wanted the whole thing. There are provisions which we cannot support. The government knew that. We said that if it removed the Atlantic accord from the budget, to ensure that it passed, we would expedite it. We believe that the Atlantic accord was and is important for that province and that region.
However, the spin doctors on the Liberal side of course are saying that if the budget is defeated, the Atlantic accord would go. Let us put it another way. We have said that we will support the Atlantic accord. What would it take if, say, tomorrow the government goes and a Conservative government is returned after an election? It would only be 37 days. We would put the Atlantic accord before Parliament and pass it as quickly as possible, so the benefits would go to that region. We know it is an important benefit for that region.
In conclusion, the Conservative Party has a plan. The Liberals say that if they are defeated tomorrow on the budget, all of these implementations will not take place. I want to say that the Conservative Party has a plan and Canadians do not have to buy that kind of propaganda and spin doctoring from the Liberals.
(1715)
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member carefully and I want to try to address one aspect of his speech. He talked about surpluses that the government had been able to achieve, in fact eight consecutive balanced budgets with a surplus.
First, not once did the member say the word debt in his speech. I would like to explain to him, to the extent that we budget with contingencies and prudence factors, that we assume $3 billion each year for a contingency to ensure that we do not go back into deficit, and we do not want to do that.
Second, the prudence factors are there so if there is a drop or a change in interest rates or economic growth, those also will be covered.
If everything goes as planned, there should be a budget surplus of at least $5 billion. However, the surplus does not necessarily mean that we have been overtaxed. The surplus automatically goes to pay down debt. We have paid down almost $50 billion worth of debt which is a savings of almost $3 billion a year to the taxpayers of Canada. The existence of a surplus is the fact that it is paying down debt. We need to have a balanced approach to this.
That is the issue. If we are to simply say, “Let's give a tax cut to deal with the surplus”, then the member does not understand that the surplus exists for one year. A tax cut exists for every year from the year it is implemented and thereafter. With 14 million taxpayers, even a $100 change in the taxation of an individual is already $1.4 billion. Therefore, the member should be very careful about having simple solutions to complex problems.
(1720)
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for bringing up this issue. It is precisely that today, with a minority government, it was agreed that we needed better estimation from the finance department. The government itself agreed.
The Board of Internal Economy allowed us to have more money so we could get a better estimation than what the government was giving. In that estimation it was playing with the numbers. That is why we were seeing these surpluses.
If that was not the case, then why would the Board of Internal Economy give us extra money to have better forecasting done on the budget? It was the forecasting that the government was playing with which created the surpluses.
For the member to say that we do not understand, let them not play with the figures.
Mr. Mark Holland (Ajax—Pickering, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right about one thing, that this side of the House, the government, knows how to balance books. We know how to create surpluses. We know how to pay down debt.
We know when the last Conservative government was given the opportunity to govern, it knew how to run deficits and did so for eight consecutive years. When it left, it put us into debt $42 billion each and every year.
The member said that they would agree with all the commitments plus give tax cuts. Of course we will head back into deficit again.
The hon. member said one thing that I found really ironic. He said that the Conservatives stood up for cities and communities, that they believed in cities and communities. If that is the case, why in the their last platform did they say that they would scrap three of the four infrastructure programs, which are vital to cities and communities? Why did the Conservatives in their policy convention vote against giving gas tax money directly to municipalities? If you are so for municipalities, why are you against everything they care about?
The Deputy Speaker: I remind the hon. member to address his comments through the chair.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has said that the Liberal government knows how to balance budgets. I would like to correct that and say the Liberals know how to overtax Canadians, which they have been doing since they have been in government.
For him to stand up and say that we did not look at our platform, that we do not understand municipalities, I do not know at which platform he was looking. However, as I said in my speech, it was about five years ago when I demonstrated with others in Calgary, saying that the gas tax should be given to the municipalities so they could address their infrastructure.
Every Conservative member has been talking about that. I do not know where the member was when we were talking about it.
Now that they have stolen that plan, they want to make it their own plan. Look at Hansard and look at the former debates. You will find out that this party talked about giving infrastructure money, gas tax money, to the municipalities.
The Deputy Speaker: All comments are addressed through the Chair. I am not going to answer that question, but I know the member next time will use the riding name or some third person reference.
[Translation]
Mr. Marc Lemay (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois expectations of this budget included some major financial impacts for Quebec. Among other things, we expected recognition of the fiscal imbalance by this government, but this has not happened. We expected improvements to employment insurance, and were told these would be in the budget. We also expected something to be done in the budget to improve the softwood lumber situation and the promised assistance to the farmers, including the floor price. Our main expectation was to see some respect for Quebec's jurisdiction over certain areas, such as child care and parental leave. As well, we expected a government announcement of 1% or the equivalent for social housing.
Unfortunately, those things are not to be found in the present budget. One day, the present government—or the next, if there is an election—will need to acknowledge the existence of the fiscal imbalance.
All of the provinces, and in Quebec in particular, all parties, including the Liberals—and goodness knows they are federalists—and the Parti Québécois agree, and here in Ottawa, three out of four parties acknowledge that there is a fiscal imbalance between the federal government and Quebec in particular, and with the other provinces as well.
Piecemeal solution of these issues is not the way to solve the fiscal imbalance, which is the approach this government has been taking in recent weeks with its injections of millions and billions of dollars. This is not the solution. An agreement between the parties, between the provincial and the federal levels, would be required to remedy the imbalance.
For those who are listening, I should point out that there is nothing complicated about the fiscal imbalance. The expenditures are in the provinces, and the money is in Ottawa. What are the key expenditures at this time? In Quebec, mainly education and health services.
At the present time the federal government is trying in every way possible to buy its way into provincial jurisdictions, with a million dollars here, a million dollars there. This is particularly the case with health. That is not what solving the fiscal imbalance is all about. What they are creating now is no longer a fiscal imbalance but a social imbalance between the needs and the means the federal level has for meeting those needs.
We expected to see measures in this budget to counter that, or at least to find a solution, if only for certain amount of time. With the right measures, the fiscal imbalance could have been resolved in a year or three or five. This was not the case.
Despite unanimous recommendations by a committee of the House on employment insurance, we still do not have an independent fund or the measures that should be implemented so that workers in Canada and Quebec can finally receive the benefits to which they are entitled.
(1725)
We are currently experiencing a crisis without precedent in the employment insurance fund. The government has been in power since 1993 and has cleared the deficit, but it did so on the backs of workers and the unemployed. It took $47 billion from the EI fund at the expense of workers and the unemployed. The government need not tell us there is not enough money, because there is. We expected to see an EI fund to help workers.
I think my time is running out. I imagine we will soon be called to vote. I will continue my speech later on.
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
(1730)
[Translation]
Committees of the House
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
The House resumed from May 4 consideration of the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5:30 p.m., pursuant to order made Tuesday, May 17, 2005, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the second report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International trade presented by the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.
Call in the members.
* * *
(1800)
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
|
(Division No. 89)
|
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Allison
Ambrose
Anders
André
Asselin
Bachand
Bellavance
Benoit
Bergeron
Bezan
Bigras
Blaikie
Blais
Boire
Bonsant
Bouchard
Boulianne
Bourgeois
Breitkreuz
Broadbent
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brunelle
Cardin
Carrie
Carrier
Casey
Casson
Chatters
Chong
Christopherson
Clavet
Cleary
Comartin
Côté
Crête
Crowder
Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley)
Cummins
Davies
Day
Demers
Deschamps
Desjarlais
Devolin
Duceppe
Duncan
Epp
Faille
Finley
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Forseth
Gagnon (Québec)
Gagnon (Saint-Maurice—Champlain)
Gagnon (Jonquière—Alma)
Gallant
Gaudet
Gauthier
Godin
Goldring
Goodyear
Gouk
Guay
Guergis
Guimond
Hanger
Harris
Harrison
Hearn
Hiebert
Hill
Hinton
Jaffer
Jean
Johnston
Julian
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Kilgour
Komarnicki
Kotto
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Laframboise
Lalonde
Lapierre (Lévis—Bellechasse)
Lauzon
Lavallée
Layton
Lemay
Lessard
Lévesque
Loubier
Lunn
Lunney
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Marceau
Mark
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Martin (Sault Ste. Marie)
Masse
McDonough
Ménard (Hochelaga)
Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin)
Menzies
Merrifield
Miller
Mills
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Nicholson
O'Connor
Obhrai
Oda
Pallister
Paquette
Parrish
Penson
Perron
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Poilievre
Poirier-Rivard
Prentice
Preston
Rajotte
Reid
Richardson
Ritz
Roy
Sauvageau
Schellenberger
Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country)
Siksay
Simard (Beauport—Limoilou)
Skelton
Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul)
Solberg
Sorenson
St-Hilaire
Stoffer
Telegdi
Thibault (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques)
Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest)
Thompson (Wild Rose)
Tilson
Toews
Tweed
Van Loan
Vellacott
Vincent
Warawa
Wasylycia-Leis
Watson
Williams
Wrzesnewskyj
Total: -- 158
|
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson (Victoria)
Augustine
Bagnell
Bains
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bell
Bennett
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Boivin
Bonin
Boshcoff
Boudria
Bradshaw
Brison
Brown (Oakville)
Bulte
Byrne
Cannis
Carr
Carroll
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Coderre
Comuzzi
Cotler
Cullen (Etobicoke North)
Cuzner
D'Amours
DeVillers
Dhalla
Dion
Dosanjh
Drouin
Dryden
Easter
Emerson
Eyking
Folco
Fontana
Fry
Godbout
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
Holland
Hubbard
Ianno
Jennings
Kadis
Karetak-Lindell
Karygiannis
Khan
Lapierre (Outremont)
Lastewka
LeBlanc
Lee
Longfield
MacAulay
Macklin
Malhi
Maloney
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle—Émard)
Matthews
McCallum
McGuinty
McGuire
McLellan
McTeague
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Myers
Neville
O'Brien
Owen
Pacetti
Paradis
Patry
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Chatham-Kent—Essex)
Powers
Proulx
Ratansi
Redman
Regan
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rota
Saada
Savage
Savoy
Scarpaleggia
Scott
Sgro
Silva
Simard (Saint Boniface)
Simms
Smith (Pontiac)
St. Amand
St. Denis
Steckle
Szabo
Temelkovski
Thibault (West Nova)
Tonks
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Valley
Volpe
Wappel
Wilfert
Zed
Total: -- 123
|
|
PAIRED
Members
Desrochers
Efford
Frulla
Stinson
Total: -- 4
|
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
[English]
It being 6 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Private Members' Business]
* * *
[Translation]
Treaties Act
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ) moved that Bill C-260, an act respecting the negotiation, approval, tabling and publication of treaties be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to address Bill C-260 this evening. It concerns international treaties to be adopted.
I remind this House that this is the third time the Bloc Québécois has presented such a bill in order to democratize treaty and international relations practices.
I recall that, in 1999, my former colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry, Daniel Turp, now a Parti Québécois MNA, presented Bill C-214, on which this bill is based to a large extent. The bill reached second reading, but, obviously, the Liberals opposed it.
In 2001, my colleague, the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, who supports my bill, also presented a similar bill. Her bill, C-313, used the wording of Mr. Turp's bill, but added a section providing for hearings to be held in committee with respect to treaties.
Bill C-313 harmonized how treaties are considered with how the House considers bills, meaning that treaties are treated—pardon the play on words—the same way bills are. We demanded that treaties be considered in committee. Unfortunately, the bill introduced by my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île never reached second reading.
Bill C-260 is identical to Bill C-313. What are the objectives of this bill? First of all, there is transparency. Our aim, by introducing this bill, is to ensure that treaties are tabled in the House and published so that this process is transparent.
Second, we want to make the process more democratic, by having the House of Commons vote to approve important treaties and by introducing a process of committee consultations similar to that for approving bills.
We also want to respect provincial jurisdiction because, currently, the federal government alone signs treaties and the provinces are not consulted, as we would like. In fact, consultations with the provinces would mean that the federal government could not use its authority to negotiate international treaties to give itself a role in jurisdictions other than its own.
The free trade agreement is a perfect example. Obviously, many areas are affected by the free trade agreement. Many provincial areas of jurisdiction are also affected. Culture is one example of an area we had to defend and which, fortunately, has not yet been affected by the free trade agreement.
For example, a new free trade agreement might be negotiated in the near future, and our partners might ask us to include education, culture, universities and so forth, although these are provincial responsibilities. So the provinces must be able to have their say, oppose such inclusions and have the right to veto, if necessary.
The fourth objective, is to adapt current practices of ratifying treaties to the modern day. We are aware that there are many many treaties now that influence our lives but are negotiated in secret. These impact on our lives daily. I am referring to all of the international trade treaties, as well as to the free trade agreement. If there is one thing that really impacts on people's day to day lives, it is a free trade agreement between several countries, in this instance Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.
If that agreement were expanded, it would have a very definite impact on people's daily lives. People must be aware, and well informed, of the impact of these treaties on their lives.
I should perhaps point out that, where international treaties are concerned, democracy is totally absent. There is no complete compilation of such treaties. Governments release them when and if they see fit, and people cannot be sure they are all being disclosed. There may be secret treaties we know nothing about.
(1805)
At present, the treaty section at the Department of Foreign Affairs does not even have a list of signed treaties that could be made available to the public and the House of Commons, to at least know what they are about.
At present, the government is not required to table treaties in the House of Commons. This, in my view, denies the elected representatives of the people an extremely important power, the power to vote on these treaties and to relay to the government the message the people want to send through their representatives.
As I said earlier, the House does not even get to approve treaties. The government can sign and ratify any treaty it wants without consulting the representatives of the people. At the very most, treaties requiring legislative changes are brought before Parliament before ratification.
In Quebec, since 2002, a vote by the National Assembly is required. This means that only when the federal government has to amend its legislation does the House of Commons get to vote. It does so, however, only on ad hoc matters. We want to correct this approach, which we feel is totally undemocratic.
Being in no way involved in the negotiation of treaties, the House of Commons cannot consult the public. That is why we would like a process similar to the one for passing bills to be used. Obviously, a parliamentary committee can consult the public and those stakeholders who are directly or indirectly concerned by how a treaty signed by the federal government could change their lives.
It is therefore not surprising to see people increasingly expressing their opposition in the streets. In fact, there is no other place for them to be heard. This has become more pronounced in the past few years at world summits like the one held in Quebec City or others throughout the world. Many demonstrations are held at such events, especially on the issue of globalization. People revolt and demonstrate, sometimes quite aggressively, precisely because they are not informed of the content of the treaties and do not know what is happening during the negotiation process.
Obviously, when you do not have the information, and especially when it is being hidden from you, it is easy to assume that the outcome will not necessarily be positive. That is what provokes many demonstrations. People are opposed to globalization, among other things, because they know very little about the content of international treaties or the consequences, since they have not been explained.
The Bloc Québécois hopes that Parliament will give the public the chance to know about the treaties and to be consulted. This would not take any power away from the government. On the contrary, in my opinion this would only enhance it. If this power is based, as it should be in a democratic system, on public opinion, on citizen involvement in the process, then this strengthens democracy and our democratic system of governing.
Allow me to summarize the situation and the bill. The government is not required to consult the provinces. Earlier I gave the example of culture. If, in the future, our U.S., Mexican or other partners wanted to include culture, for example, in an international treaty, Quebec would be in a difficult position since the provinces are not consulted. The francophone population of Quebec, which is a francophone island in North America, could be threatened if culture were included in a treaty such as the free trade agreement.
(1810)
We think it is absolutely vital, so long as Quebec remains a part of Canada—and I hope it will be a little longer—that we be consulted as is our right, as francophones and Quebeckers. It would be a way to protect our rights, in education, culture or any other area uniquely ours that is distinct from those of other provinces. We could talk about health care and privatization, which were issues at one point.
There is also university education. Reference has been made to the desire of certain American universities to establish campuses here. The public has to be consulted. People have to be able to object if they wish to these sorts of processes and requests from our partners.
Obviously, we want all treaties to be put before the House of Commons, approved by the House and put to civil society by a parliamentary committee before Parliament decides on important treaties.
I may have failed to mention one point. Important treaties are treaties that require the passage of federal legislation, that change government powers, that generate significant financial commitment, such as Kyoto, for example, that change a border, which could obviously happen, or that impose sanctions or the transfer of jurisdictions to international institutions.
In Europe, for example, this type of transfer occurs, given the creation of the European Economic Community, as defined. A new constitution is to be voted on, and certain powers are transferred. In my opinion, this is the best known and perhaps the most obvious example at the moment of transfers of jurisdictions to international institutions. We should therefore be entitled to vote on them. Important treaties are treaties of this kind or treaties that involve government jurisdiction or international trade.
We also want, as I mentioned—and these are the objects of the bill—any treaty to be published in the Canada Gazette and on the Internet site of the Department of Foreign Affairs. This is one way to democratize the process, one way to give to citizens access to the texts that are submitted, so that they can consult them. The bill also provides for a mandatory consultation process with the provinces, before negotiating a treaty the content of which comes under their jurisdictions. Earlier, I mentioned education. I cannot think of a more striking example.
Currently, in Canada, Parliament and parliamentarians only play a minimal role in the negotiation and ratification of international treaties. We keep making requests in the House of Commons, but we are constantly turned down. We also asked to vote on certain treaties, but that too was rejected. Yet, it is precisely the role of Parliament to convey the public's wishes to the government's executive branch. In reality, it is the executive branch of the federal government, namely cabinet, which controls all the stages in the treaty ratification process.
This control also applies to the content of negotiations which, as I mentioned earlier, are often secret. In fact, this secrecy is an important tool in the federal government's negotiating strategy. Nothing, or hardly anything, is made public before the parties have reached an agreement in principle on the content, or even on the wording of a treaty.
A few years ago, we got our hands on treaties that were being negotiated at the World Trade Organization, and that might have jeopardized our agricultural sector and supply management system. When farmers managed to get their hands on these documents, they literally rebelled. This was a top secret negotiation process. Of course, when people found out about it, the government had to back off.
Unfortunately, I only have one minute left and I have barely touched on this issue. However, I know that when the hon. member takes the floor later on, she will be able to say more on this topic.
(1815)
Hon. Dan McTeague (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for having introduced this bill, despite the fact that I completely disagree with it. Although I am unable to give a factual summary of the bill in a few short seconds, it is clear that the member's efforts build on work done in the past by other members of the Bloc Québécois, in order, for one, to give the provinces powers that are clearly federal ones under the Constitution. Not only is this set out in the Constitution but it was confirmed too by the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1930s.
I want to ask the member a question. It is very important to be clear about our position on this. He is implying that international treaties arising out of international situations completely ignore the needs of the provinces. Does the member not agree that, in terms of culture, an example he used, the provinces clearly have the ability to take part in the process and work with the federal government when their jurisdiction is affected? This has been the case with regard to Canadian heritage.
That is my only question, and I think the member has a great deal to say about this. Could he point out the flaws that prevent the provinces from intervening in their own areas of jurisdiction? I do not believe there are any.
(1820)
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Madam Speaker, I would like to start with a little history lesson for my colleague. According to him, Canada has been responsible for international treaties since 1867, and this is in the Constitution. I regret to inform him that it was not in the 1867 Constitution. They were the responsibility of the British Crown, since we were still a dominion under the British Crown. The Statute of Westminster in 1931 brought about the change. I would remind my colleague that this gave no power whatsoever to the provinces. Today they still have no power to intervene in treaties.
At the present time, only the federal government can sign an international treaty. It has no obligation whatsoever to consult anyone at all. Moreover, it most certainly does not consult either the House of Commons or the general public. The only treaty in the past 100 years that involved any real public consultation—and that indirectly, since it was via an election campaign—was the free trade agreement in 1988.
The Conservative Party campaigned on the free trade agreement, which it made public in layman's terms so that people could have access to it and form an opinion. That opinion was expressed as part of an election campaign. The free trade agreement could very well have been presented first, with a referendum to follow after a parliamentary committee had consulted the public. This procedure could be used for certain treaties that are challenged by one party or by the majority of the population.
My colleague must realize that the world has changed in the last 100 years. It is highly unlikely in this day and age for a treaty to remain secret long, with the technological advances now available to us. We can see what is happening internationally. People always manage one way or another to get their hands on part of what is under negotiation. Often what leads to a lack of understanding of international events is that people have incomplete information. If they were fully informed, they could make the proper decisions. Then there might be fewer problems when it came time for agreements to be signed.
Hon. Dan McTeague (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his brief historical overview. I would also like to mention two points he missed in his little account. First, it was the Chanak crisis, in 1922. Second, with respect to the Supreme Court convention, I did mention that was in the 1930s, not in 1867, the year of Confederation. I think the hon. member misheard me. I just wanted to set the record straight.
After listening to the hon. member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, his remarks are causing me to ask myself the following questions. Is the Canadian practice with respect to treaties really as bad as the hon. member suggests? Does it necessitate the radical overhaul he is proposing? Does our current practice prevent us from playing our role and defending the interests of Canadians on the international scene? My answer to all these questions is unequivocally no.
The current Canadian practice, through its flexibility and adaptability to change, already allows the government to respond to change in fulfilling the international policy objectives it has set for itself, while recognizing the essential role of Parliament and the provinces in implementing treaty obligations in accordance with the distribution of jurisdictions under the Constitution.
The bill affects the constitutional system in a number of ways and raises serious questions. The harmonious balance that has existed for decades would be compromised if the proposal that Parliament be entitled to approve treaties before their ratification were implemented.
It would have a significant impact on our ability to conclude treaties and to guarantee our international commitments. It would have a negative impact on Canadian foreign policy, which serves the interests of Canadians first and foremost.
As many have already noted, Bill C-260 ignores the role currently played by Parliament, a fundamental role in treaty practices. Not only is Parliament actively involved in treaty implementation, but consultations are currently taking place in committee on a number of our major treaties, before the government acts.
The provisions of Bill C-260 suggest that the roles of each of the federal and provincial governments in treaty ratification need to be clarified and that negotiated agreements providing for federal-provincial consultation on treaty negotiation and ratification are required in order to improve Canadian practice.
In my opinion, the answer to that question is no. Such consultations have been held since 1937, and the Canadian government takes them seriously. Consultations take place usually during treaty negotiations and sometimes last for years. They must take place and they do. There is no point in reinventing the wheel.
The bill before us creates nothing new in this regard, but forces a straitjacket on the Canadian government in having it consult its provincial partners.
The requirement to negotiate individual agreements with each province under the pressure of an artificial timeframe, which this bill would create, is not only useless, but the cost of it would be prohibitive and could produce unexpected results. It could, potentially, oblige us to replace an efficient system with something less flexible, creating uncertainty that does not currently exist.
The bill before us raises another major concern in constitutional terms. Its provisions would limit the government's power to conclude treaties in areas of federal jurisdiction without consultation with the provinces. Canadian constitutional law has provided for over 60 years that the power to negotiate and conclude treaties lies exclusively with the federal government. This power is essential to Canada's speaking with a single voice internationally.
Among the proposals made by the hon. member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia in Bill C-260, one of them mentions the royal prerogative in right of provincial governments with respect to the negotiation and conclusion of treaties in an area under the legislative authority of the provinces.
(1825)
I have to say, in no uncertain terms, this provincial prerogative does not exist at this time.
As I already mentioned, the prerogative to negotiate and sign any international treaties belongs only to the federal executive branch.
In that sense, Bill C-260 would violate the provision in the Constitution on the allocation of jurisdictions. It bears repeating that the power of the provinces to negotiate and conclude treaties simply does not exist.
An amendment of this scale to the constitutional order would require more than a debate in this chamber. It would involve significant and lasting changes to the Constitution.
I must say that Canada's current system for concluding treaties, thanks to its inherent flexibility and respect for our constitutional order, responds best to the interests of Canadians.
(1830)
[English]
The most fundamental point of what the hon. member is trying to express is that somehow there arrives from the potential of international treaties being signed, being concluded, being negotiated without consultation from all our partners from coast to coast, provincial and yes, although they are not respected formally in our Constitution, municipal players and other NGOs.
It becomes clear to me that what the hon. member is proposing very much mirrors what a former colleague of his party, Mr. Turp, proposed many years ago and that is to do indirectly by this bill what they cannot do directly, which is to manifestly provide treaty powers and to give in effect greater powers to one particular province that has an obvious interest in doing more than simply engaging in international policy.
The practical implications long term would be to recognize or to have a province then move one step further and say that the Canadian government, this Parliament, is in effect giving the right of that province to exercise a particular sovereignty which it currently does not have.
It is critical for us to understand that while we want to see more participation, the fact that there is a suggestion that there is no participation by the provinces, particularly as it relates to their areas of jurisdiction, is simply wrong and it is simply a false message to give.
We know in many domains there is a provincial interest. We see premiers attending international conferences with the presence of the federal government, usually with a flag and with someone from the mission. This is not new. Some provinces have gone as far as to open up trade offices.
To suggest somehow, as the bill does, that there is provincial frustration or worse that Parliament is not consulted on matters of treaty is simply off base.
More important, it is not just the power of the executive, and we talk of this executive in the context of democracy, it is important for us to essentially understand that the power of entering into treaties and making decisions on behalf of the country rests ultimately with an accountability. That accountability is here in the House of Commons.
That is why the Mi