38th PARLIAMENT,
1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 116
CONTENTS
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
|
 |
The Speaker |
|
|
Points of Order |
|
|
Tabling of Documents |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
|
|
Human Resources Centres |
|
|
Hon. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Lib.) |
|
|
Crystal Meth |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC) |
|
|
Rock of Honour |
|
|
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.) |
|
|
Hugh Thomson |
|
|
Ms. France Bonsant (Compton—Stanstead, BQ) |
|
|
Balmoral Trout Festival |
|
|
Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.) |
|
|
The Environment |
|
|
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, CPC) |
|
|
Bruce Erskine |
|
|
Hon. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.) |
|
|
Drinking Water |
|
|
Mr. Roger Clavet (Louis-Hébert, BQ) |
|
|
Caroline Faucher |
|
|
Hon. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.) |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC) |
|
|
City of Kingston |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.) |
|
|
Housing |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP) |
|
|
China |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC) |
|
|
Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative |
|
|
Mr. Christian Simard (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ) |
|
|
Justice |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC) |
|
|
Immigration |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
Sponsorship Program |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
The Environment |
|
|
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Natural Resources |
|
|
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
China |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
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.) |
|
|
Veterans Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mr. Guy Côté (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Guy Côté (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Sponsorship Program |
|
|
Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Bill C-48 |
|
|
Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Canada-U.S. Border |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
China |
|
|
Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Aileen Carroll (Minister of International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Helena Guergis |
|
|
Hon. Aileen Carroll (Minister of International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
Sponsorship Program |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
International Aid |
|
|
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Aileen Carroll (Minister of International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Aileen Carroll (Minister of International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
The Environment |
|
|
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Whistleblower Legislation |
|
|
Mr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.) |
|
|
Presence in Gallery |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Points of Order |
|
|
Oral Question Period |
|
|
Hon. Aileen Carroll (Minister of International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Regional Development Banks |
|
|
Hon. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act |
|
|
Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Criminal Code |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
Citizenship |
|
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Sudan |
|
|
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC) |
|
|
Employment Insurance |
|
|
Hon. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Lib.) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC) |
|
|
Questions on the Order Paper |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
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 |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—Richmond East, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Cummins |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. John Cummins |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Request for Emergency Debate |
|
|
Automobile Industry |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Todd Norman Russell (Labrador, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Cleary (Louis-Saint-Laurent, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed)
|
|
|
Budget Implementation Act, 2005 |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
|
Routine Proceedings
|
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
(Division 122) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
|
|
Excise Tax Act |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Ruby Dhalla |
|
|
(Division 123) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
(Bill read the third time and passed)
|
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Procedure and House Affairs |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Private Members' Business
|
|
|
Canada Elections Act |
|
|
Hon. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Budget Implementation Act, 2005 |
|
|
Mr. Guy Côté (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Guy Côté |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Guy Côté |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CPC) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
|
Hon. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
Hon. Maria Minna |
|
|
Mr. John Williams (Edmonton—St. Albert, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Maria Minna |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Maria Minna |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
|
Hon. Maria Minna |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
|
Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
|
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Rona Ambrose |
|
|
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Julian |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Julian |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Penson |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
|
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Bob Mills |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
[Points of Order]
* * *
(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 Elgin—Middlesex—London.
[Members sang the national anthem]
* * *
Points of Order
Tabling of Documents
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I made a commitment to table copies, in both official languages, of correspondence that was referred to in question period. I would like to now table those copies.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[S. O. 31]
* * *
[English]
Human Resources Centres
Hon. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Human Resources Centre of Canada for students in Brampton and the one in Malton recently opened their doors for the summer. These centres help students find work and help employers find qualified student employees.
These centres provide extensive support services to job seekers. They have fax machines, photocopiers, work space, Internet and computer access, and a great variety of written, video and computer resource materials. Students can find information about opportunities in certain industries and job search techniques.
As the MP for Bramalea—Gore—Malton, I visit employers every year to encourage them to hire students. The money earned with a summer job is what helps pay their tuition.
I would therefore encourage all employers and homeowners in my riding and across Canada to place a job order with a local student employment centre this season.
* * *
Crystal Meth
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC): Mr. Speaker, crystal meth is devastating individuals, families and communities in Yellowhead and across the nation. Fortunately, governments are beginning to wake up to this growing social menace.
Last week, ministers from the western provinces and the territories held a summit to tackle the problem. They are taking action and urging the federal government to do its part.
I have pushed this issue with my own private member's bill, Bill C-349, which would allow the RCMP to lay charges for the possession of crystal meth precursors. This persistence has paid off with the government's announcement on Friday of the proposed changes to the federal drug regulations.
A question that remains is how long will it take for the RCMP to have these tools at their disposal?
We also need tougher sentences for meth possession and trafficking, and minimum sentences so that those who destroy lives serve real time.
We need tougher enforcement and stronger laws. Thousands of lives hang in the balance.
* * *
Rock of Honour
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in August 1945, the second world war ended and Canada welcomed home, with pride and gratitude, the victorious men and women of the armed forces.
In Wallaceburg, Walpole Island, Mitchell's Bay and surrounding areas, the returnees became leaders in business, industry, education, agriculture and other endeavours in the Canadian way of life. They served as volunteers, leaders, coaches and mentors. These men and women developed their country and communities, making Canada a much better place to live.
In the fall of 2000, an idea was born by Gert McClure to create a lasting tribute to recognize the service and sacrifices of these local veterans called the Rock of Honour.
On June 12, I had the privilege to attend the dedication ceremony for the Rock of Honour in Wallaceburg. The names of 1,831 individuals from the area who served in the second world war are now flanked in granite.
The Rock of Honour will remind people about the service and sacrifices made by these individuals and will help to inspire local residents to build a community and a country that these veterans would be proud of.
I congratulate the Rock of Honour committee and all the volunteers who made this vision into a reality.
* * *
(1405)
[Translation]
Hugh Thomson
Ms. France Bonsant (Compton—Stanstead, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you about a man in my riding of Compton—Stanstead who is 75 years young.
I am talking about Hugh Thomson, who just completed his 20th year as an international volunteer advisor with CESO, just about everywhere in the world.
Thanks to his expertise in business management and marketing, particularly in the steel and aluminum industry, Mr. Thomson is making a contribution in such varied countries as Russia, Slovakia and a number of Central American countries. His latest assignment was in China, at the request of a state company specializing in aluminum smelting that was being privatized.
The Bloc Québécois wishes to extend warm greetings and congratulations to Mr. Thomson on the commitment he has made for the past 20 years.
* * *
Balmoral Trout Festival
Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on June 5, I had the great pleasure of attending a breakfast put on by the Balmoral municipal council during the Balmoral trout festival, held in my riding from June 2 to 5.
The Balmoral trout festival was held this year after a group of volunteers decided to revive the event after a 10-year hiatus. The festival was held to raise funds for the Balmoral community centre.
The festival's revival was a resounding success, and I want to congratulate the co-chairs of this event, Jenny Chouinard and Manon Pelletier, and all the volunteers who helped organize it. I am also pleased to say that the organizing committee has announced that this festival will be held again in 2006.
Finally, I want to thank the Balmoral municipal council for inviting me to breakfast.
* * *
[English]
The Environment
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, CPC): Mr. Speaker, whether one lives in Ontario, the Fraser Valley, Montreal or any of our big cities, the message is the same. Our air quality is worse now than it has ever been and people are getting sick and suffering chronic diseases because of it.
So far this year Toronto alone has suffered through a record 20 smog days. Our air quality is worse now than it has ever been. The OECD has ranked Canada nearly dead last in environmental integrity. And where is the environment minister in this? On Clean Air Day last week he announced the formation of a website. Now we can sit inside and read about how filthy the air is. The environment minister has no will to see the problem solved.
When will the government finally realize that Canadians depend on immediate and real action, not just talk?
I call on all our colleagues and fellow Canadians to support an effective Conservative plan to clean our air and promote health for generations to come.
* * *
Bruce Erskine
Hon. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember Bruce Erskine, a well-respected member of the St. Catharines community, who passed away on June 4, 2005.
Bruce Erskine's life revolved around rowing. Literally thousands of athletes and officials are involved in the amateur sport today because of him. He was motivated by his own positive experience as a young rower. He wanted every young person to share that same experience. His coaching philosophy was not how one placed but how one tried.
Bruce and Sue Erskine met as young teenagers, married and raised four children. Bruce was a supervisor at General Motors and retired in 1992. Bruce was as supportive of young athletes as he was of Sue's political career. He was fully supportive of her successful bid as a St. Catharines city councillor and as deputy mayor.
This kind and unpretentious man left an impact on the lives of everyone that he touched. Bruce did not coach rowing, he coached life. His patience and leadership will always be remembered and appreciated.
It was my privilege to know Bruce Erskine and to call him my friend. I extend heartfelt condolences to Sue and his children, Susan, Kathy, Harry and Jenny and his grandchildren.
* * *
(1410)
[Translation]
Drinking Water
Mr. Roger Clavet (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to announce to the House the creation of a drinking water research chair at Laval University.
Thanks to a funding agreement with the city of Quebec, this chair will be able to carry out research on water supply, treatment and distribution, as well as developing new tools to improve the management of this vital resource.
I am extremely pleased with this agreement, which will provide Quebec City with local expertise that will allow it to remain on the leading edge of technology and knowledge in all aspects relating to drinking water.
The Bloc Québécois congratulates Quebec City and Laval University for the creation of this research chair, which will once again contribute to making Quebec one of the world's leaders in drinking water management.
* * *
Caroline Faucher
Hon. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have this opportunity to pay tribute to a young woman from Beauce, 19 year-old Caroline Faucher.
At this May's WorldSkills Competition in Finland, she was named the world champion in graphic design technology. This international competition brought together 800 competitors from 42 different countries in 39 different skill areas.
This richly deserved honour is well worth our recognition. The talented Ms. Faucher rose to this challenge with great flair. Beauce and Canada are proud of her.
Congratulations must go not only to Ms. Faucher but also to the great staff of the Centre d'imprimerie de la Chaudière, in Beauceville, where she learned her trade.
This printing centre is operated under the auspices of the Beauce-Etchemin school board and does an excellent job of providing the young people of Beauce with the tools they must have to excel in their chosen trades.
* * *
[English]
Agriculture
Mr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today I would like to give a short history lesson for the benefit of Canadians and the government.
On May 20, 2003, a beef cow in Alberta tested positive for BSE, ultimately closing the border to the export of Canadian beef. Farmers went bankrupt.
After furious pressure from opposition parties, the government finally made a limp attempt to assist cash-starved producers by issuing cheques for a so-called advance payment. This was advertised by the government as an advance on BSE assistance, leaving producers with the definite impression that there was more to come.
More did come, a little in 2004, but in recent weeks Ontario producers have been notified that the money would be clawed back and taken off any future assistance for which they may be eligible. In many cases they are being told to pay the money back immediately.
I have to wonder if the government is using these clawbacks to finance the long overdue release of CAIS deposits. If this was a movie, it would be a bad one and it would be called “The Great Deception”.
* * *
City of Kingston
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our country's heritage is alive and well in the beautiful city of Kingston, Ontario.
Today, the Ontario Lieutenant Governor, James Bartleman, together with Kingstonians will gather for a very special military tattoo: First Capital Day.
On June 15, 1841, Governor General Lord Sydenham, accompanied by the public and a young lawyer by the name of John A. Macdonald, opened the first Parliament of the United Provinces of Canada in Kingston.
One hundred and sixty years later, both the provincial and federal governments have recognized Kingston as the first capital of Canada. Thanks to the hard work of Mr. Ian Milne and Dr. Margaret Angus, the founders of First Capital Day, the event has been marked with much celebration for seven years now.
On behalf of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Kingston for this wonderful celebration of our nation's heritage.
* * *
Housing
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this week's Time magazine named Raven Thundersky as one of Canada's heroes and most remarkable citizens.
Growing up on Poplar River First Nation, her family did not have much, but they did have an attic full of zonolite insulation. Raven's mother and two sisters died of cancer caused by the insulation. She has led a tireless effort over the past 10 years to bring the issue to the attention of Canadians.
During the 1970s and 1980s, thousands of homes in Canada were insulated with zonolite. The federal government encouraged its use under the CHIP program. The Liberals have said they will remove the dangerous asbestos from military homes, but not from reserve housing or from hundreds of thousands of other homes across Canada.
Raven Thundersky's effort to help people identify zonolite in their homes and to bring it to the public's attention has doubtlessly saved many lives. The same cannot be said of the Liberals who continue to deny there is a problem.
While Raven Thundersky is justly recognized as a hero, the Liberal government should be rightly recognized as the villain, willing to risk the lives of Canadians by ignoring the danger.
* * *
(1415)
China
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, earlier this year CSIS sources revealed to the media that the Chinese government was operating a large espionage network in Canada, which spies on Canadian security, economic and political interests.
At the time, I asked the Prime Minister to raise this very serious issue directly with Chinese leaders during his visit to Beijing in January. True to form, he failed to stand up for Canadian sovereignty by never raising the issue during the Beijing summit.
Why? Perhaps it is because the Prime Minister's family profits from using Chinese government subsidized shipyards to build the family fleet overseas rather than here at home.
Now a senior Chinese defector has confirmed that the PRC is operating a network of some 1,000 spies in Canada in an outrageous challenge to our sovereignty and national security.
Will the Prime Minister act by formally protesting this violation of our national interest? Will he tell the Chinese government to send these spies packing from our shores, or will he once again choose family profits over national sovereignty?
* * *
[Translation]
Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative
Mr. Christian Simard (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the 135 agencies throughout Quebec working with the homeless, I want to address the Prime Minister, since his Minister of Housing does not seem to listen to their demands or understand the urgent need to act.
It is imperative that the government to officially announce, this very day, the renewal of the supporting communities partnership initiative, better known as SCPI.
If nothing is done right now, shelters, collective kitchens, drop-in centres, soup kitchens, and homelessness prevention services will close their doors. The poorest of the poor will be driven further into misery.
I am calling on the government to extend and improve the SCPI program immediately until such time as the full responsibility of housing is transferred to the Government of Quebec with the corresponding envelopes.
* * *
[English]
Justice
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC): Mr. Speaker, injustice takes many forms, one being the modern day slavery of human trafficking. The UN estimates that four million people are trafficked each year under the threat of violence, and these numbers are growing.
Canada is far from immune. The RCMP reports about 800 people are smuggled into the country each year and we are a major transit point for trafficking into the United States. Canada's Solicitor General estimates between 8,000 and 16,000 illegal immigrants are forced to work in the sex trade industry.
The cruelty and inhumanity of human trafficking cannot be quantified. Promises of a better life are being used to lure unsuspecting women and children from around the world.
Canada's response to this growing epidemic has been lacklustre. Only a few months ago were the first charges laid under the three-year-old Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Even though the government promised human trafficking legislation over a year ago, it has only just been tabled. It is now time for the government to provide the necessary resources to ensure this legislation can be effectively enforced.
* * *
Immigration
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 50th anniversary of the signing of the labour market agreement between the governments of Canada and Jamaica. During the period of 1955, our immigration policies prevented non-white immigration.
One hundred women entered Canada as domestics, even though many were nurses and teachers in their own country: 75 came from Jamaica and 25 from Barbados.
I salute two of these pioneers, Thelma Johnson, a nurse and businesswoman, founder of the Caribbean Pioneer Women of Canada, and Sealen Chang, a former member of the Royal Canadian Air Force and retired teacher. It is these women and many others who, despite the hardships of those early years, have contributed to making Canada a more welcoming and inclusive place to live.
On behalf of all the children they nurtured and shared their values and beliefs with, I wish them and all the residents of Laval—Les Îles well.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[English]
Sponsorship Program
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Justice Gomery has written to the government demanding that it reverse its deal with Jean Chrétien. Through his lawyer, Justice Gomery says that the arrangement is not in the public interest. In fact, his lawyer says that “the ability of Justice Gomery to complete his work will be put in jeopardy”. He asked the government directly to either expedite Mr. Chrétien's accusations of bias or have them withdrawn.
Will the government end the arrangement with Mr. Chrétien as Justice Gomery demands, yes or no?
(1420)
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no such arrangement. Our position is very clear. There should not be a challenge to the impartiality of Mr. Justice Gomery. There should not be a challenge now and there should not be a challenge later. If there is, we will oppose it.
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that is not the arrangement the government made.
[Translation]
While the Prime Minister supports the judge in public, he is making a deal in private to the contrary with Mr. Chrétien. The judge has just asked the government to either deal with Mr. Chrétien's request immediately, or withdraw it so that the judge can do his work in peace.
Will the Prime Minister do what Justice Gomery is asking or not?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this time I will say it in French: there is no agreement. Our position is clear. Justice Gomery's impartiality should not be challenged, not now, not ever. If it is, we will object.
[English]
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, these answers by the Prime Minister are simply not factually correct. Here is what the Prime Minister is doing. He had an exchange of letters, call it what they will, behind Justice Gomery's back. Justice Gomery was not even informed about this. It was contrary to the undertaking the Attorney General had made.
Now Justice Gomery is demanding, in his correspondence of June 6, very specific action by the government. Is the government willing to take that action or is it going to continue to work hand in hand with Chrétien's lawyers?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have now answered the hon. member's questions twice, but I would like to raise another issue. The deputy leader of the Conservative Party has said that the Leader of the Opposition is going to spend this summer on the barbecue circuit. I understand the dangers of the barbecue circuit and I would therefore like to table this document for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition this summer. It is a document called The South Beach Diet.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I do not think--
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. We have to go on with question period now. The hon. member for Provencher has the floor. We will have a little order, please.
Mr. Vic Toews: Mr. Speaker, I do not think Canadians are impressed by that kind of answer.
Lawyers representing Justice Gomery have specifically asked the Liberal government to take all necessary steps to have Jean Chrétien permanently withdraw his allegations of bias against Justice Gomery or to have those allegations dealt with immediately in court.
My question is for the Attorney General of Canada. Why has he not complied with Justice Gomery's request? It is not an issue of what the deal is. Why has he not made that request and complied with that request?
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think I need to remind the member opposite of what is written in this exchange of letters:
|
It is clear from the memorandum of fact and law filed on behalf of the Attorney General in response to Mr. Chrétien's judicial review application that the government was vigorously opposing Mr. Chrétien's application. The Attorney General's principal position in the memorandum was that Mr. Chrétien's allegation of bias was without merit and that Mr. Chrétien's right to procedural fairness had at all times been respected. |
That remains our position.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): Yet, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have refused to comply with Justice Gomery's request. That is the issue. Despite Liberal claims of cooperation with Justice Gomery, the truth is that by failing to act the government is working with Mr. Chrétien to derail Justice Gomery's commission.
Why is it that when the public interest demands full cooperation with Justice Gomery the government is only concerned about the political interests of the Liberal Party? Why did this government not act as requested by Justice Gomery?
(1425)
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at this point the member opposite is correct. The public interest demands full cooperation with Mr. Justice Gomery's commission which, I would remind him again, we established. We not only cooperate with him but have fully supported and will continue to fully support him against any allegation of partiality. We will continue to support him against any attempt to retard or delay the commission. Our position is that we support Mr. Justice Gomery fully.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the war on legalities between Jean Chrétien and Judge Gomery, it is all very well for the government to say it supports Judge Gomery every way it can, but will it acknowledge that the exchange of letters has had only one effect, which is to destabilize and concern the judge and reassure the Chrétien clan? That is the effect of the work.
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat that we supported Judge Gomery in the past when allegations of bias were levelled against him and we will continue to support him in the future. We opposed attempts to delay the commission and, in the future, we will do so again.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Justice is speaking truthfully, he should admit that the government did such a bad job that it has ended up doing the opposite. That is the exact opposite of what he is saying.
In a letter dated June 9, counsel for the government contends that he does not support the action of Judge Gomery, who wants to have the matter of his bias settled before he begins drafting his report.
Will the government, which says it supports Judge Gomery, ask its lawyers to really support Judge Gomery, contrary to what it says in the June 9 letter?
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, according to the June 9 letter, the factum presented on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada, in response to Mr. Chrétien's request for a judicial review, shows clearly that the government vigorously opposed Mr. Chrétien's request. The Attorney General argues primarily that Mr. Chrétien's allegations of bias are unfounded and that Mr. Chrétien's right to procedural fairness has always been respected.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Public Works and Government Services said that Justice Gomery had the government's support, but he was careful not to tell us that a letter from the government's counsel dated June 9 says the exact opposite, that the government cannot support Justice Gomery regarding his hearing before the federal court.
How are we supposed to believe the government when it changes its version every day? On one hand, its own lawyers are saying that they cannot support Justice Gomery, while on the other hand, the government says in this House that it totally supports Justice Gomery.
[English]
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member refers to the June 9 letter. In fact, the Prime Minister referred to that letter yesterday and it was tabled at the Gomery commission yesterday. In that letter, once again, it is clearly stated that the Attorney General's principal position in the memorandum was that “Mr. Chrétien's allegation of bias was without merit and that Mr. Chrétien's right to procedural fairness had at all times been respected”.
We support Justice Gomery's work and in fact we support his position that he wants standing in order to make his case. We support that position.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, in one of his rare responses in the House, says he wants to support Justice Gomery in any way he can.
If that is the case, then why did he need to instruct his lawyers to write to Jean Chrétien, which reassured the former PM and unsettled Justice Gomery?
(1430)
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think there is some confusion between substance and procedure.
In terms of substance, we have supported and will continue to support Justice Gomery against any charges of bias. As for procedure, we also support Justice Gomery regarding his hearing before the court.
* * *
[English]
The Environment
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. For seven straight days residents of Ontario and Quebec have been choking on smog, not just in southern Ontario but in northern Ontario as well.
Health experts, 11 environmental organizations and even the Globe and Mail are saying that the government's Kyoto plan will not do the job. Is the Prime Minister capable of admitting that over 12 years the results have not come about? When is he going to bring in a better plan?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would like to examine the government's climate change plan or the government's overall environmental thrust, what he will see is one of the best climate change plans of any of the major countries.
He will also see that the most recent budget was qualified by most environmentalists as perhaps the greenest budget ever. The reason is that we are very much aware of the environmental problems caused by smog, impure water and impure air. The fact is that this government is dedicated to dealing with those issues.
* * *
Natural Resources
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, after 12 years of saying that everything is under control, one would think that the government might finally be willing to admit that it is not and take some responsibility, but obviously that is not going to happen.
Let us turn to Devils Lake for a moment. Here is an environmental crisis that is about to hit this country. Manitoba's water is about to be polluted. There has been no movement whatsoever on the issue. Are we finally going to get some action on the Devils Lake situation? Or are we just going to get more words about how important it is, but no results?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would have hoped that the leader of the NDP would stand up today and say that he has no link at all with what one of his MPs said, because it is not a time to insult our friends in the United States. It is time to work with them to be sure that the wrong thing will not be done and this outlet will not be opened at a time when there have not been proper environmental assessments.
We have a treaty to respect. We are working very hard and we will have results, but with no insults to anyone.
* * *
China
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Hao Fengjun, a former police officer and Chinese defector, says that China has more than 1,000 spies operating in Canada.
Last December, CSIS said that foreign governments were resorting to economic espionage against Canada, and China has been one of the most enterprising in gaining access to information from sensitive industries, including the energy and technology sectors. Sidewinder is another example.
The Prime Minister was questioned about this in February. As usual, he refused to act. Can he now tell the House just how many Chinese spies have been arrested or deported? What is he going to do to protect Canadian sovereignty and security?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows full well, we are not going to discuss operational details of our intelligence gathering agency, CSIS, in the House or anywhere else.
I do want to reassure the hon. member and all Canadians that not only CSIS but the RCMP and other intelligence gathering and law enforcement agencies are very much aware of the activities of various foreign governments in this country. We take all steps that are reasonable and necessary to protect not only the security of Canadians, but the economic security of our businesses in this country.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): In fact, Mr. Speaker, that is not very reassuring at all because the government knows the problem is there and yet does nothing.
Mr. Hao says that in addition to spying, China is conducting a campaign of intimidation and harassment against Falun Gong members, mainly in Toronto and Vancouver. This action is consistent with a CSIS report that foreign intelligence services manipulate, threaten and exploit expatriates living in Canada. Mr. Hao claims that he has given a Chinese intelligence report about a Falun Gong practitioner in Canada to the Australian authorities.
Will our government request a copy of this report from Australia and will it make a formal request to the Chinese government to cease and desist in the harassment of Canadian citizens?
(1435)
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are well aware of Falun Gong members and some of the allegations and assertions made in relation to their right to peacefully express their points of view and to peacefully associate and demonstrate in this country.
However, as I said earlier in response to the first part of the member's question, we do not discuss operational details. I have no intention of doing so now. I would ask the hon. member to respect the fact that agencies like CSIS could not conduct their activities on behalf of Canadians if we were expected to discuss operational details.
[Translation]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a few months ago, when we raised the possibility of Chinese espionage in Canada, the government did not seem concerned in the least. Now a second Chinese defector is claiming that there is an operational network on Canadian soil.
Has the government called on Chinese officials here in Canada to get a full explanation, yes or no?
[English]
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are always in touch with Chinese officials in the capital. We discuss a number of issues relating to the respect for human rights and the right of Canadian citizens to express themselves in the way they want. This is a free country. We will always insist that people are free to do so in this country. This is what we have been expressing to the Chinese officials.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): There was no answer there, Mr. Speaker.
We are not asking about the operations of CSIS. If these allegations are true, then clearly this has implications on our security and sovereignty. If the allegations are false, it has implications on our relations with China.
When the Prime Minister was in China in January and these allegations were out there, in the interests of Canadian sovereignty, did the Prime Minister raise these issues with officials? We are not talking about CSIS. Did he raise these issues at the diplomatic and political level?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we never lose any opportunity to have discussions with Chinese officials here in this country. We will always ensure that the rights of citizens to express themselves in whatever way they choose will always be respected in Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
Veterans Affairs
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in response to my question yesterday concerning agent orange testing in Gagetown, New Brunswick during the 1960s, the Minister of National Defence said that what the department is trying to do today is reconstruct the facts, establish the connections, and look at the type of compensation that could be offered those affected.
How can the minister explain that the government is still engaged in fact finding when there have been claims for compensation for the past 15 years, and when the highly toxic nature of agent orange has been well known and documented in a number of studies since its use in Vietnam?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I explained yesterday in the House, these events and the use of these products date back 45 years. We are trying to reconstruct the facts and the consequences. We will be contacting all those affected in order to determine how we can ensure that justice and equity are served in this matter, as we have in numerous other similar cases. We just need the time to see that this is done properly and scientifically.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as soon as the government was aware of the hazards relating to the use of agent orange, ought it not to have warned the public of the danger it was exposed to, instead of trying to buy time, as the minister is still trying to do, while knowing full well, as in all such cases, that time is never on the side of the victims?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have never tried to cover up what happened. We are trying to find out exactly what did happen. As you know, and as I said in the House yesterday, during the nine years the Conservatives were in power, those same facts and the same knowledge of the consequences of past use of those same products were available. We are making a very honest effort at this time to find solutions to an old problem, one that is very significant for members of the forces and of the public. We will do so properly and scientifically.
* * *
(1440)
National Defence
Mr. Guy Côté (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence dodges my question and repeats himself whenever we ask him about the contamination of water in the town of Shannon. He says that drinking water is now available, that the facts need to be determined and responsibility established. However, what the public wants is access to the report the government is keeping under wraps.
Will the minister stop hedging and give the public what it wants by making this secret report public? Will he make it public without delay?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, we have taken action with regard to the town of Shannon. We have transferred over $34 million to this community. We have provided a number of houses with direct access to safe drinking water. We are continuing our efforts and working closely with the community in order to determine, first, the source of the contamination and, second, those responsible.
The member is well aware that there are a number of sources. We must do what needs to be done, properly and scientifically.
Mr. Guy Côté (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we know what the government does when it is the one responsible for this kind of thing: it tries to bury it. We do not want another Gagetown.
Does the minister understand that the people of Shannon want access to the report now, because they do not want to be told in 20 years that no one knew?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, how can the member say that we are trying to bury this when we connected 161 houses to safe drinking water?
Furthermore, we have transferred over $34 million to the community. We are working closely with the community and examining all the factors in order to determine the facts and find a solution that is appropriate and fair for the entire community.
* * *
[English]
Sponsorship Program
Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC): Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the government misled the House by denying the existence of a secret arrangement with Jean Chrétien.
Yesterday the Prime Minister misled the House about the contents of this arrangement. He incorrectly said that the letter read, “We fiercely oppose anything that could delay the report”. That statement is not in the letter to Mr. Chrétien's lawyers.
Why does the Prime Minister continue to mislead the House?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the June 9 letter in fact does say, “The Attorney General's principal position in the memorandum was that Mr. Chrétien's allegation of bias was without merit and that Mr. Chrétien's right to procedural fairness had at all times been respected”.
Further, today's Ottawa Citizen said this about the Conservative Party's position:
|
The notion, retailed by [the Leader of the Opposition], that this correspondence reveals a plot between [the Prime Minister] and his predecessor to delay Gomery's report, and, hence, the date of the next election, is beyond absurd. |
Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC): Mr. Speaker, what is absurd is that answer.
Yesterday the Prime Minister misled the House about the contents of a letter outlining the secret arrangements between Mr. Chrétien and the Liberal government. He claimed it defended Gomery. This is not the case.
Why does the government's letter in fact give Mr. Chrétien the green light to prevent Mr. Justice Gomery from reporting his findings?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister read from a June 9 letter that was tabled at the Gomery commission yesterday and has been tabled in the House. The letter said, and I will speak very slowly so that the hon. member can understand it. Once again, “The Attorney General's principal position in the memorandum was that Mr. Chrétien's allegation of bias was without merit and that Mr. Chrétien's right to procedural fairness had at all times been respected”.
I hope he gets it now because Canadians get it. Canadians know that the Prime Minister and the government support the work of Justice Gomery.
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, day after day the Minister of Public Works has stood in the House pretending to defend Justice Gomery.
We now know that the minister's director of communications, Ms. Susan Murray, falsely advised members of the media that the cost of Gomery was over $70 million. We also know that she made these false allegations on the same day that Jean Chrétien filed his motion to quash Justice Gomery. Clearly, there is a coordinated effort between the government and Jean Chrétien to discredit Justice Gomery.
Why is the government doing everything in its power to discredit Justice Gomery and why is it not wanting to find out the truth?
(1445)
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the costs of Justice Gomery are in fact in the range of $69 million to $70 million. Those costs include not just the direct costs of Justice Gomery but also the costs involved with the departments cooperating fully with Justice Gomery and the coordination of, for instance, 20 million pages of documents that have been provided to Gomery.
We are absolutely committed to working with Justice Gomery. We want Justice Gomery to succeed. That is one of the reasons why Canadians support the Liberals and not the Conservatives. Canadians want Justice Gomery to succeed as well and they trust our government and our Prime Minister to ensure that Gomery succeeds.
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am totally amazed at the ability of the minister to give that answer with a straight face. Justice Gomery himself has confirmed that the cost of his inquiry will only be $30 million or in that range. The rest of the money is money that the government spent on a war room.
Will the minister, however, confirm that his director of communications placed phone calls to the media stating that the cost of Gomery was $70 million? Will he further confirm that she made these phone calls on the same day Mr. Chrétien filed his motion to quash Gomery? Members of the media who received those phone calls will be very interested in the minister's response.
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would hope that all Canadians are always interested in the response of any minister of the government because Canadians know that when ministers of the government rise to give answers in the House of Commons, we do so seriously, in the interests of Canadians, and based on facts, unlike the opposition.
Justice Gomery's direct costs and the costs involved with government departments cooperating fully with Justice Gomery, and coordinating over 20 million pages of documents, including cabinet documents going back to 1994, will reach the $70 million range. That is well worth the cost. Changing the culture of government for generations is worth the cost.
* * *
[Translation]
Bill C-48
Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Bloc Québécois joined with the Conservatives to delete all the clauses of Bill C-48. In voting with the Conservatives against C-48, the Bloc voted against additional funding for Quebec in areas that are very important to many Quebeckers.
Can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs clarify for the House how Quebec stands to benefit from Bill C-48?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc's position on Bill C-48 is not only incomprehensible but indefensible, because it will deprive individuals and institutions in Quebec of the support they need.
How will students be told there will be no extra help for them with post-secondary education? How will FRAPRU be told that it will no longer get additional support for affordable housing? How will Transport 2000 be told that it will get no extra help?
The Liberal Government of Canada will help—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
* * *
[English]
National Defence
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Minister of National Defence of his obligation to the people of the James Bay coast. Forty years is a long time for the Mushkegowuk Cree to wait for the government to come back and clean up the mess it left on the radar bases. I have met with the families who live with badly contaminated hunting grounds. Nobody told them of the danger and nobody did anything to clean up the mess. The Cree leadership is demanding action.
We have the provincial government at the table willing to pay 50% of the cost of the federal government's mess. It is waiting on the minister. Is he going to show up?
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of National Defence.
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to lands that were transferred to the province of Ontario in 1965 and have been managed by the province since 1965, not by this department and not by the federal government but by the province of Ontario.
At the request of the province, we are working with it to deal with specific environmental cleanup activities at the sites. We are discussing with the province how we can deal with this matter, but it is totally erroneous to suggest to the House that we are not working on this. The House must bear in mind that these lands were transferred to the province for its responsibility in 1965.
* * *
(1450)
Canada-U.S. Border
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a Senate committee report today once again condemns the Liberal government's inaction on our borders. In particular, it noted many of the problems in the Windsor-Detroit corridor and the fact that national security and economic prosperity has been compromised by government dithering.
This year alone, the Ambassador Bridge is going to receive $13 million in subsidization for customs officers and staffing. Meanwhile, just a kilometre down the river, the government is denying a border ferry service, with a similar small operation, the same treatment. It also is denying the community a solution to many of the problems we have.
This has been in the courts for five years. Will the Deputy Prime Minister--
The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member knows that in relation to the situation to which he has just referred, this is a matter before the courts. The parties are in discussions around this matter and it would be inappropriate for me to comment further.
However, as it relates to Windsor-Detroit, both on our side and on the American side, we are very aware of just how critically important this crossing is to the economic lifeblood of this nation. This is why my colleague, the secretary responsible for homeland security and myself, as well as the state of Michigan, the province of Ontario and my colleague, the Minister of Transport, are all working together to ensure we have--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Simcoe—Grey.
* * *
China
Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last week I asked the government why it was giving aid to China, given the country's record of operating a spy network in Canada, but I received no clear answer.
Canada has no reason to be giving aid to China. First, its human rights record is abysmal and, second, it does not need the money. It is buying up Canadian companies. Today it has been confirmed that China has a thousand spies operating in Canada.
When will the government stop giving one red cent to communist China?
Hon. Aileen Carroll (Minister of International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have advised the House in the past, and I repeat again, the Government of Canada does not give any money directly to the government of China.
Instead, we are engaging the government of China, helping it to build its human rights legislation and to grow its capacity. In that regard we are working with Simon Fraser University, the Alberta Research Council and the Canadian Bar Association setting up legal aid clinics for women in the poorest of the poor areas.
Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the article today in the Globe in Mail mentions the systematic use of torture, so I suggest to you that your plan is not working.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Simcoe—Grey knows it is not my plan and I think she will want to phrase her question in a way that indicates she is addressing the Chair, not the minister.
Ms. Helena Guergis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I will suggest to the government that its plan is not working.
I will help the minister with some more facts from her website. The CIDA website lists a project entitled, China Feed Industry Centre. Her own website says that it is giving money to the Chinese government's ministry of agriculture.
Why are the Liberals giving tax dollars to the Chinese government, a government that is violating Canadian sovereignty and security by operating a massive spy network here in Canada?
Hon. Aileen Carroll (Minister of International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week in question period the hon. member, the new critic, tabled a statistical report on official development assistance from my agency.
While well-meaning, she mistook the figure of approximately $38 million as moneys being directed directly to the government of China. What that figure represents is the sum total of all of the development programs taking place in China but those are carried out by agencies such as Simon Fraser University and the Canadian Bar Association.
The term represents the total of bilateral aid and that, as opposed to multilateral, means between two countries.
* * *
Sponsorship Program
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on May 23, Judge Gomery said that government officials had “leaked” misleading information about the cost of his commission. He said:
|
--it's an exaggeration and it's twisting reality. |
He further said:
|
What they did was...put together the fees of everyone in the Justice Department that worked on the file, the photocopies...and God knows what other expenses that were totally beyond the commission's control. |
Will the public works minister confirm that it was his communications director who phoned the media with this misleading information to discredit Judge Gomery?
(1455)
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to the contrary. I have responded to this question in the House in the past and I have explained that part of the costs are those directly applicable to the direct work of Justice Gomery. The rest of those costs involve a wide range of government departments that are cooperating fully with Justice Gomery and providing the levels of vast information and cooperation that is required.
Furthermore, some of those costs involve legal representation for parties before the Gomery commission, including the Conservative Party of Canada and the Bloc, because we are interested in showing fairness and that Canadians have the truth. We support the work of Justice Gomery.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that is some way of supporting him. The judge himself says that what the minister just represented is “an exaggeration and a twisting of reality”.
What I would like to know is why the minister dispatched his communications director to spread what is, according to the commissioner, misleading and false information about the cost of his commission. Why did he use his communications director to undermine the commissioner and why is the commissioner so upset with the government for having done so?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the only cardiovascular exercise that hon. member is getting is his huffing and puffing on the floor of the House of Commons, which is of no benefit to Canadians.
These figures were covered thoroughly in the government estimates. It is there for everybody to see. Beyond that, it is clear that we support the work of Justice Gomery. It is important that we provide him with the financial resources he needs to get the job done, and we are ensuring he has those resources, that full cooperation and that support so Canadians can have the truth.
We support Justice Gomery. The Conservatives are trying to misrepresent Justice Gomery.
* * *
[Translation]
International Aid
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade presented its report to the House on Monday. One of the recommendations in the report, which was unanimously adopted, reiterates the UN objective and calls for Canada to commit immediately, through a plan, to increase its aid budget by 12% to 15% annually to achieve an aid level of 0.5% of GNP by 2010 and 0.7% by 2015.
Can the government tell us if it intends to follow the committee's recommendations and will it table such a plan?
[English]
Hon. Aileen Carroll (Minister of International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to increasing its aid budget by a minimum of 8% per year and we are committed to doing that well out in excess of 2010. In fact, the increase last year was 30% and that shows the commitment of the government to continue to assign to development assistance a higher percentage than to any other department of government.
We keep in mind our international reputation of always fulfilling our commitments but we will not make one unless we can.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, that is not what I am asking. Even with the $500 million set out in Bill C-48, Canada will achieve 0.7% of GNP only in 2028, at best, if those are recurring funds. Otherwise, that objective will not be reached until 2035.
Does the government understand that if it wants to achieve 0.7% in a realistic timeframe, that is, by 2015, it must implement the committee's recommendations?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Ms. Diane Bourgeois: Mr. Speaker, I can yell louder than they can.
[English]
Hon. Aileen Carroll (Minister of International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am at an utter loss because it was that party, that critic and that member who all joined together to vote against the $500,000 that would come to my budget as a result of Bill C-48. If that is their point of departure I can add very little wisdom to the whole issue.
* * *
The Environment
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Medical Association says that 6,000 people will die prematurely in Ontario this year due to smog and the government is doing nothing about it. During Clean Air Day, all the environment minister did was announce the formation of a new website.
We can imagine the disappointment people in Toronto felt when they realized just how little the government was doing. What does the minister plan to do to clean up our dirty air?
(1500)
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have introduced Bill C-49, which that party is opposing because that party has never requested a penny for the environment since the beginning of the budgetary process.
Canada is now implementing the toughest targets regarding clean air in order to decrease smog. Smog emissions are decreasing by 90% because of our 10-year clean air agenda. We are now at mid-term and we will continue with our agenda. We need those things to be stopped by the Conservative Party that does not care at all about the environment.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister does not even know the bill number. There is no Bill C-49. That is how much he knows and is doing about the environment. Just ask the parents who have just had their child diagnosed with chronic asthma what they think of answers like that.
Greenhouse gases are increasing every year. The OECD now ranks us 28th out of 29 in terms of environmental integrity. The minister sets up a website in order to accomplish this.
When will the minister put the health of Canadians ahead of his own environmental drivel?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 30 environmental groups wrote to all the leaders of this House calling on all parties to put aside their differences long enough to ensure that the measures that are necessary for the implementation of the Kyoto protocol introduced in the February budget were approved by Parliament without delay. If those members have a little sense of responsibility they will vote for Bill C-49.
* * *
Health
Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are becoming increasingly concerned about making informed decisions regarding their health, especially when it comes to medications to treat disease and illness.
Canadians need to be sure that the medicines they are taking have been tested and approved through a strict and effective clinical trial process.
Would the Minister of Health please inform the House about the steps that the government is taking to address the issue of registration and disclosure of clinical trial information?
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on June 8, I announced the first phase of consultations on the registration and full disclosure of clinical trial information. That is in keeping with the issue around transparency, accountability and openness in my department. The consultations follow the commitment I made since becoming Minister of Health. Today in Ottawa, the first public workshop will be held and others will follow in Halifax and Vancouver next week.
We are moving in this direction, while taking into account personal privacy and commercial confidentiality.
* * *
Whistleblower Legislation
Mr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, for two years this government has dragged its feet on the need to protect public servants who expose corruption.
Bill C-11 is bogged down in committee because it ignores the recommendations of every expert and stakeholder. They all agree that an independent commissioner is an essential part of effective whistleblower legislation.
Will the minister commit here and now to creating a truly independent commissioner to investigate disclosures of corruption?
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps if the member spent as much time focusing on the content of the bill as he does on his sound bite we would be further along with this.
As he knows, I will be at the committee tomorrow to discuss this very item. However, given that the bill is at first reading, he has had the opportunity to have this input for some time but has not chosen to take advantage of it.
[Translation]
Mr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the agency responsible for investigating disclosures of corruption must be completely independent from government. If the minister continues to refuse to commit to creating an independent agency, it is because he has not resolved to protect whistleblowers.
Why does the minister not want to create an independent agency to investigate disclosures of corruption?
[English]
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the member would spend some time in committee focusing on the content of the bill we could have this discussion. To try to negotiate legislation during question period is not the most effective way to do it.
The Prime Minister has taken the position from the beginning that we will have the most robust piece of whistleblowing legislation than any other country in this world.
* * *
Presence in Gallery
The Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Tom Rideout, Minister of Transportation & Works Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs for Newfoundland and Labrador.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
The Speaker: I would also like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the diplomatic gallery of Ms. Thelma Johnson, founder of the Caribbean Pioneer Women of Canada, and Ms. Sealen Chang, who were among the first women to come to Canada in 1955 under the then new labour agreement between Canada and Jamaica.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
* * *
(1505)
Points of Order
Oral Question Period
[Points of Order]
Hon. Aileen Carroll (Minister of International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to correct my reply to the critic from the Bloc. I referred to a number that is incorrect.
In fact, the Bloc is not supporting the government by refusing to vote for Bill C-48, and therefore $500 million, one half a billion dollars, would not be able to come to the Canadian aid budget. I made the comment, $500,000. My apologies.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on a separate point of order, you may recall that yesterday, following oral questions, I inquired as to whether the right hon. Prime Minister would table a document from which he had cited. He did not do so.
The government House leader indicated that time was required to translate the document. As 24 hours have passed, I wonder if the translation is now complete and if he could please table the document from which the Prime Minister quoted yesterday.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Southeast will want to know that I believe the document in question was tabled at 2 o'clock today when the House opened.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
[Translation]
Regional Development Banks
Hon. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the pleasure to table, in both official languages, the report on Canada's participation in regional development banks in 2002 and 2003.
* * *
[English]
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act
Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC): moved for leave to introduce Bill C-406, An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Cambridge.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with great honour that I present this private member's bill to change the name of my riding from Cambridge to Cambridge--North Dumfries, which geographically, better represents the constituents that I represent.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
[Translation]
Criminal Code
Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-407, an act to amend the Criminal Code (right to die with dignity).
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am moved as I table today in the House of Commons my private member's bill on the right to die with dignity.
The purpose of this bill is to specify the conditions which would allow people with terminal or debilitating illnesses the right to die with dignity when they have clearly indicated the desire to do so in a free and informed manner.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
(1510)
[English]
Petitions
Citizenship
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the first petition which I have the pleasure to table is from people in Prince Edward Island.
The petitioners are calling 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. The petitioners note that a citizenship judge terminated this policy, alleging that the policy discriminated against non-religious immigrants.
Until last year, holy books were simply displayed on tables at the back of the hall, free for new citizens to take. The new citizens were not handed the books. The books were not forced on them. The judge produced no evidence to justify his inappropriate decision to ban the availability of holy books.
The petitioners ask that the Citizenship Commission return to the previous policy which has served our multicultural nation very well for so many years.
* * *
Marriage
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present my second series of petitions. There have already been numerous petitions presented on this subject.
The petitioners want Parliament to use all legislative and administrative measures, including invoking the notwithstanding clause if necessary, to preserve the correct definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. I have several hundred of these petitions to table today.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of Canadians including from my own riding of Mississauga South, most appropriately on the subject matter of marriage.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that fundamental matters of social policy should be determined by elected members of Parliament and not by the unelected judiciary. They remind us that Parliament indeed is responsible for the definition of marriage.
They therefore call upon Parliament to use all possible legislative and administrative measures, including the invocation of section 33 of the charter, commonly known as the notwithstanding clause, to preserve and to protect the current definition of marriage as being the legal union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
* * *
Sudan
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a number of petitions from churches in my riding, particularly the United Church congregations. They ask the Government of Canada to take immediate and urgent action to stop the Sudanese government backed militias from killing and raping innocent people and destroying their villages and to ensure that humanitarian aid reaches those in need.
* * *
Marriage
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to present two petitions representing hundreds of constituents mostly in my riding of Essex who are in support of the traditional definition of marriage.
The petitioners draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that marriage is the origin of the family. They go on to say that marriage is a natural institution that predates all social, legal and religious systems and which has at its roots the procreation and education of children.
The petitioners call on the House to recognize and protect the traditional role of the family. They also strongly emphasize that marriage must remain a union of one man and one woman.
* * *
Employment Insurance
Hon. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition on employment insurance. The petitioners call upon Parliament to build a better, fairer employment insurance system by adopting committee recommendations submitted on February 15, 2005.
* * *
Marriage
Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to present on behalf of several Albertans a petition on marriage. The petitioners state that the law on marriage should be decided by elected members of Parliament, not by unelected judiciary. They are calling on parliamentarians to reaffirm marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I too am presenting two petitions regarding marriage. The petitioners pray that Parliament pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being the lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
* * *
(1515)
[Translation]
Questions on the Order Paper
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[English]
Motions for Papers
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. 7, in the name of the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton, is acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential information, and the documents are tabled immediately.
|
That a humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying that she will cause to be laid before this House the letter dated July 14, 2004, of Mr. David Marshall to the deputy minister of National Defence. |
The Speaker: Subject to the reservations or conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that Motion No. P-7 be deemed to have been adopted?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(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 stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—Richmond East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps I missed the questions on the order paper as I was distracted here momentarily. I have three questions outstanding that have not been answered. One goes back to February 8. Question No. 138 was asked on April 13 and Question No. 151 was asked on May 17. Rumour has it, and I know rumour is ugly, that this place may not be sitting much longer. I am wondering when I would be able to expect an answer to these questions. At least one is terribly overdue and others are coming due quite shortly.
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member for Delta—Richmond East does have, as he noted, three questions. There are perhaps others. He mentioned those. Some of them involve many departments and many agencies of the government. We are obviously doing everything we can to prepare the information in as timely a way as possible.
Some of the questions in fact have not been indicated with a date on which they are due; others have. As always, the government will respect the dates that we are required to according to the Standing Orders.
I can assure the member that he should not believe all the rumours. The only rumour that is true is that we are working hard to answer all these questions promptly.
Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that Question No. 78 which was asked on February 8 of this year should have been answered by now and has not been, within the provisions of the Standing Orders.
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, that question involves all departments of the government and crown agencies and crown corporations. It is a very complex question. It was not one where the member indicated a response within a specific time period.
There is a procedure within the Standing Orders, as you know, Mr. Speaker, that would require the government to meet that deadline. In this case we are taking the time necessary to provide the member for Delta--Richmond East with a very accurate and fulsome answer, as I know he would expect.
The Speaker: We cannot get into a debate on points of order. The hon. member for Delta--Richmond East.
Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Speaker, there is no requirement for me to establish a timeframe. The timeframe for answering these questions is established by the Standing Orders. My suggestion is, Mr. Speaker, that a question asked on February 8 should have been answered by now, regardless of how many departments that are required to respond. That is the rule.
The Speaker: If the rule requires an answer by a specific time, which I do not believe is the case in our Standing Orders, unless the member signifies that he wishes an answer within 45 days is my recollection, then the government is not under an obligation to provide an answer.
I am sure we have outstanding questions. We have outstanding answers. I guess we will just have to wait for this one and see what happens in due course.
I know the hon. member for Delta--Richmond East is well known for his patience.
* * *
(1520)
Request for Emergency Debate
Automobile Industry
[S. O. 52]
The Speaker: We have a request for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Oshawa. I will hear from him now.
Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian auto industry is the largest manufacturing industry in the country and the biggest employer in my hometown of Oshawa. It employs directly and indirectly over 500,000 Canadians. The sector is crucial to the economic well-being of our country.
The Liberal government has been promising an auto strategy for ages and still nothing has been delivered.
Last week General Motors announced 25,000 layoffs in the United States. According to the CAW there will definitely be spin-off effects here in Canada.
The Liberal government seems content to accept job losses as an inevitable conclusion. Without a clear, concrete, public, transparent auto strategy, I fear it may be correct.
Auto manufacturers need to know what they are getting when they invest in Canada. An auto strategy would involve a new crossing at the Windsor-Detroit border. The government is content to wait 10 years and that is totally unacceptable. The strategy would also involve harmonization of our regulations; stable infrastructure and power supply; and human resources and other important points.
The government has failed to deliver and will cost Canada new plants, new investment and new jobs.
For that reason, I call for an emergency debate on an auto strategy before the government's dithering drives away our auto sector.
The Speaker: The Chair has considered the request from the hon. member for Oshawa and has listened to his able submissions on the point.
It is the decision of the Chair that the application for the emergency debate does not meet the exigencies of the Standing Order at this time.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act
Hon. Anne McLellan (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians) moved that Bill C-56, An Act to give effect to the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement and the Labrador Inuit Tax Treatment Agreement, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
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 and I believe that you would find unanimous consent in the House to dispose of Bill C-56, the Labrador Inuit land claims agreement act, now in the following manner.
|
That each party would have one twenty minute speaking period on the bill, following which the bill would be deemed to have been read a second time, referred to and reported from a committee without amendment, concurred in at the report stage and read a third time and passed. |
The Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I proudly rise today to voice my support for Bill C-56, the Labrador Inuit land claims agreement act, and to encourage my hon. colleagues to join with me in enacting this important legislation.
I am also pleased to be splitting my time with the member for Labrador.
The enactment of Bill C-56 and the tripartite land claims agreement that it gives effect to will not only foster greater economic and social development in Labrador Inuit communities, but also enable Canada to build on the significant progress we have made in resolving aboriginal issues.
The Labrador Inuit participate in dozens of joint ventures in a range of economic sectors. They have a strong role in their community schools and deliver social services through an agreement with the government of Newfoundland and Labrador. They have negotiated an impacts and benefits agreement with Voisey's Bay Nickel Company.
The Labrador Inuit land claims agreement that will be given effect through Bill C-56 provides the Labrador Inuit with a wide range of rights and benefits related to land, resources and self-government. This is a tripartite agreement with the Government of Canada and the government of Newfoundland.
Canada's contributions include a capital transfer of $140 million and an implementation fund of $156 million. The Inuit will also have access to a percentage of any new commercial fishing licences issued in the marine area adjacent to the Labrador Inuit settlement area, thereby providing them with an opportunity to increase their already successful participation in the commercial fishing industry.
Most important, we cannot be a dollar figure placed on the pride and joy given to the people who have been given an opportunity to get control over their own lives, a chance to give back for their own people their dignity and hope for a better future and to reach their potential that I know is there.
Under the agreement the Inuit will own approximately 15,000 square kilometres of land and have a 25% ownership and interest in the subsurface. In these lands the Inuit will have the ability to make laws in relation to the wide range of subjects, including education, harvesting by Inuit, land management, environmental assessment and protected areas. Rules respecting the priority of Inuit laws and federal and provincial law are clearly set out throughout the agreement.
In the Labrador Inuit settlement area, an area of more than 72,000 square kilometres of land and 49 square kilometres of ocean, the Inuit will also have a wide range of rights and benefits related to harvesting, co-management, environmental assessment, land use planning, archeology and water use and management, to name a few. The Inuit will have a say in developments that occur in this area, as well as the right to impacts and benefits agreements for large scale development.
Bill C-56, through a consequential amendment to the Canada National Parks Act, would create the Torngat Mountains National Park Reserve of Canada in northern Labrador. This area of untouched beauty includes some of Canada's spectacular fjords, mountains and arctic wilderness. It is home caribou, polar bears and many types of birds, including the people there.
The creation of a national park in his beloved Labrador was a dream of our colleague, the late Lawrence O'Brien. Mr. O'Brien was an untiring advocate of Labrador. I am sure he would be well pleased to see his dream become a reality, as he was a very proud Labradorian, always.
The land claims agreement is accompanied by additional agreements. A fiscal financing agreement sets out the funding arrangement to support Inuit delivery of programs and services in the areas of health, post-secondary education, municipal services and economic development.
Recognizing that true self-government means contributing financially, the Inuit will over time contribute to their own costs of governance.
A detailed implementation plan sets out each party's obligations as they relate to the implementation of the agreement. All parties will be responsible for their own costs of implementing the agreement. The Labrador Inuit will repay negotiation loans of approximately $50 million over a 15 year period.
(1525)
In addition to the land claims agreement, Bill C-56 would also give effect to the Labrador Inuit tax treatment agreement. This tripartite agreement provides for the tax treatment of the Nunatsiavut government. Of perhaps greater significance, though, the legislation now before us would enable the Labrador Inuit to establish a self-government regime that reflects the particular realities of northern Labrador.
The regional Nunatsiavut government, elected by Inuit, will have jurisdiction over Inuit and Labrador Inuit lands in such areas as lands and resources and social and cultural issues. All residents, Inuit and non-Inuit alike, will have the right to elect representatives to these municipal-type governments.
Bill C-56 would provide certainty with respect to lands and resources of northern and central Labrador. Federal and provincial legislation continue to apply to Inuit. They will continue to be able to avail themselves of the protections provided under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canada will retain its ability to act internationally, while also recognizing that there may be instances where Inuit need to be consulted about possible impacts on rights under the agreement.
Inuit self-government promotes greater openness, transparency and accountability. It attracts investors and fosters economic growth. It encourages self-reliance and leads to improvements in housing, employment and quality of life. It builds capacity and ensures a sustainable and stable economy. It enables Inuit communities to participate more fully in the national economy.
The Labrador Inuit have worked diligently to prepare themselves for the additional responsibilities that they will acquire under Bill C-56. They drafted and ratified a constitution that defines the roles and responsibilities of both new levels of government, and protects the democratic rights and freedoms of all those living on Labrador Inuit lands and in Inuit communities. The Inuit constitution will help ensure that Nunatsiavut is politically and financially accountable to its constituents, and I have every confidence in its capabilities.
On May 26, 2004, 86.5% of the eligible Inuit voters turned out to cast their votes. An overwhelming 76.5% of all eligible voters voted in favour of the Labrador Inuit land claims agreement. On December 6, 2004, the government of Newfoundland and Labrador introduced, passed and gave royal assent to the Labrador Inuit land claims agreement act, with all party support.
Now the aspirations of the Labrador Inuit are in our hands. I encourage the members of the House to follow the example set by the Labrador Inuit and indeed by the members of the provincial house of assembly, to show their support for this legislation and to enact the first agreement to combine land claims and self-government in Atlantic Canada. Acknowledge the great progress already made by Labrador Inuit and give them the power to extend that progress for the benefit of all Labradorians and indeed for all Canadians.
As a fellow Inuk I am very proud to stand here today to lend support to this last land claims agreement for Inuit in Canada. I want to congratulate the president of Labrador Inuit Association, William Anderson, who is here today with a large delegation from Labrador.
[Member spoke in Inuktitut]
[English]
By supporting Bill C-56, we can send a clear signal to all aboriginal people in our country that we as a country are serious about working with them to support their vision of a better vision of a better future for their families and their communities, and that we are committed to establishing a new relationship with them based on mutual respect and recognition.
(1530)
Mr. Todd Norman Russell (Labrador, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise today to voice my support for Bill C-56 as a Labradorian, a Métis and a Canadian.
In this my maiden speech, I will take the opportunity to thank the people of Labrador for their tremendous support throughout the last weeks and months. By their support they have given me the privilege and honour to be in this House and to speak to Bill C-56, the Labrador Inuit land claims agreement act.
I will begin by extending congratulations and thanks to the negotiators on all sides for their dedicated efforts. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the steadfast determination, patience and perseverance of the Labrador Inuit. These qualities are evident in the agreement that is now before us.
On January 22, 2005, history was made with the signing of the Labrador Inuit land claims agreement. This tripartite agreement of the Labrador Inuit Association, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Canada represents a major milestone. It is the first agreement between the Labrador Inuit and the Crown and it is the first treaty in Atlantic Canada to include land claims and self-government. I trust that it will not be the last but that it paves the way for similar treaties in Atlantic Canada and particularly in Labrador for the Innu and the Métis.
At the signing ceremony, the president of the Labrador Inuit Association, William Andersen III, described the significance of the agreement this way:
|
The Agreement...provides for certainty and rights and creates clarity for the future. It will allow us to build on the partnerships we have begun, to work toward sustainable development, economic growth and social justice. |
I believe that Mr. Andersen's simple and direct statement perfectly encapsulates the spirit and content of this historic agreement.
In expressing my support for this bill, I would like to remember the late Lawrence O'Brien, a former colleague, a friend and an hon. member of this House.
Mr. O'Brien, the first Labrador native to be elected member of Parliament, had a vision for his homeland that he worked tirelessly to realize. He understood that finalizing this agreement, and all that it represented, would be a significant step toward fulfilling his vision and would bring significant benefits to the Inuit and to all Labrador. Mr. O'Brien said:
|
Labrador has enormous geography, enormous potential and an enormous role to play in this country. |
Mr. O'Brien believed fervently in Labrador's great potential and was committed to ensuring it was realized. While I and many members of this House are greatly saddened by Mr. O'Brien's passing, we are also filled with gratitude for his many contributions to Labrador and Canada.
Of particular interest to Mr. O'Brien was the creation of a national park in the Torngat Mountains of northern Labrador. I am pleased to say that the agreement before us today goes a long way to fulfilling that dream.
The Torngat Mountains National Park Reserve of Canada will be created as a result of the agreement and this act. The park reserve includes approximately 9,600 square kilometres of pristine wilderness that will be enjoyed for generations to come. It will protect an area of spectacular Arctic wilderness, including mountains, fjords, river valleys and rugged coastal landscapes. It is home to a variety of wildlife, including the world's largest caribou herd, as well as other smaller, distinct herds.
Mr. O'Brien would be proud to realize that his dream, and the dream of so many other Labradorians, was coming true in such an historic fashion.
(1535)
The land and resource rights the Labrador Inuit will have in these areas will enable them to exercise greater control of their future and direct social and economic development. The provisions of Bill C-56 will help the Labrador Inuit overcome the lingering effects of past injustices.
Bill C-56 could not be more timely, because the Labrador Inuit are prepared to exercise faithfully and effectively the responsibilities that come with self-government. The Labrador Inuit maintain a profitable development corporation and a health commission along with a successful housing association and various cultural and educational programs.
The Labrador Inuit have drafted and approved a constitution that defines the roles and responsibilities of the Nunatsiavut government. It will ensure that the Nunatsiavut government and the Inuit community governments are accountable, both politically and financially, to their constituents.
Last year, the agreement at the heart of Bill C-56 earned the overwhelming support of Labrador Inuit voters, another important step toward self-government. The benefits of land claim and self-government agreements are numerous. The time has come for the Labrador Inuit to realize those benefits.
Bill C-56, in clarifying issues related to the ownership and management of land and natural resources, will also establish the type of stable environment readily sought by investors. The bill will preserve the traditional land- and sea-based economy upon which Inuit have depended for thousands of years. With respect for land and culture at the core of all investment decisions, a new era of economic and social development can begin.
I have read and heard at first hand some of the compelling and incredible stories of the people of northern Labrador. I have come across the words “together we are stronger”, a powerful phrase which embraces the idea that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
Bill C-56 brings together the Nunatsiavut government, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Canada, but I will note something that I personally believe in: this will also bring together the many people of Labrador. Those words ring true not only in the context of Bill C-56, but they ring true for the people of Labrador: “together we are stronger” and together we can realize the great potential that we have in Labrador and that each of us contributes to the other. I say those words from the heart, not only from the lips.
Also, I urge the House to join with me in supporting this historic piece of legislation, in supporting the Labrador Inuit land claims agreement and the tools that it will provide to enable the Labrador Inuit to govern themselves and their lands. Let us realize the tremendous opportunity before us to move together and create a future for Labrador that will enable all of us to build on past successes and gain greater control of the future.
I thank all members of all parties for their cooperation in getting this bill through in the interests of those most affected, the Inuit of Labrador.
(1540)
Mr. Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, CPC): Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl.
It is my pleasure to say at the outset that I have rarely been prouder as a Canadian than I am today in standing in the House to speak to this bill.
As well, it is my pleasure to follow the member for Nunavut, who is an Inuit woman and I am sure a very proud person today. She and I have had our differences, but I am proud to call her my colleague.
I would also congratulate my friend, the member for Labrador, who has just made his maiden speech. I congratulate him on finding his way clear to having his lips and his heart, as he says, support this claim today.
[Translation]
I am grateful as well for the efforts of the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.
[English]
I have a number of acknowledgments as I begin. First, with respect to our party, the Conservative Party, we are proud today to support this particular claim. I wish to express my thanks to the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, the member for St. John's East, the member for Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar, and the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River. All of these members have worked tirelessly on this legislation. They have worked with our caucus in the review of this legislation and have met extensively with members of the Inuit community and the governments involved. I thank them.
A special acknowledgement needs to be made to a number of individuals today as this claim comes to fruition: Mr. Rideout, the minister responsible for aboriginal affairs with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Mr. Wally Anderson, a member of the House of Assembly, both of whom have worked extensively on this claim.
I think one of the great successes of this claim is the extent to which the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has embraced the claims process and provided a way forward for both aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians. It deserves our support, our thanks as Canadians and our congratulations.
As well, I know that we have many members of the Inuit community here. I will refer only to the president of the Labrador Inuit Association, William Andersen III, who has been instrumental, as has Mr. Barbour, his predecessor, together with the many people from their negotiating team in their community, who have worked for more than 23 years to bring this claim to fruition.
Again let me say that we are proud to have them as Canadians. We are proud to call ourselves Canadians with them. They have worked so hard and so tirelessly for so long to achieve this in partnership with all of us that we say thanks today from the bottom of our hearts.
This claim is one that we are proud to support. So that it is quite clear, let me say that the position of the Conservative Party is that the settlement of outstanding comprehensive claims must be pursued in Canada, and they should be pursued on the basis of a clear framework which balances the right of aboriginal Canadians, in this case the Inuit, with the interests of Canada.
In particular, the policy of our party has been that negotiated settlements must balance the economic and social needs of aboriginal Canadians with our collective desire as Canadians to move forward in a manner that respects the charter, ensures that we have constitutional workability in this country, and respects the jurisdictions of the federal government and the provinces and the emerging jurisdiction of aboriginal first nation governments.
We are proud that this claim can certainly be said to achieve all of these objectives.
I have had the good fortune to travel the length and breadth of this country, both during my time as a member of Parliament and before. As I have said before at committee, in the context of my trip to northern Labrador to meet with the Inuit people I actually did not travel the way members of Parliament sometimes do. I travelled at the back of a cargo airplane where a couple of seats had been inserted into the back of the plane so that I could get Nain and meet the fine people who live in Nain and Hopedale. I would like to think that I saw that part of Canada very much the way it was meant to be seen.
That part of Canada is extraordinarily beautiful. I do not think that many Canadians appreciate just what an extraordinarily beautiful part of Canada the northern peninsula of Labrador is. The Torngat Mountains, rising 3,000 to 4,000 feet directly out of the Labrador sea, are one of the most beautiful mountain ranges in Canada. All Canadians can take pride in the fact that this will be set aside for all time as a national park.
In reviewing the claim, we are pleased to see, in addition, the lands of 28,000 square miles which have been set aside as the Labrador Inuit settlement area, and the 6,100 square miles of land that have been set aside as the owned land, the Labrador Inuit land.
(1545)
We have reviewed closely the harvesting rights, the fishing rights, the quarrying rights, and the rights which the Inuit people have secured over the ocean zone and the settlement lands. We find all of that to be in keeping with what is intended by the comprehensive claim approach.
For the record, I would like to point out that the 1986 comprehensive claims policy of Canada was in fact a policy that was developed by a previous Conservative government. There have been four Inuit comprehensive claims negotiated in Canadian history, all of them in the last generation. Those agreements have been negotiated by Conservative governments, with the exception of this claim. This claim was started and negotiated under a Conservative government. It was brought to fruition under a different government.
I make that point because I wish to be perfectly clear that the resolution of these claims, in a way which is dignified and provides a way forward for Inuit people and non-Inuit people, is something which Conservatives have always supported.
We have examined this claim with respect to the degree to which it achieves finality and certainty, the degree to which it advances the interests of aboriginal Canadians, and the degree to which it protects Canadian sovereignty and provides for jurisdictional clarity with the other levels of government. We have examined the extent to which the charter applies to Inuit citizens and the extent to which the rights of women are protected in Inuit society.
In all of those respects we as Conservatives are proud that this agreement is one which all Canadians can support and is one which we certainly support. Dealing with a couple of those points, I would reference the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 2.18.1 of the agreement itself provides clearly that “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to Inuit Government in respect of all matters within its authority”.
When one takes the time as well to examine the Labrador Inuit constitution, that constitution and the founding principles upon which it is based provide very clearly in subsection 1.1.3(j) that:
|
--within Labrador Inuit society every Inuk is entitled to the same rights and freedoms that all Canadians have under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; |
The provisions of the Canadian charter are completely clear and unambiguous with respect to this claim.
The position with respect to aboriginal women and this of course has been an issue before the House of Commons and the Senate in other matters is also very clear. I would reference 17.18.3 of the agreement which provides as follows:
|
Inuit Laws under section 17.18.2 must accord rights to, and provide for the protection of spouses, cohabiting partners, children, parents, vulnerable family members and individuals defined as dependents under Inuit Laws that are comparable to the rights and protections enjoyed by similarly situated individuals under Laws of General Application. |
In essence, that means that women in Inuit society will be accorded, under this agreement, protection in respect of matrimonial property and the like which is at least as good as the protection which they have under the general laws of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is important to the Conservative Party. We are pleased to see that in the agreement.
All things then considered, as one looks at everything that has gone into this agreement, it provides hope. It provides future for the Inuit people who have negotiated this agreement.
We are proud today to stand in this House and say thanks to the many people who have brought this agreement to fruition. We offer our support and our encouragement, and at the end of the day we say first and foremost to all of those people that we are proud to call them our fellow Canadians.
(1550)
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, CPC): Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be here this afternoon to speak to this significant piece of legislation.
Let me first say, and this might be a precedent, that I am speaking really on behalf of the member for St. John's East and myself. We were thinking about making a joint speech, but I do not think we would be allowed to read it. I speak much more quickly than he does, so that might not have worked out either, but everything I say, I know I am saying for him as well.
I know the House generally and certainly the people from Labrador are very proud of the work that my colleague from Calgary Centre-North has done on this file. I had the privilege early last fall to introduce the member to Mr. Anderson from the Labrador Inuit Association. Since that time he has been heavily involved in the file and helped to push it along. He apologizes that this legislation is not being delivered by a Conservative government, but I say to him that without the input of Minister Rideout and Premier Williams and the Conservative government in Newfoundland and Labrador, it would not have reached here so fast, so there is some consolation in that.
Let me also congratulate the member for Labrador on his first speech in the House. I am sure that he will make many over the years but none will be as memorable and I would suggest to him, none as important as the one he has made today on this very significant occasion.
I would be remiss if I did not mention the late Lawrence O'Brien. All of us who knew Lawrence and called him a friend would appreciate how important this day would be for him if he were here, but I know he is looking down on us from a much higher seat than any of us will hold for awhile, at least I hope. Let me also thank the member for Nunavut for her participation. We know how proud she is today at this great event.
Many of the people who really made it happen of course are in the gallery. President William Anderson has done such a wonderful job, not just recently on this agreement but for years. I have known him for many years and this has been an issue close to his heart. The MHA for the area, Mr. Wally Andersen, is here as is the minister who was introduced earlier, Mr. Rideout from the Newfoundland government. He has worked so closely with everyone to ensure this happened.
That is how we get things done. We see a challenge, we get together, and we face it collectively. We look at the strengths, the weaknesses, and what it takes from each of us to make it happen and then put it all together. It is a great day.
Those who are not familiar with the area and who have not been to the north coast of Labrador are missing something. In a former life, as a minister of education, I visited every, if not almost every, community along the coast. I visited all the schools, met with the people and took some time to hunt and fish.
We talk about history. I have heard members from Alberta, with all due respect to my colleagues, talk about the history of their province. We do not know the history of this country until we have visited Labrador. We do not know scenery unless we have seen the Torngats. We do not know fishing unless we have fished in Labrador.
We see people who are the kindest and most dedicated people in the world. People who have, not just for years but for centuries, eked out a living from the land and have seen others perhaps take more advantage of their resources than they did themselves. All that is going to change because of the work of some of the people we mentioned.
(1555)
Today is a whole new day in the life of Labrador. I am reminded of the poem The Road Not Taken by Robert Frost. Robert Frost, of course, was one of the greatest poets who wrote poems that really expressed local situations. The Road Not Taken probably describes today what is happening to the Inuit people along the coast of Labrador.
Years ago they had the choice of continuing to do what had gone on for centuries. They had the choice to let others dictate their future to them or, when they came to the fork in the road, they had a choice to perhaps set off in a new direction, to take the road not taken, and to lead to an area where they themselves would control their own future and destiny. That is not always the easiest choice.
I am sure the new member for Labrador, who in his own right has fought many battles for his people, knows it is not easy. It is very easy for people to sit back and let somebody else do everything for them. It is a lot harder to stand and fight for what a person knows is right, to fight for what belongs to that person, and to fight for what that person knows he or she should control. This is what Mr. Anderson and his people have done.
In just a few moments, after we hear from two or three other speakers, the legislation will go through the House. What the Inuit people have wanted for a long time will be delivered to them. I want to tell them that they took the road not taken, but certainly, as the poem ends up, it has made all the difference.
I know it will make a lot of difference to the people of Labrador and the Inuit along the coast because their destiny is now in their own hands. History will show that we could not have turned the control of this destiny over to a better people. I wish them all the best and certainly appreciate being a little part of this whole exercise.
(1600)
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Cleary (Louis-Saint-Laurent, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me as a member of Parliament for the Bloc Québécois responsible for issues related to the first nations and the Inuit, Innu of Mashteuiatsh, the Lac-Saint-Jean reserve in Nitassinan, the ancestral land of the Innu of Pekuakami, to speak to Bill C-56, an act to give effect to the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement and the Labrador Inuit Tax Treatment Agreement.
Allow me first to congratulate the chair of the committee, the member for Nunavut, for the tremendous work she did on this and other matters, as well as all the opposition members who fought tooth and nail to ensure that this bill was referred to the House of Commons as soon as possible.
The Bloc Québécois is very honoured to give its full support to this bill to give effect to the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement and the Labrador Inuit Tax Treatment Agreement. There are three main reasons why we take this position.
First, the Bloc Québécois fully supports the idea of a right to self-government for aboriginal peoples, and this agreement realizes their right to govern themselves. They will have the pleasure of making their own choices, acting on them and developing, as they see fit, the future of their people, and most of all, of their children. If only for this reason, we should support the principle underlying this entire agreement.
Second, a majority of the Inuit—76%— voted in favour of this agreement, with a turnout of 86.5% in the May 26, 2004 referendum. It would be ill-advised for sovereigntists to oppose this.
Third, the agreement is a fine example of self-government and will go down alongside the Nisga'a agreement, the Tlicho agreement, and soon that of the Quebec Cree.
More generally, the Bloc Québécois is concerned about aboriginal claims for self-government. It acknowledges the aboriginal peoples as distinct peoples with a right to their own cultures, languages, customs and traditions, as well as the right to direct the development of their own identity.
Bill C-56 is now at the second reading needed to implement the tripartite agreement signed by the Inuit, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Canada.
The Inuit are an aboriginal people numbering some 5,300 individuals. Most of them live in coastal communities in northern Labrador.
I would like to salute the president of the Labrador Inuit Association, Mr. William Anderson III, whom I have met with on several occasions. I hope that this bill now before the House of Commons is passed and, after a number of years, becomes the real social vision of their people.
(1605)
The traditional lands of the Labrador Inuit are called “Nunatsiavut” and extend into the Torngat Mountains region as well.
This is the third agreement with Inuit nations, satisfying the aspirations of a first nation to self-government, while at the same time settling its land claim.
As was pointed out earlier, it was a matter of completing the circle of all the agreements that have been made for Inuit peoples. It is therefore, in my view, an enormous step forward in the development of these peoples. We can be sure that they will succeed, thanks to this agreement, in developing their communities, as they so richly deserve.
It is now up to the people who negotiated these agreements to follow this matter and ensure that it achieves its full potential.
The Government of Nunatsiavut will own a piece of land 72,520 square kilometres in size that stretches to the outer limits of Canada's territorial waters.
The Government of Canada will transfer $140 million to the Labrador Inuit under the terms of the agreement, as well as $156 million to implement it.
In particular, the agreement gives the Labrador Inuit property rights over resources, particularly carving stone and quarry material, as well as 25% of the revenues from subsurface resources so that they can take advantage of them and thereby ensure long-term funding for their people.
This part of the negotiations is an impressive result for the negotiators because they will succeed in providing sufficient funding for their agreement and their government.
Under the agreement, the Labrador Inuit will also have many other benefits, including the ability to manage their own health system, on condition that their standards are similar to those in other communities in Labrador; their own education, in order to protect their language and traditions; and their day-to-day administration, resources, economic development, etc.
The Labrador Inuit must also be consulted when development projects affect their land.
In all cases, the Canadian charter continues to apply to Inuit land and government.
The agreement also provides that the interests of current landowners are not affected by the new provisions. There is still free access to the land, with the exception of new roads or access routes where the Nunatsiavut government could impose transit fees.
In short, the agreement enables the Inuit to manage their own development. It also gives them more powers to protect their way of life, stimulate economic growth, and enhance the well-being of their communities.
In view of the nature of the bill giving effect to the Labrador Inuit land claims and the Labrador Inuit tax treatment agreement, it seems to us that the role of Parliament is to debate and accept or reject this bill. There is no need for us to amend this bill. It was duly endorsed by the three parties who negotiated it. To amend it would be to patronize it, and that we refuse to support.
(1610)
We would point out that the Bloc Québécois endorsed the essence of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. They set out aboriginal self-government as a level of government with jurisdiction over matters of good government and public well-being. In addition, the report as a whole was based on recognition of native peoples as autonomous nations occupying a unique place in Canada.
Before concluding, I would like to congratulate once again all the people who had to work hard to bring this agreement about. It puts an end to the negotiations of the Inuit of Canada as a whole. This is a historic day to remember.
In closing, I invite everyone applying this agreement to be careful. As I have said again and again, an agreement is like a hunting rifle: if it is left at home it serves no purpose. It has to be used well and worked with. So, too, this agreement.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, it is a true honour for me to join the debate on Bill C-56 and to represent the views of the New Democratic Party caucus.
I would like to begin by saying I rise to enthusiastically support Bill C-56, known as the Labrador Inuit land claims and self-government act . I am deeply honoured to be able to participate in the consideration of the bill. I applaud the spirit of cooperation that exists in the House of Commons today and the goodwill expressed by all my colleagues from all parties. It serves as a testimony to the level of interest that we see and take in this issue and the genuine goodwill that we express to the Inuit people of Labrador today.
It is my belief that with today's debate, the House is taking a significant step toward our ultimate objective, and I honestly believe that is making self-government a reality for the Labrador Inuit.
Self-government for the Labrador Inuit is embedded in the provisions of a historic accord, the Labrador Inuit land claims agreement which is, I point out with great pride, the first modern day treaty in Atlantic Canada, a pact that truly marks the beginning of a new era in partnership between the Labrador Inuit and Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada.
The agreement is a product of extensive consultation, deliberation and negotiation. In that spirit the agreement represents the successful conclusion of 28 years of patient work by the Labrador Inuit and the Governments of Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador. I can imagine the degree of commitment that has to be demonstrated by all of the parties to navigate and negotiate a complex agreement on a subject matter as critical as the inherent right to self-governance and to maintain that stream of thought for 28 years to a successful conclusion.
This is a lifetime worth of work for the principals engaged in this undertaking. It is the fulfillment of a dream, not only of the people but of the leadership who have dedicated their lives to this diligent study, collaboration and effort that began as long ago as 1977 with the filing of a statement of claim by the Labrador Inuit Association.
Negotiations may have been lengthy, but since the agreement was finalized on August 29, 2003, I am pleased to say that progress has really been swift as it moved toward official ratification on May 26, 2004, with 76% of Inuit electors voting in favour of the agreement. On December 6, 2004, the Newfoundland and Labrador house of assembly adopted the enabling legislation, the Labrador Inuit land claims agreement act.
On January 21, representatives of the Labrador Inuit, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Canada affixed their signatures to the agreement, the final step toward ratification. The passage of Bill C-56 is for the House now to undertake. Again, it is my great honour to be a part of that historic agreement.
The pace may have seemed glacial in those early years, but in actual fact the timeframe since August 29, 2003, by the standards of legislation, is really quite speedy and it demonstrates the genuine goodwill of the people of Canada toward the interests of the Labrador Inuit.
A number of devoted men and women are responsible for this agreement and for bringing us to this threshold of such a remarkable accomplishment. I would like to recognize and pay tribute to all those who played a part in the development of the agreement: the negotiators for all sides, the Labrador Inuit and their wise leader, William Anderson III, the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador and representatives of the provincial and federal governments. In particular, it is only fair to take note of and to recognize the efforts of the current Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and his provincial counterpart, the hon. Tom Rideout. Genuine cooperation, painstaking work and unflagging patience have been the hallmarks of their efforts on all sides.
(1615)
It is not an overstatement that the result of their work, Bill C-56, is truly historic. The legislation sanctions the landmark agreement signed between the Labrador Inuit and the Governments of Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador, an accord that defines and provides certainty about the rights of the Labrador Inuit as they relate to their lands, resources and self-government.
An examination of the agreement reveals the care and the thoroughness with which negotiators had to go about their work. It is a testimony to their diligence that the complexities of this agreement did not cause the whole effort to collapse under its own weight. I have nothing but admiration for the people who had the fortitude, the intelligence and the enduring, endless patience to plough their way through the minute details necessary in such an historic nation to nation agreement.
The agreement creates two categories of land, the Labrador Inuit settlement area; and Labrador Inuit lands. The settlement area consists of more than 72,000 square kilometres of land and some 49,000 square kilometres of ocean, extending to the limits of Canada's territorial sea. The settlement area includes Labrador Inuit lands and five Inuit communities: Nain, Hopedale, Makkovik, Postville and Rigolet.
In the northern part of the settlement area, approximately 9,600 square kilometres of land will be set aside for the establishment of the Torngat Mountains National Parks Reserve.
Within the settlement area, Inuit will own 15,800 square kilometres of land known as the Labrador Inuit lands. It is in this area where the Labrador Inuit will exercise the most rights and enjoy the most benefits. These rights and benefits cover a wide range of essential matters such as surface and subsurface resources, water use and management, ocean management, economic development, national parks and protected areas, land use planning, environmental assessment, wildlife, plants and fisheries, harvesting, archeology and place names. These are meaningful significant areas of jurisdiction that the Labrador Inuit will have the right to self-determination and control of these aspects of their lives and their livelihoods.
I again recognize and pay tribute to how difficult it must have been for the negotiators to convince an unwilling Government of Canada and an unwilling provincial government, at times, to acknowledge the inherent right to self-determination of a people and the inherent right to self-governance and the inherent right to their land, their resources, surface and subsurface, in minute detail. It is an astronomical feat. I do not know if the people at home watching this can appreciate the hurdles. This makes putting a man on the moon seem like a small achievement. I know how difficult our bureaucracies can be.
In addition to this comprehensive resolution over land claims and resource rights, the Government of Canada also agrees, by this legislation, to pay the Labrador Inuit $140 million over a period of 15 years. Unfortunately, the flip side of that coin is the Inuit will have to repay their negotiation loans of some $50 million during that same 15 year period. With every ray of sun, there is a cloud, I suppose.
Although the agreement is detailed and far-reaching in a number of respects on lands and resources, on capital transfers, on environmental protection, I am most enthusiastic about the agreement's provisions concerning self-government.
(1620)
As a forward thinking community, the Labrador Inuit created a constitution several years ago. This constitution, which comes into effect with the agreement, establishes two levels of government, the regional Nunatsiavut government and five Inuit community governments.
All governments will be democratically elected and accountable to Inuit electors. The Nunatsiavut government may make laws to govern Inuit residents of Labrador Inuit lands and the five Inuit communities on such matters as education, health, income support, child and family services, meaningful aspects of the day to day life of the people who will now be the proud beneficiaries as the agreement unfolds.
The regional government will also have jurisdiction over its internal affairs, including traditional language and culture and the management of Inuit rights and benefits under the agreement. The Nunatsiavut government may also choose to establish a justice system for the administration of local laws. This is not simply smoke and mirrors. This is significant, meaningful, self-administration, self-determination and self-governance.
In all the research that we have seen, all the empirical evidence shows that the economic development and financial success of first nations and Inuit communities around the world is directly proportional to the degree of self-determination afforded to those individuals and those communities. In other words, it is a necessary prerequisite for a healthy, successful and sustainable economic community to have control of their own self-determination and their own destiny.
Five Inuit community governments will replace current municipal governments. The community governments may enact bylaws respecting local or municipal matters within their local jurisdictions. It is interesting to note, and I think this is an example of a modern day agreement, that both Inuit and non-Inuit residents alike in these communities will be able to vote and serve as councillors. That is in the best spirit of reality, generosity and a willingness to make this new community work.
I believe it is important to point out to anyone listening that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms will continue to apply to all Inuit governments and to matters under their jurisdiction and control, and federal and provincial laws will continue to apply to all Inuit.
Just to be abundantly clear for anyone who may be uncertain about what aboriginal or Inuit self-government looks like, they do not need to have any fears about this. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has primacy, equity and equality exist and the federal and provincial laws will continue to apply. The Labrador Inuit will have the jurisdiction and control for those specific areas of their lives that are so important in the interests of self-determination and self-control.
The Labrador Inuit will also remain eligible for federal and provincial programs and services, like all Canadians. They are still Canadian citizens. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Government of Canada and the Nunatsiavut government will negotiate a fiscal financing agreement every five years to provide funding to the Nunatsiavut government, enabling this regional government to provide agreed upon programs and services to Inuit and, where appropriate, to other residents.
Meanwhile, the Labrador Inuit will contribute to the costs of their own governance, programs and services. The first fiscal financing agreement has been negotiated and will take effect when the agreement comes into force. We hope that is within the very immediate future.
These self-government provisions will make a genuine difference in the daily lives of the Labrador Inuit by helping them to build a solid foundation for future economic growth and prosperity. Indeed, the profound benefits of self-government for aboriginal peoples are no longer in question. The link connecting aboriginal self-government and economic self-determination is far too obvious for anyone to doubt.
Self-government promotes open, transparent and accountable community decision making for aboriginal peoples. Responsible local governments lead to certainty about land ownership and management. It creates a stable environment for development and for investors. This certainty helps to attract investors and business partners and it fosters economic growth.
(1625)
Investors seek stability and certainty. This agreement would give the certainty that people can invest in confidence. Outsiders can invest in confidence, in cooperation and with permission of the Labrador Inuit. Rising prosperity and optimism encourages self-reliance and leads to improvements in housing, employment and quality of life. It enables aboriginal communities to break down barriers and participate more fully in our nation's economy.
Clarifying jurisdictions, establishing elected, effective, accountable governments and creating a climate for economic growth and self-reliance, Bill C-56 would set the stage for all of these goals, helping the Labrador Inuit to continue their vital integration into Canadian economic life, hopefully, while still protecting their unique, cultural traditions.
In this fundamental respect, Bill C-56 represents a sensible response to the changing and challenging conditions of modern life and I hope enables a proud and ancient people to flourish.
In fact, through three key Inuit economic, political and health organizations, the Labrador Inuit have been hard at work for a number of years addressing the pressing social needs, forging partnerships with local governments and organizations, and striving to develop the physical infrastructure required to generate and sustain that economic growth.
The Labrador Inuit Development Corporation, an agency that strives to improve local living conditions by creating employment opportunities and promoting training and skills development, has successfully established several joint ventures. The corporation owns and operates two anorthite quarries near Nain and a stone processing plant near Hopedale.
In addition to these natural resources projects, the development corporation has reached an impact and benefits agreement with the Voisey's Bay Nickel Company. Through the agreement, Inuit are recruited and trained for work on the Voisey's Bay project and businesses with significant Inuit content are given special consideration as potential suppliers.
What is more, the Nunatsiavut government receives 5% of the provincial revenues generated by the subsurface resources in the Voisey's Bay area. These revenues, as it should be, go directly into a post-secondary support program that enables approximately 100 Labrador Inuit to pursue advanced studies, surely an idea we should celebrate.
The Labrador Inuit Association, the political arm of the local Inuit population, provides a wide range of training, investment and purchasing programs designed to increase aboriginal participation in the Canadian economy. This agency also participates in a number of environmental initiatives, such as fish population studies and forest preservation activities.
The Labrador Inuit Health Commission delivers programs targeted to community health needs and addresses concerns, such as drug and alcohol addiction and mental illness. The Labrador Inuit Association meanwhile supports an alcohol free social club, conferences on fetal alcohol disorder and the local chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
Given those activities and those accomplishments, the Labrador Inuit are clearly prepared to take the next fundamental step toward true independence and self-governance to safeguard their lands and culture and to wield the levers of economic power.
I believe the legislation before us today will enable them to accomplish that. I am urging my colleagues to fulfill their role in this historic achievement by lending their prompt and unqualified support to Bill C-56.
Let me conclude my remarks by quoting some of the comments at the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development on June 9 when the Labrador Inuit Association made presentations to us, particularly comments from Mr. William Andersen III, the president of the Labrador Inuit Association.
(1630)
I will be brief but I thought it was powerful testimony, and for those Canadians who may be watching this historic event, they should hear the voice of Mr. Andersen who said:
|
I'm also someone whose life was changed by factors I could not control at an early age. In 1956 when I was eight, my family was relocated from our home in Nutuk without our consent. So I've seen a lot of change and I understand why this bill is so important to our people. |
|
The Inuit of Labrador continue to live a traditional lifestyle. We camp, live on the land, hunt and gather food and most importantly, maintain an active connection with our Inuit heritage and language. At the same time, we're building on our traditions to create economic development and social programs for the future. The approval of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement will address concerns that are vital to us now and in the long term. |
|
Nunasiavut is the Labrador Inuit name for our homeland and in English it means “our beautiful land”. |
I was moved by the presentation of the president of the Labrador Inuit Association, as were my colleagues in all parties. As a representative from the province of Manitoba and as a representative of the New Democratic Party caucus, I want to throw our enthusiastic support and best wishes to the Labrador Inuit for the successful passage of Bill C-56 and the historic agreement that would give them the right to self-determination and self-governance.
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine): Pursuant to order made earlier today, Bill C-56, an act to give effect to the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement and the Labrador Inuit Tax Treatment Agreement, is deemed read a second time, deemed referred to a committee, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage, deemed read a third time and passed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed)
* * *
Budget Implementation Act, 2005
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) moved that Bill C-43, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23, 2005, be read the third time and passed.
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 Selkirk--Interlake, Sponsorship Program; the hon. member for Skeena--Bulkley Valley, The Environment; the hon. member for Cumberland--Colchester--Musquodoboit Valley, Agriculture.
(1635)
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in this final debate on Bill C-43. This has been a long journey. We started this journey back in February with the introduction of the budget on February 23, shortly thereafter, the budget implementation bill and then taking that bill all the way through the debate in the House, first reading, second reading, into committee, hearing witnesses, back out of committee and then the vote last night on report stage amendments. Now here we are on the final leg of our journey in the House with respect to Bill C-43.
The bill contains very important commitments made by the government on key social and economic issues. All of that is premised on the notion that we have sound fiscal management in the country and that we are committed, as a government, to balanced budgets. This budget represents the eighth balanced budget in a row and we anticipate, as we go forward, that we will be going into five more balanced budgets. That, in and of itself, is a historic first in this country.
However we have not always been in such an enviable situation. We will recollect back in 1993 when we came into government that the New York Times was describing Canada as an economic basket case. That was a formidable challenge for the government and it took us three or four budget cycles to actually turn the nation's finances around. We went from a situation of chronic deficits and skyrocketing public debt to a position of diminished deficits to 1997 when we actually ran our first surplus. We have been able to maintain our situation of running surpluses since then.
I think, even for all the parties opposite, we are now committed to the notion that we balance the books first and talk about what expenditures can be made after those books are balanced. I know that is a bit of a revolutionary concept for members of the Conservative Party, the NDP and the Bloc but, remarkable as it may seem, the Liberal government has been able to achieve a political consensus that balancing the books comes before everything.
We have been able to do some remarkable things in this country, one of which is the reduction in the national debt by some $60 billion over the past number of years. That has enabled us to not only achieve a triple-A credit rating, but it has also enabled us to save a significant sum of money on annual basis which is something in order of about $3.5 billion in interest costs alone.
The happy ripple effect of that is that as the Government of Canada goes, so also do other governments at both the provincial and the municipal levels but so also does business. We have at this point in our history very low interest rates. That, in some significant measure, is due to the fact that the Government of Canada has its fiscal house in order.
We have taken our debt to GDP from a historic high of 68% to now just down below 40% and the budget sets a track to go in the next number of years down to 25% of debt to GDP.
We are the only G-7 government that has been able to achieve such a remarkable turnaround and achieve such a balanced budget with surpluses going forward. We are therefore among the leading economies in the world.
That in turn, once we get the books right, allows us to contemplate investments in priorities both social and economic that Canadians have told us about over the last number of years. For those who follow these proceedings, they will know that the finance committee, for instance, conducts extensive hearings in order to be able to ascertain what the priorities are of Canadians.
(1640)
The minister himself conducts a number of round tables in order to do that. There are what at least seem like endless numbers of meetings, both public and private, on what are the social and economic priorities of Canadians. I think the success of this budget and the way it has been so well received by Canadians across the country reflect the extensive hearings that we have held prebudget.
In turn, there is an expectation that the government live up to its commitments to Canadians: to Canadian families, Canadian individuals, Canadian businesses, Canadian municipalities and the provinces as well. The budget indeed lives up to some expectation on the part of Canadians that we involve ourselves to a greater extent in the affairs of the world.
If I may take a few moments, I will talk about some of these commitments and how the budget speaks to those commitments.
First, with respect to reducing the tax burden on individuals and families, members opposite will recollect that over the past five years we have had $100 billion of tax reduction initiatives, which have effectively reduced federal personal income taxes by 21% on average and by 27% for families with children.
In budget 2003, for instance, low income and modest income families received increases to the national child benefit of $185 per year for both July 2005, or in other words, next month, and July 2006. With these changes, the Canada child tax benefit program is now something in excess of $10 billion as of fiscal year 2007.
In some respects that reflects our commitment to Canadians and in particular to families raising children. That is an increase of something like 100% since 1996. As I say, members can see that this has been one of the priorities of the government once we moved into a surplus position.
Budget 2005 builds on our strong record of sustainable and responsible tax reduction by increasing the personal amount that all Canadians can earn tax free. The budget put forward in Bill C-43 proposes that we move the threshold up to $10,000 by the year 2009. As a result of that, we will take off the tax rolls something in the order of 860,000 tax filers, of whom about a quarter of a million are seniors.
Budget 2005 also tries to encourage savings. As we know, private domestic savings play a key role in our economy. We are very mindful of the demographic realities of our country. As the baby boomers age, the expectation in the not so distant number of years is that baby boomers will be drawing down on their savings, both public and private.
The government has therefore increased the limits for registered pension plans in Bill C-43 and also expects that these limits will increase further. By the year 2010, the annual dollar contribution to an RRSP will be something in the order of $22,000, with corresponding increases for registered pension plans. Thereafter, the ceilings will be indexed according to average wage growth.
We hope that by doing this we will encourage Canadians to save and assist employers in providing competitive compensation packages to attract and retain skilled workers and encourage savings to support investment, productivity and economic growth.
In addition, the budget proposed that we eliminate the foreign property rule. We did that immediately, effective the date of the budget. At one point the limitations were 20% and then ratcheted up to 30%. Now there is no ceiling on foreign property acquisition in one's RRSP. That enables Canadians to diversify their investments and creates larger pools of capital so that we can exercise those pools of capital for the benefit of all Canadians.
(1645)
The budget also takes steps to improve the fairness of our tax system. It recognizes the special circumstances of certain taxpayers to reduce their ability to pay tax, so there are some initiatives to have a fair tax system and improve the quality of life for persons with disabilities. That follows the recommendations of the technical advisory committee on tax measures for persons with disabilities.
In this budget, the maximum annual child disability benefit was increased to $2,000 from a sum of $1,681, beginning next month. Bill C-43 also proposes that the maximum amount of refundable medical expenses be increased from $571 per year to $750 per year. Other measures as well, responding to the technical advisory committee, will be included in a bill that will be tabled at a later date this year.
The government is committed to ensuring that Canada's tax system is fair for Canadian businesses. It recognizes that the corporate tax system needs to be competitive in order to foster investment. In that regard, the corporate tax reductions that were originally part of Bill C-43 will be reintroduced under separate legislation. Notice has already been given to that effect.
In the budget we also respond to the concerns about tax fairness expressed by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. There is a priority recommendation of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance regarding the jewellery industry in Canada. This budget proposes a phase-out of the jewellery tax, much like the finance committee recommended on two separate occasions, and it is a reflection of the regard the finance minister has for the finance committee and the work it does.
I might mention in passing that I think the finance committee made 33 recommendations. Of those, I believe 24 are all or in part reflected in the budget. The work of the finance committee is recognized in the budget and is appreciated by the minister.
The government has expressed its commitment as well to provide federal funding for our cities and communities. In 2004 we took the first steps in recognizing that by providing a new deal that allocated $7 billion over 10 years through a full GST rebate. For instance, for my community in Toronto that means a saving in the order of about $52 million on an annual basis.
Since the mid-1990s, the Government of Canada has invested something in the order of about $12 billion in infrastructure programs, leveraging more than $30 billion in total infrastructure investment over that similar period of time. We have used the Canada strategic infrastructure fund, the municipal rural infrastructure fund and the border infrastructure fund in order to be able to leverage that $30 billion over the past number of years.
As I said, the full rebate of the GST was contained in a previous budget. Budget 2005 delivers on our commitment to share the federal gas revenues with municipalities in order to address their infrastructure needs. In 2005-06 Canada's cities and communities will receive a share worth about $600 million, which is the equivalent of 1.5¢ per litre. Subsequent legislation will increase the funding gradually, until it gets to be about $2 billion annually by 2009-10 or the equivalent of 5¢ a litre of the gas tax revenue.
The Minister of State for Infrastructure and Communities has already begun negotiations with the provinces and territories to share that gas tax revenue. The money will start to flow toward environmentally sustainable projects. In Ontario this will likely mean something like $1.9 billion over the next five years. To round that off, it is about $750 million a year for Ontario in additional moneys. We think this is a good example of all three orders of government working in partnership to build sustainable communities.
(1650)
Hon. members will recall the commitment made last fall to the provinces on the equalization money for the provinces and the territories, which was something in the order of $33 billion over 10 years. That being enabling legislation, that arrangement has now received royal assent and the money has in fact started to flow to both the provinces and the territories.
I should point out that this initiative represents a fundamental reform of these programs in response to the concerns of premiers and treasurers alike that their funding flows were somewhat irregular because of the nature of the funding formula. They sometimes went up and sometimes went down according to economic conditions, both in the province and out of and external to the province. The government in effect took the risk out of the funding flow, so that commitment to the provinces is something on which they can go to the bank.
The additional moneys that were provided to the provinces, both equalization receiving provinces and non-equalization receiving provinces, were something in the order of $41 billion over 10 years, the total of which--$41 billion and $33 billion--comes up to almost $75 billion in additional funding, which should in large measure stabilize the funding process for provinces as they try to meet the needs of their citizens.
Not included in this legislation, budget 2005 also announced $805 million for direct support for health initiatives, but I wanted to mention this because it further illustrates our government's commitment to continue to try to improve our health care system.
I know that hon. members opposite, two in particular, will be quite keen to see the completion of this budget because they anticipate that both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador will be receiving significant sums of money. In the case of Nova Scotia, it is something in the order of $830 million. In the case of Newfoundland and Labrador, it is something in the order of $2 billion.
I know that those hon. members in particular will be very enthusiastic and encouraging about this receiving quick passage. Possibly they could even convince their colleagues to only make one speech at a time so that we can move directly to a third reading vote. Maybe I am anticipating the power and authority of those two hon. members to encourage their colleagues to do that.
As well, I wanted to point out that this budget provides for $120 million for a northern strategy for the three territories, Nunavut, the Northwest Territories and Yukon, and those moneys will be divided equally among those territories, at about $40 million each. That money, upon the passage of this bill, will be put into a third party trust.
As well, the budget reaches out to the world. I know that you and I share a keen interest in the Caribbean, Madam Speaker. As well, we participated in the Iraqi elections, for instance. It was their first time and it was really interesting to talk to Iraqi Canadians who voted for the first time.
We want to continue that as Canada reaches out to Haiti, Africa, the Palestinians, Afghanistan and Kosovo, and this budget enables us to do some of that. You and I were both moved, Madam Speaker, in the early part of this year with respect to Canadians' response to tsunami relief, which, after all was said and done, ended up as something in the order of $425 million. I know, Madam Speaker, that you are also keenly interested in the welfare of our Sri Lankan population and you and I were able to encourage the government to make sure that the relief was distributed in an equitable and fair way.
As well, the Asia Pacific Foundation has received funding in the amount of $50 million. It will be an endowment, which will hopefully sustain the good work the Asia Pacific Foundation is doing.
(1655)
Finally, I appreciate the work of colleagues on both sides of the House. Sometimes I appreciate the work of colleagues on the other side of the House a little less, but this in large measure reflects the priorities of Canadians. We have, in large measure, delivered on the commitments made to provinces, communities and to the global community at large.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, as I listened to the parliamentary secretary give his address on Bill C-43, I was glad to hear both the tone and the content with which he enlightened us about the merits and benefits of Bill C-43.
He will probably remember that the initial NDP reaction to the first Liberal budget that was put forward was less than enthusiastic. In fact, we voted against that original budget. It did not strike us as addressing the needs and priorities of Canadians as we had identified them as New Democrats.
Certainly, the information reaching us, in terms of the priorities of Canadians, differed dramatically from the nature of the budget cobbled together by the Liberal Party. Luckily, and this is the magic of a minority Parliament, a good opposition party can use a minority Parliament to advance its own agenda. It is the advantage of a minority Parliament in terms of benefits to ordinary Canadians. A successful opposition party measures its success if it achieves its agenda.
Thankfully, through negotiations with the government of the day, the NDP, as an effective opposition party, did manage to convince the ruling party that some of our priorities were the priorities of Canadians. To the credit of the Liberals, they listened. It is the magic of a minority Parliament at work.
Even though we are debating Bill C-43 today, which has many of the core elements of the Liberal government budget, would my honourable colleague not agree that the budget process as a whole benefited greatly from the cooperative exercise that took place? There was an effective opposition party using its political capital and political leverage to achieve the agenda that it stands for, which is social spending, the reduction of poverty, affordable housing and a clean environment.
In other words, would my colleague agree that it was a good thing that, by using our political leverage, we have convinced the government to use taxpayers' money in the interests of taxpayers, to use taxpayers' money in a way that Canadians were asking? Would the parliamentary secretary care to expand on that?
(1700)
Hon. John McKay: Madam Speaker, it is a different budget process in a minority situation as opposed to a majority situation. It cuts both ways. I am sure my hon. colleague will agree that now the NDP is convinced of the merits of balanced budgets and debt reduction. I think my hon. colleague will be convinced of the merits of proceeding in a measured way that responds to the needs of Canadians. In that respect the NDP has given some ground.
Having said that, there are elements, both in Bill C-43 and highlighted in Bill C-48, which reflect initiatives that the government has taken and wants to take, dependent upon the ability of the economy to generate sufficient moneys so that this contingent spending can be entered into. That is possibly a distinction that is sometimes lost on a lot of folks.
We are debating Bill C-43, which is within the fiscal framework as projected by the budget documents put forward on February 23. It is committed spending. Bill C-48 is spending based upon surplus moneys. If surplus moneys were to exceed $2 billion on an annual basis, we would spend on the priorities that the New Democratic Party has identified, which are also the priorities of the Government of Canada, in affordable housing, foreign aid, the environment and areas such as that.
It is a different process, but there is some no go zones in terms of things that the Government of Canada will not do. We will not go into deficit financing. We will not do anything other than have balanced budgets and we will not destabilize the fiscal framework.
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on my hon. colleague's comments. It seems to me that one of our prerequisites of entering into discussions with the government about improving the budget was the fundamental principle that it had to be balanced. If we did not have a balanced budget, we would not be able to move forward with any of our social agenda.
The question regarding Bill C-43 that raised our concerns initially was regarding the $100 billion in corporate tax cuts that had already been given out. Having gone through the June election last year, night after night in debates I heard about the Liberal agenda which talked about social spending. It talked about housing and addressing the environment. We were quite shocked however when we saw the original Bill C-43 because it seemed that none of those priorities were there except another $4.6 billion in tax cuts.
We wondered how it was that we had money to spend on more tax cuts after the $100 billion had already been sent out when there was a deficit in the lack of housing, and a deficit facing our students in terms of the debt loads they are carrying. We had the debt loads that our first nations communities were facing and the debt load that was starting to grow in our environment from a lack of a long term plan.
When we sat down to work with the government on improving Bill C-43 into something that was more in line with what the Canadian public wanted, it was based on the principle of a balanced budget. It was based on a principle of giving to Canadians a plan that would actually move us out of the many other deficits that had grown over the years. We have been obsessed with the Conservative Party's one note song on tax cuts at the expense of everything else.
We have heard such strong support for this budget from the home front. We are hearing from people of all political stripes in Timmins—James Bay who are saying to deliver this budget and make it happen. They want this budget to go through. They want the games to end. We are almost in July and we still have not passed these two bills. I am asking my hon. colleague, can we get a very firm commitment that Bill C-43 and our amended budget will be passed before this session ends?
(1705)
Hon. John McKay: Madam Speaker, I wish that was a commitment I could give because I suspect that some of the time occupied in the debate on this budget might not necessarily be occupied by this side, but may well be occupied by the other side and for that side, I cannot give or receive commitments.
I agree with the member on the johnny-one-note exercise. It is true that members opposite do have a johnny-one-note, that tax relief is the way to nirvana. We all know that tax relief is not the way to nirvana. The beauty of being a Liberal is that we have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.
With respect to the $100 billion tax relief, about one-quarter of it applied to corporations and about three-quarters applied to individuals. Similarly, the tax relief envisioned in Bill C-43, about $7.4 billion was for personal tax relief and a little over $4 billion was contemplated for a corporate tax relief, some of which survives intact.
We must have a competitive business environment and if we do, we presumably will increase our productivity. If we were to increase our productivity, we would generate wealth. If we were to generate wealth, then all governments would be able to tax that wealth for the greater good. That is the reasoning behind the tax relief as contemplated in Bill C-43 and which ultimately will be restored in Bill C-43.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC): Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party of Canada believes that Canada can become the most prosperous nation in the world, but we do not think that can happen with the Liberal government at the helm. Certainly not when it is supported by the NDP and is taking its marching orders from the NDP when it comes to economic and fiscal policy. I cannot think of a worse scenario in terms of generating wealth for Canadians, creating jobs, and doing the things that are necessary to provide Canadians with the opportunity that they really deserve.
Having said that, it is my pleasure to stand today and say that we are going to support Bill C-43 because we have been able to make some changes to it.
I want to point out to the House and to my friend across the way that back when we had a throne speech at the beginning of September, the Conservative Party insisted and finally got amendments to the throne speech that called for tax relief. It is actually the same tax relief that my friend in the NDP was running down a moment ago and was agreed to by his party. That became part of the budget.
Finally, the government has started to come around and see that these things are important. It is important because Canadians perversely pay income tax at $9,900 a year, which is ridiculous.
We think about helping people on the low end of the income scale. Obviously the NDP do not care about that. However, when it comes to helping people on the low end of the income scale, why do we tax people who are scraping by on pensions? It is ridiculous. I am thrilled that we were finally able to get the government to move a little in our direction on personal income tax cuts.
When it came to tax relief on large employers, the Liberals have gone through this crazy process where they said they believed in this and they had to have it because it would create jobs. Then in an effort to save their political skin they reversed themselves and said that they would take it out of Bill C-43 and strike a deal with the NDP.
Then the next day, after there was much pressure from our party and from people who actually employ Canadians, they put it back in. They said that they would bring it back in a different piece of legislation. It is ridiculous. The Liberals do not have a clue as to what they are doing. They obviously do not have a vision for where we should go down the road. I think it is important for the Government of Canada to have some kind of a real vision, so that we can guarantee Canadians jobs and opportunity down the road.
I want to point out today that we have big challenges. We have flat take home pay in Canada. There was a report in January that showed that Canadian take home pay has only gone up 3.6% since 1989 which works out to an increase of about $84 a year for the average Canadian. That is reprehensible.
In a country this wealthy, to have take home pays flat like that for 15 years, that speaks volumes about public policy. The government is not leveraging the tremendous natural resources that we have and the human resources. The fact that we have this unfettered trade relationship with the United States, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, we should be exploiting that relationship. We are not doing those things to the degree that we could and the result is that take home pay is basically flat in Canada. In fact, there was a report from Statistics Canada the other day pointing to the fact that productivity is flat in Canada. We turned in our worst productivity performance this spring in six years.
Because of the government's high tax policy, average Canadians pay around 49% of their wages in taxes. There was a report by the Fraser Institute that showed an Ontarian making $35,000 a year spends $17,175 in taxes and levies to all the different levels of government, which is crazy.
(1710)
I know the NDP member says that they pay it to the government and then the government gives it back to them in some form and everyone is better off. What my friend fails to note is that when government reaches into people's pockets, takes $1 out, gives 20% of it to the bureaucracy, and in some cases Liberal advertising agencies, then gives them back 80¢, and people are supposed to be grateful for the 80¢ they get back out of their $1. That is crazy.
We need to figure out which are the things that government can and should do and which are the things it cannot and should not do. There are many things today in which the government is engaged and involved that I think have turned out to be very wasteful. I could talk about the firearms registry and a lot of different things, but time will not permit that.
One thing the Conservative Party was successful in doing, along with getting the government to change its mind on personal income tax and corporation taxation, was to remove part 15 of the budget legislation that would govern large final emitters under the Kyoto provisions through the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It was inappropriate. All parties noted that eventually. We claim success on that. We think that is important and it can be done in a different way down the road when the government has taken the time to figure out how to do it in a way that will not unduly hurt the economy. We have to be concerned about that.
We also were able to effect a big change when it comes to the greenhouse gas technology fund. We brought in some amendments, which the government will accept, that would make it much more flexible so companies working through this fund will be able to meet targets in a way that will cost a bunch of jobs in the Canadian economy.
We also brought in several accountability provisions so advisory boards that reported to the minister with respect to the greenhouse gas technology fund would have to make their advice public, which I think is only appropriate.
There are many things we have done to change and strengthen the bill, of which we are proud.
However, the government has to go further. The deal with the NDP is a disaster. I want to argue that there is a better way. We think there is a role for government, it has gone way beyond where it should be in Canada today. Canadians should be allowed to keep more of the money they earn.
Members may have heard me speak in this place before about the impact of leaving $1,000 a year in the pockets of low income Canadians. I did some calculations. Let us think about some of the people we know who are struggling today.
I know a family with four children and a modest income. If we gave that family a $1,000 a year tax break and it was put into an RRSP, it would work out to $1,160 with the break it would get from the RRSP. If we amortize that over 30 years with only a 5% return, it works out to $81,000 that would build in that RRSP. If a tax break of $2,000 a year was given, obviously it is double.
Those people know better than government what is right for their families, with their money. Does it make sense to give money to a government that has wasted money and in some cases, I am afraid to say, money that people in the Liberal Party have stolen? There is no question about that. That is not disputed. In fact, criminal charges have been laid. Liberal Party officials have admitted that they were engaged in stealing money.
Let us make an effort to leave more of that money in the pockets of Canadians who earn it in the first place. If we do that, I think we will eventually reach the goal of making Canada the most prosperous country in the world. We should be there today. We have been falling. Other countries have shot by us. Countries like Iceland, Ireland and the Netherlands have all passed us in terms of standard of living. Why? Because of bad public policy.
Do those countries have resources that we do not have? That is hardly the case. They have no resources, typically. We have all the resources but they are moving ahead of us in standard of living. They have reduced the taxes that hurt their productivity the most, which this government refuses to do. In fact, the finance minister spoke in Halifax today and criticized business for not being more productive. He is the one with some of the highest taxes on capital and investment in the world.
(1715)
How can our businesses compete when those taxes have gone through the roof? How can businesses go and hire more people when we have that kind of anchor to pull around behind us? Where is the vision from the government to make Canada the most prosperous country in the world?
If we can achieve that, then we can make Canada the most generous country in the world. If we have the most prosperous country, then we can be the most generous.
I want to put the lie right now to what the NDP member and my Liberal colleague across the way were saying just a moment ago. They say that all we believe in is tax relief. Tax relief is the means to an end. What we want is prosperity for Canadians. We want opportunities. I do not really care about having a program that is only about tax relief, not at all.
There are many other things we have to do to ensure that people have that high standard of living. We have to be able to ultimately afford to fund our social programs, like post-secondary education. One of the most important ways to ensure that people have a high standard of living is to ensure they have access to post-secondary education. Not only that, rather obviously, it just enriches the life of the person who gets that education.
The only way to ensure that we will have the money down the road is to expand the tax base. That means getting excessive taxation off the backs of all kinds of businesses such as small businesses, the types that are championed by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Chamber of Commerce, groups which have been very critical of the government in the last while and Bill C-48, and large employers.
I point out that the C.D. Howe Institute says that if the government had reversed itself on removing the taxation on large employers, it would have cost the Canadian economy 340,000 jobs. That is not just a statistic. Those are jobs to individual people, people who have to look after their families. I am glad the Conservative Party and a coalition of people who actually hire workers were able to pound the government to the point where it came to its senses. Now it is bringing back the reduction in taxation for large employers. It is very important to do that.
Getting back to my point, we believe there is an important role for government. The government has a role to play when it comes to ensuring the rule of law, Frankly, we do not do a very good job of that today in Canada. We just had a question period today where the Conservative Party was grilling the government over the report that there were now a thousand Chinese spies operating in Canada.
I want to argue that in many cases money, which should go to essential services, the things only the government can do, is taken away to put into things that the government should not be doing at all, like again the firearms registry. I could talk about other places where it has wasted money. I could talk about the submarines that the government bought and cannot get them to float or sink or whatever it is. It has done a terrible job on some of this stuff. Suffice it to say, we believe there is a role for government.
We also believe the government has a really important role to play when it comes to ensuring that we have access to markets. One of the problems the Conservative Party believes the government has not addressed today is the whole issue of ensuring that we can provide goods and services to the United States, by far our most important market. Eighty-four per cent of all our exports go to the United States, so it is critically important. We see that border too often closed to us these days. We think that is an important role the government has to play, but it has not done a good job of it.
We think the government has a very important role to play when it comes to things like health care. We believe the government should adequately fund health care. We also believe, and I think this is now backed up by the courts, the government has done a horrible job of ensuring, after 12 years, that Canadians can get access to health care. The government cannot blame that on anyone else. It has become so bad that people now have to go to the court to force the government to deal with their medical problems. The government is not doing a good job when it comes to providing certain kinds of government services.
(1720)
Here is something Canadians run into all the time. Has anyone here tried to get a passport lately? The only place a person can go to get a passport is the government. The government is doing a lousy job with that $160 billion we sent it to use for providing programs and services. It is doing a lousy job when it comes to those kinds of things.
As an MP, I have people come to my office all the time saying that they have sent their paperwork in six or eight months and they still do not have their passports and they have to go somewhere. They are doing a lousy job in providing basic services.
We think there is a role to play. We do not think the government is playing that role. We think very often Canadians could do a better job with the money that goes to Ottawa and too often is wasted.
If the idea is to ensure that people are as well off as they can be, as prosperous as they can be and that they can look after their family, many times a government program will not do that. Many times a family will do that, a family which has a good job or maybe two good jobs. It is a family who has enough income, after they have paid their taxes, to put money into an RESP so they can look after their son or daughter's education down the road or money in an RRSP so they have a bit of a nest egg to retire on. I think that is a great idea.
My friend across the way is mumbling that it was a Liberal idea. It may have been a Liberal idea, but it is also a Liberal idea to tax people to the point where they can hardly afford to put money into RRSPs today. A 49% taxation rate is also a Liberal idea.
We think Canadians need that money to buy groceries or to go on a vacation. We want to see them have a high standard of living. We want them to have enough income after they have paid their taxes so they can really enjoy their life. We want them to have some choice in child care.
Here is another issue on which I think a lot of Canadians are certainly behind the Conservative Party. The government says to parents that they are not doing a good job of looking after your children. Then it says that it will take some tax money away from them and put it into a national day care program. Whether they prefer to use day care or not, they still pay taxes for it.
Many Canadians make a different choices. Many Canadians say that they would like to have one parent stay home for awhile with the children as they grow up.They think that is the best way to help them get through those formative years. Other people make a different choice and put their children in day care. The point is, Canadians should have some choice.
The government, although it denies it, is trying to take away choice by taking tax dollars from everybody and putting it into institutionalized day care. That is the government's preference but it may not be the preference of other Canadians.
The Conservative Party completely opposes that and I make no apologies for it. Every poll I have seen indicates that 80% of Canadians would like to have choice. In fact, 80% of them say they would prefer to spend time at home with their children instead of putting them into a day care. We are not saying they cannot. Give Canadians the choice. The new minister may have had great expertise in hockey, but he does not seem to understand the issue of parental choice.
I look forward to hearing questions from my friends across the way.
(1725)
Hon. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the speech, which part of it I heard from here and part of it from my office, but I was especially surprised at the attack on the RRSP.
I know we all want money for vacations and stuff like that and, as the member said, we should have money for that, but I also think we should be encouraged to save for larger vacations rather than small ones.
The RRSP is a program that encourages people to save. I also know the member is concerned about overtaxation. Well the RRSP is also a way of saving and reducing taxation so I was surprised to hear him attack it.
One aspect of the RRSP is the RESP which is where people can save money, avoid taxes and put the money aside for the education of their children at a later stage. By the way, when they draw it out they do not pay the taxes, so this is great encouragement.
Another part of the RESP is the Canada educational saving grants program whereby, when people put money into an RESP for their children's future education, they receive a grant of 20% up to a certain maximum for each child.
Another facet of the RESP is the Canada learning bond for very low income children, which I know the Conservatives supported. In this case, an RESP account can be opened in the name of a low income child either by a parent, a guardian or the Children's Aid Society if the child is in care, and the Government of Canada will place $500 in the account and another $100 every year until the child is 15. The money will accumulate and at the age of 18, for a good number of years, it is available to that person for lifelong learning. In that case, there is a 40% top up. Therefore, if the family decides to add money to the $500 and the $100 allocations, they will get a 40% top up, subject to a maximum, by the Government of Canada.
What does the member have against the RRSP?
Mr. Monte Solberg: Madam Speaker, my friend has it completely wrong. I spoke in favour of RRSPs but what has happened is that my friend is talking about programs and confusing it with getting results.
I wonder if my friend knows that in Canada today the average savings rate is zero. We can have all the programs in the world but if Canadians are taxed so heavily that they cannot put money aside, they will not use the programs. They will not be able to put money away to the degree that they should. The average savings rate in Canada today is nada.
Maybe my friend did not hear this, but at the beginning of my speech today I pointed out that Don Drummond, a former deputy finance minister who served under the Prime Minister when he was finance minister, produced a report in January that showed that take home pay in Canada has gone up only 3.6% in 15 years. We have to do a better job. The member should not confuse announcing programs with getting results for Canadians.
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
(1730)
[English]
Committees of the House
Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics
The House resumed from June 14 consideration of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine): It being 5:30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
Call in the members.
* * *
(1800)
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
|
(Division No. 122)
|
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allison
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson (Victoria)
Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands)
André
Angus
Asselin
Augustine
Bachand
Bagnell
Bains
Bakopanos
Barnes
Batters
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bell
Bellavance
Bennett
Benoit
Bergeron
Bevilacqua
Bezan
Bigras
Blaikie
Blais
Blondin-Andrew
Boire
Boivin
Bonin
Bonsant
Boshcoff
Bouchard
Boudria
Boulianne
Bourgeois
Bradshaw
Breitkreuz
Brison
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brunelle
Bulte
Byrne
Cardin
Carr
Carrie
Carrier
Carroll
Casey
Casson
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chong
Christopherson
Clavet
Cleary
Coderre
Comartin
Comuzzi
Côté
Cotler
Crête
Crowder
Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley)
Cullen (Etobicoke North)
Cummins
Cuzner
D'Amours
Davies
Day
Demers
Deschamps
Desjarlais
Desrochers
DeVillers
Devolin
Dhalla
Dion
Dosanjh
Doyle
Drouin
Dryden
Duncan
Easter
Efford
Emerson
Epp
Eyking
Faille
Finley
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Folco
Fontana
Forseth
Frulla
Fry
Gagnon (Québec)
Gagnon (Saint-Maurice—Champlain)
Gagnon (Jonquière—Alma)
Gallant
Gallaway
Gaudet
Gauthier
Godbout
Godfrey
Godin
Goldring
Goodale
Goodyear
Gouk
Graham
Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells)
Guarnieri
Guay
Guergis
Guimond
Hanger
Harper
Harris
Harrison
Hearn
Hiebert
Hill
Hinton
Holland
Hubbard
Jaffer
Jean
Johnston
Julian
Kadis
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Karetak-Lindell
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Komarnicki
Kotto
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Laframboise
Lalonde
Lapierre (Outremont)
Lastewka
Lauzon
Layton
LeBlanc
Lee
Lemay
Lessard
Lévesque
Longfield
Loubier
Lukiwski
Lunn
Lunney
MacAulay
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Macklin
Malhi
Maloney
Marceau
Mark
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca)
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Masse
Matthews
McCallum
McDonough
McGuinty
McGuire
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
McLellan
McTeague
Ménard (Hochelaga)
Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin)
Menzies
Merrifield
Miller
Mills
Minna
Mitchell
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Murphy
Myers
Neville
Nicholson
O'Connor
Obhrai
Oda
Owen
Pacetti
Pallister
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Penson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Chatham-Kent—Essex)
Plamondon
Poilievre
Poirier-Rivard
Prentice
Preston
Proulx
Rajotte
Ratansi
Redman
Regan
Reid
Reynolds
Richardson
Ritz
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rota
Roy
Russell
Saada
Sauvageau
Savage
Savoy
Scarpaleggia
Scheer
Schellenberger
Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country)
Siksay
Silva
Simard (Beauport—Limoilou)
Simard (Saint Boniface)
Skelton
Smith (Pontiac)
Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul)
Solberg
Sorenson
St-Hilaire
St. Amand
St. Denis
Steckle
Stronach
Szabo
Telegdi
Temelkovski
Thibault (West Nova)
Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest)
Thompson (Wild Rose)
Tilson
Toews
Tonks
Torsney
Trost
Tweed
Ur
Valeri
Valley
Van Loan
Vellacott
Volpe
Wappel
Warawa
Wasylycia-Leis
Watson
White
Wilfert
Williams
Wrzesnewskyj
Yelich
Zed
Total: -- 277
|
|
NAYS
Members
Brown (Oakville)
Phinney
Total: -- 2
|
|
PAIRED
Members
Duceppe
Ianno
Khan
Lavallée
Perron
Peterson
Scott
Thibault (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques)
Total: -- 8
|
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Private Members' Business]
* * *
[English]
Excise Tax Act
The House resumed from June 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-259, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act (elimination of excise tax on jewellery), be read the third time and passed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-259 under private members' business.
Before the Clerk announced the results of the vote:
(1810)
Ms. Ruby Dhalla: Mr. Speaker, please have my vote counted as against.
* * *
(1815)
(The House divided on the motion which was agreed to on the following division:)
|
(Division No. 123)
|
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Allison
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands)
André
Angus
Asselin
Bachand
Bagnell
Bakopanos
Batters
Beaumier
Bell
Bellavance
Benoit
Bergeron
Bevilacqua
Bezan
Bigras
Blaikie
Blais
Boire
Bonsant
Bouchard
Boulianne
Bourgeois
Breitkreuz
Brown (Oakville)
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brunelle
Bulte
Cannis
Cardin
Carrie
Carrier
Casey
Casson
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chong
Christopherson
Clavet
Cleary
Coderre
Comartin
Côté
Crête
Crowder
Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley)
Cummins
Davies
Day
Demers
Deschamps
Desjarlais
Desrochers
Devolin
Doyle
Duncan
Epp
Faille
Finley
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Folco
Forseth
Gagnon (Québec)
Gagnon (Saint-Maurice—Champlain)
Gagnon (Jonquière—Alma)
Gallant
Gallaway
Gaudet
Gauthier
Godin
Goldring
Goodyear
Gouk
Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells)
Guay
Guergis
Guimond
Hanger
Harper
Harris
Harrison
Hearn
Hiebert
Hill
Hinton
Jaffer
Jean
Jennings
Johnston
Julian
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Karetak-Lindell
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Komarnicki
Kotto
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Laframboise
Lalonde
Lauzon
Layton
Lemay
Lessard
Lévesque
Loubier
Lukiwski
Lunn
Lunney
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Malhi
Marceau
Mark
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca)
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Masse
McDonough
Ménard (Hochelaga)
Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin)
Menzies
Merrifield
Miller
Mills
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Myers
Nicholson
O'Connor
Obhrai
Oda
Pallister
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Penson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Poilievre
Poirier-Rivard
Prentice
Preston
Proulx
Rajotte
Reid
Reynolds
Richardson
Ritz
Roy
Sauvageau
Scheer
Schellenberger
Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country)
Siksay
Simard (Beauport—Limoilou)
Skelton
Smith (Pontiac)
Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul)
Solberg
Sorenson
St-Hilaire
St. Amand
Telegdi
Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest)
Thompson (Wild Rose)
Tilson
Toews
Trost
Tweed
Van Loan
Vellacott
Warawa
Wasylycia-Leis
Watson
White
Williams
Yelich
Zed
Total: -- 185
|
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson (Victoria)
Augustine
Bains
Barnes
Bélanger
Bennett
Blondin-Andrew
Boivin
Bonin
Boshcoff
Boudria
Bradshaw
Brison
Byrne
Carr
Carroll
Chan
Comuzzi
Cotler
Cullen (Etobicoke North)
Cuzner
D'Amours
DeVillers
Dhalla
Dion
Dosanjh
Dryden
Easter
Efford
Emerson
Eyking
Fontana
Frulla
Fry
Godbout
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
Holland
Hubbard
Kadis
Lapierre (Outremont)
Lastewka
LeBlanc
Lee
MacAulay
Macklin
Maloney
Matthews
McCallum
McGuinty
McGuire
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
McLellan
McTeague
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Neville
Owen
Pacetti
Pettigrew
Pickard (Chatham-Kent—Essex)
Powers
Ratansi
Redman
Regan
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rota
Russell
Saada
Savage
Savoy
Scarpaleggia
Silva
Simard (Saint Boniface)
St. Denis
Steckle
Stronach
Szabo
Temelkovski
Thibault (West Nova)
Tonks
Ur
Valeri
Valley
Volpe
Wappel
Wrzesnewskyj
Total: -- 93
|
|
PAIRED
Members
Duceppe
Ianno
Khan
Lavallée
Perron
Peterson
Scott
Thibault (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques)
Total: -- 8
|
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
Business of the House
[Business of the House]
Hon. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place between all parties concerning the House proceedings scheduled to resume under government orders later today. I believe that you will find consent for the following motion:
|
That when the House returns to government orders later this day, following private members' business, no dilatory motions or quorum calls shall be entertained by the Speaker, |
|
That at the conclusion of today's debate on the third reading stage of Bill C-43, but no later than midnight, all questions necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the said bill be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to 3 p.m. on Thursday, June 16, 2005, |
|
And, that at the conclusion of the debate on Bill C-43, the House shall adjourn to the next sitting day. |
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
[English]
Committees of the House
Procedure and House Affairs
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in a similar way, I understand there has been the usual consultation among all parties and I seek unanimous consent to table the 42nd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the change in membership of one hon. member.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell have the consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again if the House gives its consent, I move that the 42nd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, just for clarification if this happens again in the future, it is my understanding that the motion should have been to revert to routine proceedings and then to request the tabling of the report. I understand it is the will of the House, but I would seek that clarification.
(1820)
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member for Mississauga South. I think we could have done it either way. One can either ask to revert to routine proceedings or to just ask for unanimous consent and it takes about the same amount of time.
It being 6:20 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]
* * *
[English]
Canada Elections Act
The House resumed from May 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-312, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (appointment of returning officers), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Hon. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-312, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, concerning the appointment of returning officers.
We have followed this debate since the first hour of second reading with great interest. Despite some differences, it is clear that there are fundamental points of agreement.
I would like to re-stress, though, the fact that in the context of hiring returning officers everyone must understand that an open competition within the meaning of this act is not interpreted in such a manner as to undermine the value of experience in election campaigns as well as local riding experience. As the royal commission noted, such experience is a legitimate indication of competence for the position.
Thus, it would be unfortunate if a returning officer were selected in a fashion that would give preference to hiring individuals without any political experience and with no prior participation in election campaigns. In my view, the consequences of this would be very serious.
However, we do know that initially the government had reservations regarding this bill and we now believe that it would be premature to make changes one at a time without a fuller understanding of the larger picture.
There would appear to be a firm consensus among the parties represented in this House that the appointment system can be improved by ensuring greater transparency and professionalism and by basing selection on competence.
Having heard the views expressed in the first hour of the second reading debate, we are now faced with the fact that disagreement primarily concerns the bill's specific provisions rather than its main principles.
For this reason, my fellow government members and I consider that the principle of the bill should be supported. This does not mean that there will be no objections to the bill's specific provisions. In the government's view, it would be preferable to amend the bill in committee in order to correct certain shortcomings.
In conclusion, in the short time that I have available I wish to repeat that the principles of transparency, professionalism and selection based on competence are crucial to ensuring an effective electoral administration process.
However, the adoption of a new system must undergo rigorous review to rule out any potential unwanted, unanticipated effects. For example, as I mentioned earlier, it should at least be necessary to ensure that an open competition under the Public Service Employment Act does not undermine the value, first and foremost, of prior participation in an election campaign, which is nevertheless relevant experience for a returning officer. This is but one example of the consideration that must be taken into account at the committee stage.
Moreover, the standing committee will work to amend the bill to give greater effect to its key underlying principles: transparency, professionalism and selection based on competence.
Ultimately, we want to ensure that the various aspects of our electoral process, whether it be political financing, registration of political parties or the appointment of returning officers, meet the needs of Canadians and reflect our vision of a modern democracy. That is consistent with the spirit of democratic renewal. That is why I support the bill at this second reading stage.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I must admit I am pleasantly surprised that the government is now in favour of this legislation. The Liberals spoke very vociferously against it in the past, but I am glad to see that they have read the writing on the wall and know that it will pass because all three other parties in the House are of that mindset. I am glad to see that they are smelling the coffee and coming to.
Nonetheless, I will put on the record what I think are the important aspects of this bill.
First, the returning officer for each electoral district would no longer be appointed by the governor in council. Why do I support this? Because the “governor in council” really means the Prime Minister's Office and what that really means is that these electoral positions are merely positions of patronage. We would like to see that changed.
One of the great problems with the previous incarnation, those people being appointed by the Prime Minister's Office, was that there was no right to fire those election officers for abuse of their positions. That was a great problem. Many examples have been cited in the House by the different parties on that matter. I will go into a few of them.
My party and I certainly support the decentralization of power from the Prime Minister's Office. I think that is a move in the right direction. I think it also helps to clean up our political practices. It is interesting to note that both in the past and currently a great number of the people who have had these patronage positions have been involved with the Liberal Party of Canada. They have been friends of the government, former organizers for the governing Liberal Party or former Liberal Party candidates. That is important to note.
I have read the previous debates on this issue. It was interesting to note that this change to the law has been in effect in the province of Quebec since 1980. I am sure that my Bloc colleague will touch on some of this. It was through his speech that I was actually informed of this.
This change on the returning officers is a general move to make the process more open and transparent . It would involve using newspaper advertisements to advertise these positions and then accept the applications and judge them on their merits, competence and qualifications.
I would like to point out that when it comes to questions about those of us in the House in regard to our own nominations, my constituency association is obligated to put a notice in a local newspaper at least two weeks in advance of the nomination deadlines so that everybody has the ability to run. I have been through four of these processes, so I know well of what I speak. It certainly makes for an open and accountable process.
The irony of the current situation is that it gives only the person who hires these people the right to fire them. If someone is hired by the Prime Minister's Office, with the Chief Electoral Officer having no ability to do anything, and we get a dud, we are all stuck with it. There have been cases of that in the past.
One of my colleagues is very involved in democratic reform. The member for Lanark--Frontenac--Lennox and Addington has talked about some additions he would like to make to this legislation or some things to be considered as friendly amendments. One that I would like to touch on is an idea of training and testing.
The Bloc member, who has spoken on this before, talked about people being trained appropriately and about making sure they have full knowledge of the Canada Elections Act. I would add to his speech by saying that I hope these people are also tested on their thorough knowledge of the Canada Elections Act to prevent any of the previous problems.
(1825)
In the member's last presentation, he spoke about how even current presidents of Liberal riding associations have actually been appointed to be the returning officers in their ridings. He listed specifically the riding of Ahuntsic, where the returning officer was the president of the Liberal riding association. If that is not a spurious and strange conflict of interest, I do not know what is.
He also put forward a story that I thought was fascinating. A returning officer hired a poll clerk who was unable to read or write. One would think that with the very idea or concept of the term “clerk” the person should be able to read or write, but that clearly was not a factor for the Prime Minister's Office when it selected that returning officer, who then chose the poll clerk.
I would say that this bill is an improvement to our electoral law. I was offered the opportunity of serving in the 1993 election in one of these capacities. I declined because I was hoping to help my party, and I did so, but I am somewhat envious of the experience of being involved in the nuts and bolts of the adjudication of the election process.
I was so enamoured of this idea that I actually wanted to go over to the Ukraine when the citizens had their parliamentary elections recently. I wanted to be involved in that, but unfortunately I was too sick to go at Christmas. I would have loved to participate the riding of Calgary--Nose Hill, or Calgary North as it was in 1993, but did not get the opportunity, and in every subsequent election I have been on the ballot as a candidate, so obviously I could not be involved in the process other than to serve as the candidate.
I also would like to put on the record that there are various other electoral reforms that I think are timely and needed. These go back to my early involvement with my party in 1993 and even to supporting it in the 1988 election. I still support the idea of recall. I still support the idea of binding referendums, be they national, provincial or otherwise. I still support the idea of citizens' initiatives, the idea that citizens can band together, sign up thousands of their fellow citizens, make changes to the law and take the power away from politicians and from this place. I support that.
I realize that this bill also attempts to professionalize these positions. I think that is a good thing. I have been reading a lot of history recently in light of the marriage debate in this House. I have realized that the British civil service was well respected because of its professionalism. It thoroughly trained and disciplined its civil service to make sure that those people did as close to their best as possible when they were administering things on behalf of the British empire, and it was well respected. I think that professionalization of these types of things is a smart move.
In reading the previous speeches, I was intrigued with the story my fellow Conservative colleague told of how there had been a returning officer put into his riding who did not have proper local knowledge. This person set up a polling location that could be accessed through what was called the California trail. As it turns out, the California trail was actually a snowmobile trail that could only be accessed by snowmobile in the winter and had no viability in the summer when the polling location was in operation. It points very clearly to the fact that if someone without local knowledge uses a snowmobile trail as a valid way of getting to the polls, it just does not count.
He also gave examples of how this person without local knowledge did not have enough forms at the particular polling location. As a result, they ran out of printed forms to allow people to enter their names onto the ballot. It was a nasty experience. There was a blockade of irate voters and the police had to be called in.
My Conservative colleague in a previous incarnation also spoke of a review mechanism. Many of my colleagues in the House, when we have our election campaigns, probably conduct some sort of post-mortem on our elections to determine what went right and what went wrong. I think a similar review mechanism is probably good idea with regard to these individuals as well.
As I wrap up my speech, I would like to state Conservative Party policy number six:
|
A Conservative government will ensure that senior officers such as the Auditor General, Chief Electoral Officer, Comptroller General, Ethics Commissioner, Information Commissioner, and Privacy Commissioner will be appointed by Parliament and report to it. |
(1830)
That is something that very much fits the spirit of this bill. I hope that sometime within the next year a Conservative government would be able to introduce and follow through on a version of this legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very happy this evening to speak in this second hour of the debate to Bill C-312, introduced by the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, whom we should congratulate on this initiative.
At the present time, the appointment of returning officers is rather archaic. It goes back virtually to the beginnings of Confederation. An advantage was built in, at the beginning of election campaigns, for the outgoing government. Ultimately, the fact that the Prime Minister decides the timing of elections is the same kind of advantage. In actual practice, this has been unhealthy for democracy. Even though most of the people who fill this office want to act very properly, in actual practice, there is a basic problem with justice or the appearance of justice.
I remember the first time that I was a candidate in 1993 and was told about the returning officer at the time. People say, obviously, that this person is appointed by the government in place and is necessarily partisan. This creates an initial inequality. The situation must definitely be corrected.
Not only the Bloc Québécois says this. We are very happy today to see that the government has been persuaded by the arguments of the Bloc Québécois and especially the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord. A little while ago, a government representative told us that it would vote in favour of this bill in principle. We are very pleased. It seems that now all the members of this House will be in favour of the bill.
One of the main arguments is that the federal election process clearly lags behind what is done in most of Canada, and especially the process adopted in Quebec 15 years ago already. There is a very rigorous process for selecting returning officers. There are steps with evaluations and recommendations. Then there is a process for training these people. As a result, we have eliminated the problem encountered on the federal level that was clearly outlined in the first hours of the debate by the member who introduced this motion. There is a list of unacceptable situations and behaviours engaged in by returning officers, often unwittingly, but which indicate a lack of knowledge that must be remedied very quickly.
The purpose of the bill before us is to set up a system that will give more credibility to returning officers who will be able to act in full knowledge of their mandate, which will be given to them not by the government calling the election, but by the Chief Electoral Officer. The result will be a greater level of impartiality than we have today.
The Chief Electoral Officer has repeatedly stated that he was in a very difficult, almost unbearable, situation. He does not appoint the returning officers. When the person does not perform the task properly and decides simply to disregard the Chief Electoral Officer, the latter has no recourse. In such a situation, the Chief Electoral Officer has absolutely no power to conduct the electoral process in a satisfactory manner.
We saw this in a number of ridings. At the start of the election, there were some stumbles in the appointment process that required many adjustments and caused a great deal of frustration among the various political parties.The threat of partisanship always hung over the heads of those performing these tasks, like the sword of Damocles.
The purpose of today's bill is to resolve this problem. It would be a major improvement to Canada's current democratic system. I am sure that in the very short term, starting with the next election or the one following, if we manage to adopt this new method, there will be an improvement in the quality of work done and the quality of the relationship between the candidates and the returning officer, who will be mandated directly by the Chief Electoral Officer.
(1835)
This way, the Chief Electoral Officer could be involved in all the usual stages of personnel management: overseeing the selection of returning officers; ensuring that they are competent; ensuring they get any training they lack; having their work regularly evaluated to ensure they are doing their work properly.
It would all be done in the context of a more standard and fair relationship between employer and employee. At the moment, once they are appointed, returning officers cannot be relieved of their duties, except by the governor in council. As I said earlier, the Chief Electoral Officer is thus put in an untenable situation that could lead to significant abuse.
In the opinion of the Chief Electoral Officer, “The current system of appointment creates several difficulties”. Here is what he thinks:
|
Appointees are often not given enough advance information about the nature of the work expected of them. |
|
Failure to perform or poor performance by a returning officer cannot effectively be addressed under the current system. |
I mentioned this a few minutes ago.
|
Returning officers are instrumental in delivering elections in their electoral district. In light of this important role, candidates have raised concerns in the past that the control of the governing party over the appointment process gives rise to perceptions of bias. |
It is not a Bloc member saying this. These are submissions by the Chief Electoral Officer himself. He wants to see a change similar to what the Bloc member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord is proposing. We must follow up on this recommendation. We must ensure that this amendment will be in force before the next election. By doing so, Canada's electoral system will take an important step forward that will allow Canada to join a number of other provinces, namely Quebec, that have already done so.
We saw everything that came out of the sponsorship scandal, and how the 1997 and 2000 elections unfolded, particularly in Quebec. As a result, the system needs to be cleaned up even more. This bill is one of the best tools to do that.
We must ensure the impartiality and competence of returning officers, those who do the job, and of the candidates and political parties involved in the election. Our system must not only be fair, it must also appear to be sufficiently fair.
For all these reasons, we feel it is extremely important for the House to overwhelmingly support this bill. We have already been told that the government has accepted the substantive argument on the principle. We hope that all the other parties and members of the House will vote in favour of this motion.
The sponsor of the motion is open to suggestions and comments in committee in order to improve the bill. However, we must respect the principle of the bill.
Our electoral process must serve as an example instead of being an anachronism based on old biased rules that no longer have a place in our democratic system.
(1840)
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord for introducing Bill C-312 on the appointment of returning officers.
Today, in 2005, in the name of democracy, it is time to take a step forward in eliminating the partisanship that comes with the government choosing returning officers. Even though we live in a democratic country, it is the government that decides on the appointment of returning officers.
There is a need for transparency and the best way to achieve that would be to support our colleague's bill. This bill talks about the appointment of the returning officer by means of an open competition for which eligibility is limited to persons who are qualified as electors and who are domiciled in the electoral district for which the appointment is being made, or domiciled in an adjacent electoral district but able to perform the functions of a returning officer as satisfactorily as if they were domiciled in the electoral district for which the appointment is being made. It is a question of qualification. Nonetheless, there is an open competition, and there is also an election involving several political parties. The political party calling the election absolutely must not use partisanship in appointing its returning officers. To be frank, we discussed this in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This is not a pleasant topic to discuss. The returning officer might not like a certain candidate, which adds to the pressure on the candidates.
All the political parties are present in this House, and at last the Liberals say they are prepared to support the bill and will try to improve it. Any bill has the potential to be improved in committee and then sent back to the House, and I strongly support that.
However, in 2005 it is unacceptable for one political party to be able to decide who the returning officers will be. This is no longer acceptable in a democracy. What we want in Canada is transparency. We want this to be a place where people can participate and feel comfortable doing so, where candidates are nominated because they are qualified, and not just because they are friends of the Liberals, or another political party in power. Such things must stop.
Now we have Bill C-312 on the appointment of returning officers, who would thus be appointed by the Chief Eelectoral Officer. It is important that there be an open process as well as a mechanism for challenging it. At the moment that is not possible. No one has the right to say a word.
Let us look at the riding boundaries in New Brunswick for instance. The former minister of labour from Moncton suggested the names of two people as members of the electoral boundaries commission. They were accepted. This did not go over well with the people affected by boundary changes, as was the case for Acadie—Bathurst. What is more, the chair of the commission was the father-in-law of the member for Beauséjour—imagine that. That is totally unacceptable.
(1845)
I had no qualms about contacting the media to tell them that the chair and all the commissioners should resign because of a conflict of interest.
The same thing could happen here and does. It is totally unacceptable. We are in a democratic country and the Prime Minister, through his party's organizations, appoints persons in Elections Canada to run elections, to represent all political parties so that we may run as candidates without restriction and be treated fairly.
I want to clarify this. At home, the returning officer is someone respectable. We are lucky. I have never felt he was playing politics. I can say this publicly.
However, imagine that a person who has been appointed decides to do just that. It has happened here in certain places, in certain provinces and in certain ridings. I cannot begin to imagine how I would feel as a candidate, if I knew that the returning officer was appointed by a political party and was partisan, as was the case with the New Brunswick electoral boundaries commission. This sort of thing must stop. The government has to put systems in place to prevent partisanship. People detest it. It is like blackmail. We do not need it in Canada.
At the outset of the debate, the Liberals said they were prepared to vote against Bill C-312. I could not understand why. It was as if I were taking something away from a child. You go for it, but the child does not want to give it up. It is as if we were trying to get something from the Liberals. Why do they feel so attached to the idea of appointing returning officers? Is it because the party wants to do favours for its friends?
During the first two hours of the debate, they saw that now, in 2005, they had no arguments left. It is time for them to see the light at the end of the tunnel. Canadians have lost respect for this type of argument and procedure. They have had enough partisanship.
We live in a democratic country and we want things to be done democratically. We want people with this much responsibility to be chosen for their qualifications and impartiality. We do not want them to be aligned with one side or the other.
The candidates have to feel comfortable with the process. They should be able to say they know this person well, that the person was chosen by several people during an open competition and that everyone is aware of what is happening. Everyone had the opportunity to apply to be a returning officer.
When the person is selected through an established system, people can then say they knew why it was set up. In addition, if that person does not accept their responsibilities and does not do a good job, they can be dismissed without having to ask the Prime Minister of Canada or a political party to do so, since that person does not represent a political party, but the democracy of our country. That is what is important.
That is why the New Democratic Party will be in favour of Bill C-312 from our Bloc Québécois colleague. Canada's Chief Electoral Officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, even came to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to say that it made no sense in a country like Canada for a political party to appoint these people. Elections Canada needs to have control over this, but with an open system. The Chief Electoral Officer should not have to choose the candidate himself. That is a closed system. We want a system open to all Canadians.
(1850)
Such people should be chosen for their qualifications.
In short, we support the bill.
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate at second reading of Bill C-312, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (appointment of returning officers).
I would like to applaud the initiative of my friend, the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord and Bloc Québécois whip. I would like to congratulate him on this private member's bill, which aims to put an end to partisan appointments of returning officers.
It seems to me that there are three key elements in this bill. First, it would ensure that the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada supervises the appointment of returning officers. Second, the candidates would have to demonstrate their competence, their merits and their ability to carry out this job before being appointed. Third, it would strengthen the authority of the Chief Electoral Officer in his or her relations with the returning officers.
These three elements follow up on the last report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, in which he lamented his inability to ensure quality, uniform service all across Canada because returning officers are appointed by the government.
That being said, I know that my colleague based his ideas on the foundation of the legislation in Quebec where the process is more open and transparent.
There are three steps in the selection process. The first step involves completing a registration form. Those candidates whose experience is deemed relevant are asked to take a written exam, which constitutes the second step. During the third step, the candidates who ranked first, second and third at the end of the second step are invited to take an oral exam. The oral exam unfolds in the presence of a committee made up of three members, one of whom is not a staff member of the Chief Electoral Officer. The candidate who ranks first after the three steps in the selection process is appointed returning officer.
In the weeks following his appointment, the returning officer must appoint an assistant returning officer according to the rules set by the Chief Electoral Officer. A training program intended for new returning officers is given to him so that he can acquire the knowledge and skills required to perform his duties.
Returning officers must have appropriate knowledge of the characteristics of their electoral divisions in order to provide customized management of electoral events. In particular, they must consider the following factors: the types of regions and population (rural, semi-rural, urban), the size of the electoral division, the number of municipalities, the number of candidates and political parties, the availability of premises in which to set up their main offices, revision offices and polling stations, as well as communication methods.
So, returning officers are selected according to an open and transparent process.
It is a completely different story on the federal level. When it comes to appointing federal returning officers, subsection 24(1) of the Canada Elections Act states that the governor in council shall appoint the returning officers. Elections Canada refers us to the office of the Prime Minister for more information.
So, the appointment process is unclear, which leads us to doubt the quality of the individuals appointed to fulfill this extremely important task in the democratic process. There is no open competition, no opportunity for interested candidates to demonstrate their qualifications, and the appointment is not based on criteria of qualifications or skills. It has little to do with a candidate's merit. In short, appointments are made on a purely partisan basis.
(1855)
The present chief electoral officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, recommends modernization of the electoral process. During one of his appearances before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, he made the following criticisms: appointees do not have enough information in advance on what is expected of them; the current arrangements do not allow him to deal effectively with failure to perform or poor performance by returning officers. While he has the power to give executory instructions to the returning officers, he cannot impose disciplinary measures on returning officers or revoke their appointments for not following his instructions. Only the governor in council can revoke and replace returning officers.
Control over appointments by the party in power gives the impression of partiality. This is why the initiative by the Bloc Québécois whip is supported by the other opposition parties, which makes us very proud. To put it succinctly, these partisan appointments must stop.
I would also draw the attention of the House to the report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada on the 38th general election held on June 28, 2004. It says on the first page:
|
From this election we can already draw certain conclusions, which hold lessons important to our pursuit of improvement in the electoral process. In particular, it remains difficult to provide service of uniform quality across the country when the returning officers appointed for this purpose by the Governor in Council are not selected on the basis of merit and still less, it seems, on any test of their ability to carry out their duties. The work of the Chief Electoral Officer becomes all the more challenging when some returning officers do not feel obliged to respect his authority because they owe their appointment to another body. |
This is an eloquent statement, and is sufficient in itself to encourage all members to support Bill C-312.
Since the present partisan appointment system makes federal returning officers more beholden to the political parties in power than to the chief returning officer; since in Quebec candidates for returning officer have to go through a public and open competition to obtain an appointment; since there has been legislation in place in Quebec since 1980; and since the transparency of the Quebec electoral system is recognized world wide, the Bloc Québécois renews its commitment to do away with the partisan appointment of returning officers by the Liberal federal government.
I therefore call upon all my honourable colleagues in this house to give Bill C-312 if not unanimous, at least majority support.
(1900)
Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for starters I would like to thank all my colleagues who addressed the House, as well as the people watching on the parliamentary channel regarding Bill C-312, which aims to modernize, if not completely reform, the process for appointing local returning officers. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all my colleagues on both sides of the House because, as we have seen, the members of the governing party have decided to support this bill.
I would like to say that this is a great source of pride for the Bloc Québécois. In proposing this bill, I was just acting as the spokesperson for what has been a traditional Bloc demand ever since 1993.
More recently, during the last election campaign in May-June 2004, our leader, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, promised repeatedly that as soon as Parliament resumed, the Bloc Québécois would include this review of the appointment procedure in its parliamentary priorities, the same as the employment insurance fund or other traditional Bloc demands. I think that in the vote on this bill, which we are looking forward to, I cannot allow myself to feel overjoyed. I can only go by what has been said on both sides of the House.
Members from all parties have realized that the current procedure for appointing returning officers is no longer acceptable in 2005. This is an archaic procedure whereby the governor in council—that is, the cabinet, which means the government—makes patronage appointments. If hon. members need convincing, they need only spend some time this summer looking over the resumes of the 308 current holders of the office of returning officer to be convinced. The vast majority are political, patronage appointments.
What we are proposing through this bill is to have an open and transparent procedure allowing the best candidates for the position to apply in response to a public notice published in newspapers. Nothing will be done on the sly. The candidates will be able to present their credentials to a selection committee and, later on, be appointed as returning officers.
Members understand that this bill transcends political partisanship because, in previous general elections, it has become evident that the incompetence of returning officers often interferes with the free and democratic election process in a general election.
I will just give once more the example I used during the first hour of debate. When an advance poll was held in Baie-Saint-Paul, in my riding, the returning officer ran out of ballots. Between six and ten voters were denied their democratic right to vote. I cannot tell whether or not they planned to vote for me because of the secrecy of the ballot. At any rate, the candidates running for the other parties were also penalized because of a totally unacceptable situation where voters were unable to cast their ballots. If they wanted to vote in advance, it was simply because they were not going to be available to do so on June 28.
Again, I do hope that, when the time comes to vote on this bill, hopefully before Parliament recesses for the summer, members from all sides will vote for this bill, so that it can be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to ensure that the procedure for appointing returning officers is truly reformed and changed, in the best interests of democracy.
(1905)
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 22 immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like you to check something with the table officers. When you put the question and asked members if they were in favour of the motion or opposed to it and when five members rose, I believe Liberal Party colleagues were not in their place.
I would like the table officers to tell us whether, from their count, the five members were in their place.
An hon. member: It is true. They were not in their places.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord for his point of order.
I am unsure if members have to be in their seats. I think that they just have to be in the House. However, I will check on that. Normally I do not check on either side of the House if members are sitting in their seat or standing beside their seat or just in the House. I will check the Standing Orders on that and get back to the hon. member shortly.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
(1910)
[Translation]
Budget Implementation Act, 2005
The House resumed from June 14, 2005, 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 third time and passed.
Mr. Guy Côté (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have now reached third reading of Bill C-43, which implements the government's 2005 budget. I would like to point out, first—because it is hard to avoid it—that we cannot talk about Bill C-43, without talking about Bill C-48 at the same time.
I want to clarify something right from the start. The Bloc Québécois, unlike our NDP colleagues, did not wait until the last minute to make proposals to the government to present a budget bill that meets Quebeckers' expectations.
Right after budget day, we presented the government with a number of points along the lines of the prebudget consultations in the Standing Committee on Finance. Some points were also suggested to us when the Bloc Québécois toured through Quebec to confirm with Quebeckers what we would ask the government.
We offered these points immediately after the budget presentation. We did not wait until several weeks later, nor did we make a last minute deal in an attempt to rescue this government, a deal that totally left out the unemployed, providing no increase in EI benefits, nothing on setting up a truly independent EI fund, nothing to improve accessibility to this very important system, for the unemployed, those in need, those in crisis. Immediately following the budget presentation, we informed the government of our intentions. We told them we were prepared to work with them and even vote in favour of their budget. However, they had to listen to the priorities of Quebeckers, because that is very important. We did make these points clear during the prebudget consultations in the Standing Committee on Finance and during a tour of Quebec. There was unanimity.
I will start with the first point: the fiscal imbalance. Out of 200 elected representatives—that is, 125 at the National Assembly and 75 in the Parliament of Canada—only 21 fail to recognize the fiscal imbalance. It so happens that these are members of the Liberal Party of Canada. In Quebec, fiscal imbalance is almost unanimously recognized as a matter that has to be addressed; there is at least a very broad consensus to that effect. Tax fields have to be transferred to allow provinces like Quebec to provide the services the public has come to expect. Transfers for education and social programs have to be increased. A fundamental reform of equalization is also in order.
In recent months, we have seen the government, acting on promises, the magnitude of which it had not fully measured, make piecemeal agreements having a very substantial impact on equalization. These agreements might even alter the nature of the equalization system. There has to be a fundamental reform of equalization, including raising the ceilings and removing the floors. It is important that equalization recognize and adapt to the economic realities of Quebec and Canada. Instead of being based on five provinces, the average should be calculated for all the provinces and Quebec. Certain calculations in the equalization formula have to be reviewed, especially with respect to property tax. This has been and still is a priority for Quebeckers.
I will mention in passing that, at the Subcommittee on Fiscal Imbalance, we have arrived at a majority report which includes four very important recommendations.
(1915)
The government can deny the fiscal imbalance all it wants, this does not change the fact that a House subcommittee has written a report on it.
The second essential element for Quebeckers, which I mentioned briefly earlier, is employment insurance.
We have a new minister. Not so long ago, she said she was in favour of expanding access to employment insurance. Currently, only 38% of all EI applicants manage to qualify for benefits. This is disgraceful and despicable. The feds are collecting surpluses at the expense of a segment of the population in crisis and with real, not imaginary, needs. These people are waiting for benefits to pay for their groceries, rent, mortgage or food for their kids. But only 38% of them qualify. This is really scandalous.
Not so long ago, the minister recognized this fact and also recognized that there should be an independent EI fund, so that the government can never again dip into these surpluses. This is scandalous, too. The government has taken $48 billion. Instead of using that money to meet the real needs of our constituents, it took it in order to continue to accumulate astronomical surpluses.
Last year, the surplus forecast was $1.9 billion; the actual surplus ended up being $9.1 billion. If this is not a disgrace, I would like to know what is.
As for improving access to EI, the House adopted a unanimous report recommending reducing the number of hours required for eligibility. What has the government done? Naturally, the Prime Minister repeats in the House that he wants to eliminate the democratic deficit. But, since June 2004, all the government has really done is ignore the majority, and even unanimous, decisions of House committees, and even ignore the majority decisions of the House itself. I need only remind members of the decision to split the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade in two.
The Kyoto protocol has been raised in the House on a regular basis. Quebeckers are concerned about the environment. They have made serious efforts to encourage industries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Much work has been done. Quebec has made a huge effort. But what does the government do? Once again, it introduces a bad plan based on the polluter-paid, instead of the polluter-pay, principle.
The government really needs to be sent back to redo its homework. It went completely off the track in drafting Bill C-43. God knows we tried to help it. We presented it with proposals that were, it seems to me, not only credible but also effective, given the financial means available to the government at the present time. What did it decide to do? It shunted them aside just like that.
Unfortunately, we are often far too creative for this government. To give just one quick example, my colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher introduced a private member's bill that proposed a very simple solution, one to foster a better environment and cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. It proposed a tax incentive to users of public transit for the purchase of bus passes. This was something so simple and easily applied. But no, it had not crossed the government's mind. We thought of it, though. We presented this bill to the government but we are still waiting to hear its reactions.
Another really simple element could also be readily applied. Why not have a tax credit for the purchase of hybrid vehicles? This would both encourage a major industry and thereby create employment, and result in a cleaner environment. This is exactly in line with the concept behind Kyoto.
(1920)
But this government is far too concerned with piling up a surplus, with ganging up on the sovereignists in particular. This government realizes it has nothing to gain in Quebec. It has already dumped it and continues to ignore it.
As for agriculture, we again made some concrete and precise proposals to the government. Agriculture is going through the worst crisis in decades. Mad cow—I hardly need say more. I can remember meetings in Quebec of the Union des producteurs agricoles, when the minister preferred to hide here in the House rather than go out and meet them. The Bloc Québécois did go. In fact, a number of Bloc Québécois MPs left Ottawa and went to meet the farmers in Quebec City. We listened as they told us what they needed, and reassured them that we would defend their interests. We came back here in order to be in the House when there was an opposition day on agriculture.
What did the minister do in the meantime? Said he had been unable to go. Defending the interests of Quebeckers means defending them in this House, defending them in our ridings, defending them at meetings like the one I just mentioned, and bringing word of their true needs back to this House.
There was talk in this House this afternoon about international aid. Again, the UN has set a noble target, whereby Canada should allocate 0.7% of its gross domestic product to international aid. Bill C-48 does provide a $500,000 increase in that respect. The UN's goal is for this 0.7% target to be met by 2015. What is this government headed for? Provided the required investments are made and maintained, this target will not be achieved before 2035. Again, the government is totally off the mark.
Now, let us look at the issue of respect for the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. Understandably, this is an important topic for us. Today, in this House, there were more discussions about early years child care. The Prime Minister had pledged to transfer funding to Quebec with no strings attached. Yet, several months later, he is still negotiating. Can you tell me, Madam Speaker, what is there to negotiate when there are no strings attached? It eludes me. Or did I misunderstand something? There are no strings attached. In that case, what is there to be negotiated? Why does he not simply transfer to the Government of Quebec the funding for a system which he himself holds up as a model?
Where the Canadian Francophonie is concerned, our francophone cousins in the rest of Canada have been completely ignored in this budget. In some ways, I find it somewhat ironic that the Bloc Québécois is far too often the one championing the cause of French-speaking minorities outside Quebec. In this respect, my colleague from the NDP, the name of whose riding unfortunately escapes me, regularly emphasizes the importance of protecting the French-speaking minorities in the rest of Canada. I want to commend him on his work on that.
I said earlier that we cannot talk about Bill C-43 without talking about Bill C-48. Briefly, I will say that, on Bill C-48—and I hope that my words will not be too harsh for this place—the NDP has been royally had. It is as simple as that. Why did that happen? Let me give a quick example.
The NDP said that the reduction in the capital tax had to be withdrawn from the budget and invested in social measures. The government said that, of course, it would do that. In doing so, last week in this House, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance said to us that, if we were not convinced, he would invite us to examine the document he had in front of him so that, I paraphrase—although the government is introducing a motion whereby only 40% of businesses will benefit from the reduction in the capital tax, in any case, whether it is accepted or not in future legislation, the government intends to reintroduce this capital tax. So, it will reintroduce it.
(1925)
The NDP has been had, and that is only one of the ways.
More important still, we heard from Mr. Charles-Antoine Saint-Jean of the Treasury Board Secretariat in the Standing Committee on Finance a few days ago.
On the subject of Bill C-48, my colleague from Joliette pointed out that, with a budget surplus of $2 billion, the government could do the spending provided in C-48. I will quote from Mr. Saint-Jean:
|
The opportunity is there; it is not mandatory. The bill makes it possible— |
The member for Joliette replied: “Ah, so it is not mandatory? Remind us why.” And Mr. Saint-Jean replied:
|
This bill enables the government— |
It enables it. It does not oblige it. A little while later in this committee meeting, I wanted to make sure I understood. I will quote myself, with your permission. I asked Mr. Saint-Jean:
|
So, if I have understood rightly...the government needs the $2 billion surplus. It can then, if it wishes and if its priorities have not changed, if, in the following year, in a new budget, it does not introduce a bill eliminating the $2 billion, it can allocate up to..., but it is not obliged to do so. In addition, there is the $2 billion, naturally—$2 billion in surplus. |
|
So I want to make sure I understand that, Mr. Saint Jean. The government can, but is not obliged to, spend up to— the amount specified in Bill C-48. |
Mr. Saint-Jean's answer was as follows. I invite both my NDP and Conservative Party colleagues, along with the parliamentary secretary of the finance minister and his Liberal colleagues to take note of the answer. It is very important, and our fellow citizens must understand.
|
Indeed, clause 11 provides clearly that the Minister of Finance may make payments to be taken from the Consolidated Revenue Fund up to the amount of the difference. So that is “may” and not “must”. |
And I concluded, “That concludes very well, Mr. Chair”.
So they made a deal with the government. Basically, it involved removing the elimination of the capital tax. The government has already said it did not intend to do so, as it will act, in any case, under future legislation.
The government gave itself a way out by saying that there absolutely had to be a $2 billion surplus accrued at the end of the year. We are not talking about quick investments. There needs to be a $2 billion surplus. However, nothing in Bill C-48 requires the government to pay the amounts mentioned.
It could pay $0 or $1. It could pay half the amount. It could pay the full amount, I agree. Nevertheless, it is not required to. Next year, it will table a new budget. It could decide that it no longer has the same priorities as those mentioned in Bill C-43 and Bill C-48, especially C-48. It could present a budget that might end up reducing the surplus, hypothetically speaking, to $1.5 billion. It would thereby be free from its virtual obligation imposed by Bill C-48. And the NDP will have been had. Even if there is a $2 billion surplus, nothing requires the government to spend the amount stipulated in Bill C-48.
Since I have only one minute remaining, I will wrap up my speech. Unlike the NDP, we did not wait until the last minute to present the government with the priorities of Quebeckers. We presented the government with important and achievable items based on the consensus in Quebec that would serve the best interests of our constituents in Quebec, as well as those in the rest of Canada. We did not make a last minute deal and we were not had by the Liberal government.
(1930)
[English]
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, if the House were to pass a resolution that a tooth fairy is sitting on someone's left shoulder and the resolution was passed unanimously, does that mean that there would be a tooth fairy sitting on someone's left shoulder?
Provincial politicians have passed a resolution that says there is a fiscal imbalance. What else would one expect provincial politicians to do but to pass a resolution that says there is a fiscal imbalance? For provincial politicians there is no down side to passing such a resolution. Provincial politicians would feel they have died and gone to heaven. They can get the revenues from another level of government and never have to pay any kind of political price or accountability to their electorate. It is free money.
If all that stands between me and fiscal imbalance and money is a resolution, then as a provincial politician, whether I am a treasurer or premier of a province, a backbench MPP or MLA as the case may be, I am going to pass that resolution because I am going to get money. That is the force in effect of fiscal imbalance as seen through the lens of provincial politicians.
Ironically, when the shoe was on the other foot about 25 years ago when costs were on a runaway train here in Ottawa and the provinces were running a surplus, it was the same question except that it was reversed. The finding at that time was that there was no fiscal imbalance. Does anyone know why? It is because there cannot be any fiscal imbalance in this federation. There just simply cannot be because both levels of government have access to similar sources of revenue.
First, I would like the hon. member to address the issue of how anyone could possibly have a structural fiscal imbalance when each level of the federation has access to almost identical resolutions. Second, he made a big point about enabling legislation. I would like him to comment on whether Bill C-43 is also enabling legislation and in fact parallels the language of Bill C-48.
[Translation]
Mr. Guy Côté: Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary makes a point of repeating that many provincially elected representatives recognize the fiscal imbalance as a problem. And not only in Quebec. I can think of Ontario Finance Minister Greg Sorbara, and of the tour I went on with the Subcommittee on Fiscal Imbalance, where there was this very broad consensus in almost every province we visited about the existence of a fiscal imbalance.
The worst part is that not only does this fiscal imbalance exist, but it is also turning into a political imbalance, where decisions made by the federal government have a very serious impact on how the various provincial states and Quebec are run. The members of the various legislative assemblies and the National Assembly are not the only ones to recognize the fiscal imbalance.
As far as I know, our colleague from Acadie—Bathurst—the name of his riding came back to me—is not an MLA; he is a federally elected representative. As far as I know, the Leader of the Opposition and our Conservative colleagues, who recognize the fiscal imbalance, are not MLAs. Clearly, we in the Bloc Québécois do recognize the fiscal imbalance. We may not always be in perfect agreement on how to resolve this very serious problem, but it must be agreed that there is a problem.
I will give the parliamentary secretary a quick example, and then come back to the phasing out of the corporate capital tax. At the time Bill C-43 was tabled, the federal government was planning to withdraw from that field to some extent. Shortly after, Quebec's finance minister tabled his budget and, in light of the direction the federal government was taking, also decided to reduce the capital tax, and raise the corporate tax rate slightly for larger corporations. All in all, this was intended to result in a tax reduction for corporations in Quebec.
The problem is that, by changing its mind now about the capital tax, the government is completely messing up Quebec's corporate tax strategy. That is what the fiscal imbalance is about. The federal government's decisions have a direct impact on legislation at other levels.
(1935)
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Madam Speaker, the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier did the same thing his colleagues did, he tried to attack the NDP instead of the government.
I want to ask him a few questions. Why was the Bloc Québécois so interested in having an election? Did the leader of the Bloc Québécois want an election because he was doing well in the polls? Did he then want to go to Quebec as the leader of the PQ? Is that why? I do not know what led to this.
I can understand when the Bloc Québécois members say they will vote against Bill C-42. However, how can they vote against Bill C-48, when $1.5 billion will go to help students and reduce student debt? Quebeckers are included in this agreement, because we are all Canadians and we are all part of the confederation. So how can they vote? The member can attack the NDP because there is nothing for EI.
The member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier says that our negotiations were piecemeal. I am looking at the Bloc motion from last week, which we voted on this week, and it reads as follows:
|
That, in the opinion of the House, due to the increasing number of factory closures associated with globalization, the government should establish a strategy to help older workers who lose their jobs, a strategy that should include income support measures. |
I can tell you that it was not globalization that took the fish away from Baie-des-Chaleurs. Not even partially. This motion was a piecemeal motion. It is all in how you interpret it.
How can the Bloc Québécois vote against $1.5 billion for affordable housing all over Canada when there are people living in the street? Some Quebeckers are congratulating us, and thanking us. How can the Bloc Québécois vote against Bill C-48? I can see the Conservatives doing so, since they do not want money to go to ordinary people, to affordable housing, to students, to young Canadians with debts. That is against their philosophy.
But, it is quite another thing for the Bloc Québécois to vote against Bill C-48. I cannot even imagine how they can vote against our amendment to the budget. I do not understand it at all. They are not working on behalf of the Quebeckers to get the money to them that they so badly need. They should be on our team if they want to get all that. I would like to hear the member's comments on that.
Mr. Guy Côté: Madam Speaker, the member for Acadie—Bathurst has a lot more experience in this House than I do. I do not think it is necessary to explain to him the difference between a bill and a motion.
However, through his comments he has given us the perfect example of why we should vote against Bill C-48. Practically in the same breath he said that Bill C-48 will lower tuition fees and student debt.
I would like the hon. member to show me where it says that in this bill. This bill is very vague. In committee some people thought it would lower tuition fees, others thought it would increase loans and bursaries, while others still thought it would increase investment in school infrastructure and research chairs. We have no idea what the government's intentions are with this bill.
(1940)
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP): Madam Speaker, this is a great day for the New Democratic Party in the House today. We are in the final stages of the approval of Bill C-43, the budget implementation act, which has been changed, altered and fundamentally transformed into a document that Canadians appreciate and welcome. We are talking about a budget bill that has had the benefit of input from a cooperative approach in this minority Parliament.
We have had input from the Bloc and the Conservatives. I want to add my astonishment at the members of the Bloc who today oppose Bill C-43 yet again. They have stood in this House time and time again, joining with us in calling for a reduction in corporate tax breaks.
The Bloc is a party that has been tireless in working with New Democrats in committee, in the House, raising questions and concerns about tax havens. In fact, tomorrow we will discuss a motion brought before to the committee by the Bloc on how we deal with the money that leaves Canada because of lucrative loopholes and the permission granted corporations in moving money outside the country.
It is with a great deal of shock and astonishment to hear, yet again, that the Bloc is not prepared to support a most progressive budget that has been fundamentally altered. The New Democrats chose to ensure it was more reflective of Canadian needs. The budget guarantees we can invest in projects and areas that would reap benefits for Canadians over many years to come. That is one extremely difficult situation to assess this evening.
On the other hand, for days on end we have heard the Conservatives say that the budget, with its changes with respect to corporate tax reductions and the elimination of yet another benefit for corporations, will bring the country to rack and ruin, It will cause the country to go bankrupt and jobs will be lost, It will cause huge problems with the dollar and inflation will spiral out of control.
We have heard those arguments time and time again without any basis in fact and without any statistical evidence to support such conclusions. Yet, lo and behold, Conservatives supported the NDP amendments to Bill C-43. Conservatives in the House joined with us to call for the elimination of corporate tax reductions. We cannot believe it. Did anyone ever think that we would get to this day?
We know other issues are at stake here in terms of the Conservatives. They have flip-flopped so many times on the budget bill that it is hard to keep track. They were for it five minutes after the budget bill was introduced. Then they were against it a little while later. They then were for it, then against it, now for it. It is hard to keep track.
I am sure it must be very difficult for the Conservatives to sit in this chamber tonight and have to support a bill that has been fundamentally altered by the NDP. I think they had a hard enough time agreeing with their leader on February 23, when he walked out of the chamber and supported the Liberal's budget bill without even a cursory glance at it, never mind the fact that they have to support the bill now that it has been fundamentally altered by the NDP. However, we are glad for their support.
I do not know if they have seen the light of day. I do not know if they have changed their minds in terms of the benefits of investing strategically in our country and not continually supporting corporate giveaways. I do not know if they have had a complete transformation.
At this point we will not question their motives. We will accept their support. We will work with them to help them see the light of day in completing this better balanced budget project and have them come around to our view and support Bill C-48. That legislation takes the money we save by eliminating the corporate tax breaks and puts it into areas that create jobs, improve programs for Canadians and enhance the quality of life in the country
(1945)
Perhaps there is hope. Before the end of this process, maybe will convince the Conservatives that this was an important contribution for Canadians and one that makes sense in terms of the future of the country.
The concerns of the Conservatives over the budget were certainly heard from their buddies in the corporate sector. We heard from the C.D. Howe Institute, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and the Chamber of Commerce. They spoke the Conservative line. They spoke with one voice, suggesting that this little change in the corporate tax rate would create disastrous consequence for the country. They did not tell the whole story to Canadians. They did not acknowledge the fact we were talking about 1.15% of total federal spending. That is the amount of money we are taking away from the corporate sector, which continues to benefit to the tune of $9 billion every year to the year 2010.
Therefore, let us remember to keep this in context. Canadians need to hear the whole story. They need to know that we are talking about a very small adjustment in terms of the corporate sector. That is 1.15% of total federal spending. We are talking about a project that amounts to 0.02% of GDP. We are talking about $2.3 billion this year and next year. That is $2.3 billion of a GDP of $1.14 trillion.
Let us please have the Conservatives apply some logic to this debate. Stop the Mickey Mouse mathematics. They should start to understand that we are speaking about project that will enhance jobs, create investment opportunities and improve competitiveness. At the same time it will bring some necessary relief for Canadians who are trying to find the money to send their kids to university, or trying to find safe secure affordable housing for their families or trying to ensure that there is less smog and less pollution so their kids suffering from asthma have a chance to breath and to lead normal lives.
We are talking about something that is relatively small. As New Democrats, we would have liked to have seen a better budget than the one we achieved, but we did make a step in the right direction. We have improved the federal Liberal budget, as announced on February 23, in significant ways that will enhance the quality of life for many Canadians and help bring some hope to Canadians who have suffer through some very difficult situations.
Budgets should be about growing the economy. They should be about taking care of the needs of Canadians. However, the budget the Liberals introduced on February 23 did not do that. It did not address those pressing needs of Canadians. It did not ensure investments in strategic areas where the economy would grow at the same time the needs of Canadians would be addressed. Its flaws and shortcomings clearly outweighed its advantages.
We understood that almost immediately upon assessing the federal budget and made plans to try to change it, unlike the Conservatives who accepted it, walked out of the chamber and said “We'll go with it”.
The Conservatives are yelling that they abstained on it. We do not know what the Conservatives are doing these days. One minute they are voting for it, the next minute they are abstaining, the next minute they are opposed, the next minute they are voting with the NDP.
(1950)
It is a strange world in this place. As I said on many occasions, the Conservatives are suffering from a case of sour grapes and NDP envy. They would have liked to have been in the driver's seat like we were. All but their leader would have liked to have been in a position of trying to influence the federal budget, instead of abdicating responsibility for change. They walked out of this chamber and accepted it as it was. We did not accept it. We worked to change it. Canadians sent us a message to try to make the minority Parliament work and to do the best we could for Canadians. That is what we have tried to do.
When we first saw the budget on February 23, we were quite shocked at the fact that there was another $4.6 billion set aside for corporate tax cuts. We did not expect to see that. As I have said on many occasions, the Prime Minister promised in the last election not to pursue any more tax cuts until program funding had been restored to some level close to that which was the operational amount before the cuts began in 1995.
Canadians woke up after February 23 in utter disbelief. The budget contained $4.6 billion in corporate tax cuts, yet their household income had decreased by 38% since 1989. Food bank use had increased by 8.5% in the previous year. The gap was still growing between the upper and lower rungs of the income ladder. They saw youth unemployment at over 13%, but no federal action to relieve high tuition across the country. There was a housing shortage, but not a penny for affordable housing. There was no sign of a comprehensive housing strategy.
They knew Canada had signed on to Kyoto. At the same time they knew that pollution had risen 20% instead of dropping. A watershed health care accord had been signed, but the drug costs and out of pocket payments were still rising. The Bank of Canada governor said that the economy was at capacity, but unemployment was still hovering around 7% and 40% of the jobless could not access benefits.
Something had to be done. We could not just continue to pursue the same course of action with more tax cuts for the corporations and the wealthy without seeing no results. We saw little investment in the economy and very few jobs were created. When profits were booming, reinvestment was disproportionately low. Between 2001 and 2004 the percentage of available cash flow reinvested in capital assets dropped from nearly 100% to only 66%.
Investment spending as a percentage of GDP dropped from 13% in 1998 to less than 11% in 2004. Many economists commented on this situation. Many have said that the lower corporate taxes fall in Canada, the less business invests in new capital. Even the Minister of Finance hinted at that in his speech in Halifax to the chamber of commerce this past week. He suggested that despite all these tax breaks over the last number of years and despite record level profits, investment had declined. It had not kept pace with the kind of benefit the Canadian government had expected.
It was time to try another way and that is what we proposed. Take that small amount of money, which reduced the corporate tax break from 21% to 19%, and invest in education to ensure accessibility for Canadians to higher education, invest it in housing, ensuring some measure of decent, affordable housing, invest it in the environment, ensuring some measure of clean air and public transit to help bring down greenhouse gas emissions, and invest it in some assistance to meet our international obligations for poverty on a worldwide basis.
Many economists have suggested that we will achieve much more by investing strategically in those areas than simply giving another tax break to the corporations.
(1955)
I know the Conservatives, despite their vote, are still preoccupied with the notion of giving more tax breaks to corporations in spite of record level profits. I cannot believe their tune does not change despite the most recent statistics. Today's business report shows corporate profit surging 21% in the first quarter. Statistics Canada reports show that corporate profits continued to rise in the first quarter of 2005 with operating profits rising 3.4% to $51.5 billion.
I cannot believe the Conservatives continue to stick to their narrow focus of the economy when the TD Financial Group issued a report entitled “Canadian Corporations are Riding the Profit Surge”. It also said that with few exceptions, corporate Canada is flush with cash.
In that context, knowing that the corporations are flush with cash, that profits are surging and Canadians are suffering, surely it makes sense to try to do what we can as parliamentarians to give Canadians a chance, to give Canadians a break and an increase in their wages. Surely it makes sense when we know that investing in affordable housing not only meets a social need but actually creates thousands of jobs. In fact, the estimates for the $1.6 billion promoted by the NDP in the budget process would produce 26,000 jobs, if not more.
Does it not make sense, when looking at the economy, to invest in areas where young people will have access to higher education and be able to use their talents to develop our economy? Does it not make sense to invest in public transit, which ensures jobs, provides accessible transportation for citizens and helps us bring down greenhouse gas emissions?
Why would we not do what makes the most sense in terms of all of our needs as a society? Why would we not look at those areas where we can get the biggest bang for the buck?
It is time we actually put to rest the myths perpetrated by the Conservative Party with the support of its cheerleaders, the Chamber of Commerce, the taxation federation and the C.D. Howe Institute. I am not sure if they are the cheerleaders of the Conservatives or if the Conservatives are the cheerleaders of those right wing organizations, but together they represent a very small voice on the Canadian political scene. The vast majority of businesses, economists and Canadians know that when we invest in areas that create jobs and build a future for Canadians, then that truly is the most efficient and cost effective way to go.
It is important to note many of the studies. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives show that over the next five years revenue coming from corporate income taxes will drop as a percentage of total revenue from 15% to 11%. We should put that in perspective. I hope the Conservatives are listening to this. This is Statistics Canada information. This is not coming from the NDP or some policy organization. This is Statistics Canada information showing that corporate tax as a percentage of total revenue is dropping significantly while personal income tax is rising from 45% to 65%.
Finally, I should point out that we seldom hear about the flip side of corporate tax holidays, which is the cost to individual Canadians. For example, it would cost every Canadian about $400 a year more to maintain public services at roughly the same level as they were five years ago. Even without adjusting fully to make up for the 9% cut in corporate tax rates between 2000 and 2010, plus the elimination of the surtax and capital tax, it would be a total of $12.6 billion in 2010.
(2000)
We have found a better way. It is a first step. It is the combination of Bill C-43, which would eliminate these corporate tax cuts, together with Bill C-48, which would invest that money in housing, education, the environment and international aid. Together it is a package that produces a better balanced budget for which Canadians can be proud. I hope the House will get on with it and support both so Canadians can reap the benefits of this progressive agenda.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CPC): Madam Speaker, I am from Saskatchewan and I have some questions for the NDP member.
When that NDP budget was negotiated in some five star hotel in Toronto, Buzz Hargrove was there to mediate between the leader of the NDP and the leader of the government, the guy having his ships built in China through his corporate buddies over there.
I might have been able to support the NDP bill but there was nothing in that deal for agriculture. The farmers in Saskatchewan were wondering if the leader of the NDP would go to bat for the farmers but there was nothing in that deal for agriculture.
Lorne Calvert, the premier of the province, has been parading around the country telling everyone how Saskatchewan had been short-changed out of the equalization, actually shafted.
The leader of the NDP had the opportunity to address two major issues in Saskatchewan and he just totally ignored them. It was as if he could not see beyond the smog that covered Toronto that day and see that there was some part of the country that really needed some relief. He just totally struck out on both of those issues.
In making this unholy alliance with the Liberals, could the member tell me why her leader did not try to get something for agriculture? Why did he not try to get a fair deal on equalization for Saskatchewan? He just seemed to totally forget about Saskatchewan in negotiating his prize special deal with the Liberals.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Madam Speaker, it always amazes me to get that kind of question from the Conservatives, given the fact that they did not propose a single change to the federal Liberal budget on February 23. They did not propose an amendment to enhance supports for agriculture. They did not provide a single constructive suggestion. They walked out of the House and supported the budget.
&nb