38th PARLIAMENT,
1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 117
CONTENTS
Thursday, June 16, 2005
|
 |
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Government Response to Petitions |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Fisheries and Oceans |
|
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Public Accounts |
|
|
Mr. John Williams (Edmonton—St. Albert, CPC) |
|
|
Procedure and House Affairs |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.) |
|
|
Civil Marriage Act |
|
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC) |
|
|
Citizenship and Immigration |
|
|
Hon. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
|
Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
(Division 124) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Brent St. Denis |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Autism |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC) |
|
|
Foreign Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC) |
|
|
Employment Insurance |
|
|
Hon. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Lib.) |
|
|
Canada Post |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Brent St. Denis |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology |
|
|
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Lib.) |
|
|
Questions on the Order Paper |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
|
|
An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments |
|
|
Speaker's Ruling |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Motions in amendment |
|
|
Hon. John Godfrey |
|
|
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. John McKay |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
|
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Robert Vincent (Shefford, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC) |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC) |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Lévesque (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson |
|
|
Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. David Christopherson |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. David Christopherson |
|
|
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. David Christopherson |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. David Christopherson |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. David Christopherson |
|
|
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Statements by Members
|
|
|
Bastille Day |
|
|
Mr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.) |
|
|
Transportation |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC) |
|
|
Education |
|
|
Ms. Denise Poirier-Rivard (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, BQ) |
|
|
Aboriginal Youth Suicide Prevention |
|
|
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.) |
|
|
Diabetes |
|
|
Mrs. Susan Kadis (Thornhill, Lib.) |
|
|
Turnaround Achievement Awards |
|
|
Mr. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC) |
|
|
Pay Equity |
|
|
Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, Lib.) |
|
|
Canadian Cancer Society |
|
|
Ms. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ) |
|
|
Conservative Party Youth Caucus |
|
|
Ms. Ruby Dhalla (Brampton—Springdale, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Ruby Dhalla |
|
|
World Scout Jamboree |
|
|
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, CPC) |
|
|
Magog Region |
|
|
Hon. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.) |
|
|
Wind Energy |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) |
|
|
Kingsclear Reformatory |
|
|
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, CPC) |
|
|
Debt Forgiveness |
|
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ) |
|
|
Conservative Party Youth Caucus |
|
|
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC) |
|
|
Devils Lake Water Diversion |
|
|
Hon. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.) |
|
|
Logilys |
|
|
Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
National Security |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Border Security |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
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.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Older Workers |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Belinda Stronach (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Belinda Stronach (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Yves Lessard (Chambly—Borduas, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Belinda Stronach (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Yves Lessard (Chambly—Borduas, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Belinda Stronach (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Border Security |
|
|
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Transfer Payments |
|
|
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
International Trade |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Jim Peterson (Minister of International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Joe Fontana (Minister of Labour and Housing, Lib.) |
|
|
Foreign Affairs |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board |
|
|
Mr. Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Minister of State (Northern Development), Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Minister of State (Northern Development), Lib.) |
|
|
Government Appointments |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Natural Resources |
|
|
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, 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.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
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.) |
|
|
Natural Resources |
|
|
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
Firearms Registry |
|
|
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Fisheries |
|
|
Mr. Don Bell (North Vancouver, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Foreign Affairs |
|
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga—Erindale, Ind.) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Budget Implementation Act, 2005 |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 125) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Bill read the third time and passed)
|
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments |
|
|
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Gary Carr (Halton, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Poilievre |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Gary Carr |
|
|
Mr. Gerry Ritz |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Gerry Ritz |
|
|
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Julian |
|
|
Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Julian |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
|
Ms. Diane Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
|
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Dale Johnston |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Dale Johnston |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC) |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
|
|
Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Wellington, CPC) |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Gary Schellenberger |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
|
|
Mr. Gary Schellenberger |
|
|
Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Gary Schellenberger |
|
|
Mr. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michael Chong |
|
|
Mr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Russ Hiebert |
|
|
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
|
|
Criminal Code |
|
|
Mr. Serge Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Wajid Khan (Mississauga—Streetsville, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, CPC) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to make Certain Payments |
|
|
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
|
|
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
|
|
Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Joy Smith |
|
|
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC) |
|
|
Mrs. Joy Smith |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC) |
|
|
Mrs. Joy Smith |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
|
Mr. Barry Devolin (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC) |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Barry Devolin |
|
|
Mr. Merv Tweed (Brandon—Souris, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Merv Tweed |
|
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Merv Tweed |
|
|
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Merv Tweed |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt |
|
|
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt |
|
|
Mr. Jim Gouk (British Columbia Southern Interior, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt |
|
|
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Pallister |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Pallister |
|
|
Mr. Jim Gouk (British Columbia Southern Interior, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jim Gouk |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Jim Gouk |
|
|
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Dave MacKenzie |
|
|
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Dave MacKenzie |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Mr. Dave MacKenzie |
|
|
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Art Hanger |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Art Hanger |
|
|
Mr. Jim Gouk (British Columbia Southern Interior, CPC) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Mr. Art Hanger |
|
|
Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. David Tilson |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. David Tilson |
|
|
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Penson |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Mrs. Betty Hinton |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Mrs. Betty Hinton |
|
|
Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Betty Hinton |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Mrs. Betty Hinton |
|
|
Mr. Randy Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Randy Kamp |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Randy Kamp |
|
|
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Ms. Bonnie Brown |
|
|
Mr. Randy Kamp |
|
|
Mr. Daryl Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Daryl Kramp |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Daryl Kramp |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, CPC) |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Penson |
|
|
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Penson |
|
|
Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
Mr. Gary Carr (Halton, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Helena Guergis |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, CPC) |
|
|
Ms. Helena Guergis |
|
|
Mr. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Moore |
|
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Moore |
|
|
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
Mr. Andy Savoy |
|
|
Ms. Rona Ambrose |
|
|
Ms. Bev Oda (Durham, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Gary Carr (Halton, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Bev Oda |
|
|
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC) |
|
|
Ms. Bev Oda |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Maria Minna |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Poilievre |
|
|
Ms. Bonnie Brown |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Poilievre |
|
|
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
(1000)
[Translation]
Government Response to Petitions
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 46 petitions.
* * *
(1005)
[English]
Committees of the House
Fisheries and Oceans
Hon. Shawn Murphy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the government's response to the second report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans entitled “Here We Go Again”, on the 2004 Fraser River salmon fishery presented to the House on March 22.
* * *
Public Accounts
Mr. John Williams (Edmonton—St. Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts concerning chapter 5, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, education program and post-secondary student support of the November 2004 report of the Auditor General of Canada and, in accordance with Standing Order 109, your committee requests a government response within 120 days.
* * *
[Translation]
Procedure and House Affairs
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 43rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding its order of reference of Thursday, November 25, 2004, in relation to electoral reform.
* * *
(1010)
Civil Marriage Act
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the legislative committee considering Bill C-38, an act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes.
I want to take this opportunity to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for appointing me chair of that legislative committee on February 24. I was reluctant, but it has proven to be a very interesting and enriching experience.
I would also like to thank the entire team from the House of Commons for the excellent services it provided to the legislative committee.
* * *
[English]
Health
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I move that the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Health, presented on Monday, June 6, be concurred in.
It is a pleasure to ask the House to concur in a report on an issue that was debated in the committee for some time. We worked on this periodically throughout the winter. It was delayed at some points along the way because of other legislation but it is a very important issue.
As far back as November last year the minister suggested in public that this issue was his top priority and that he would act on it in a significant way as soon as he possibly could and yet we have seen nothing.
What has been amazing is that we have seen the minister throw a ball in the air almost on a weekly basis to see who will shoot at it waiting for some of the repercussions around the Internet pharmacy issue. However we see absolutely no action and we are seeing more and more delays.
The report deals with how we handle the issue appropriately. The issue of Internet pharmacies has become a significant one and the report calls for legislation to be adopted that would not allow bulk sales of pharmaceuticals to be exported from Canada into the United States.
There is a very good reason for that. One has to understand how the Internet pharmacy industry actually came into being, why it is there, how it is supported and under what mechanisms it is supported under law. First, in the United States there is a law against it. It is not legal to import pharmaceuticals into the United States but there is not a congressman, senator or politician in the United States who would stand up and say that gramma should pay twice as much for her pharmaceuticals as she is now paying. It becomes a political football and political issue more than anything else and that is why we are seeing some resistance for the United States to actually enforce the law that it has on its books.
Instead of that, we have seen the Internet pharmacy come into being about five years ago and start to progress in terms of the numbers. The intensity and the size of the industry has exploded over that time period to the point where we have sales figures of perhaps a little bit more than $1 billion a year, although no one is exactly sure of the amount. We actually saw signs over the last year where it has subsided somewhat. The last numbers I have show a decrease of about 10% over the last year.
How come it is there? Why did it come into being? Why would we sell pharmaceuticals from Canada into the United States? I think it is important to understand how the industry is fuelled. It came into being about five years ago. It is not for all pharmaceuticals. It is more for the brand name pharmaceuticals. Brand name pharmaceuticals in Canada are dealt with under the price market review board which decides how to set the price of pharmaceuticals. It takes the medium of seven different corporations and then it sets that as a price, so it is a regulated price in Canada.
A regulated price, by the way, is quite a bit different from what we have with our counterparts in the United States. In fact, it is somewhere between 30% or 40% cheaper than it is in the United States.
The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board has actually done a very good job for Canadians. It has supported lower prices for brand name pharmaceuticals in Canada and has been working very well over the last number of years affording Canadians a cheaper price for their pharmaceuticals.
There is another thing that is at play that we have to understand and that is the differential in the price between the Canadian dollar and the U.S. dollar, so the buying power for the U.S. dollar coming up to Canada also makes a significant difference in the buying power for those pharmaceuticals.
We can see that when the prices are artificially set lower in Canada compared to the United States, which has a free market on patent medicines, there is an industry that really is exploiting the difference between those two regimes on the pricing of brand name pharmaceuticals.
All pharmaceuticals are becoming increasingly used by our populations. I would suggest that the number one driver of costs of our medicare system in Canada and in the United States is the cost of pharmaceuticals. That is not going to go away fast. In fact, if we are looking for relief with regard to the Internet pharmacy or brand name pharmaceuticals being used in our society I think we are fooling ourselves. There is no one who would project that. As the baby boomer bubble hits our system they will be feeling their aches and pains much more as they age.
(1015)
Our population has become quite dependent on pharmaceuticals. I am not against pharmaceuticals in any way. They have advanced the ability of Canadians to have relief from pain for a significant amount of time. In these last few decades we have seen some tremendous advancements in how we use pharmaceuticals and in the relief we have received.
I am not against pharmaceuticals but I am throwing some flags in the air because we have some problems with pharmaceuticals in Canada. In a study that came out last June, pharmaceuticals used in acute care centres were shown to be the cause of approximately 24,000 deaths per year from adverse events and mostly preventable adverse events. That is like a Boeing jet going down every week in Canada.
Unfortunately, this House has really not been too aware of the situation, which alarms me when the report proving this to be the case came out last June. However we have had few repercussions in the House or in society with regard to the problem. This is not only a problem that has been around for a significant amount of time but it is one that will only get worse if we do not address it.
Pharmaceuticals need to be used but they need to be used in appropriate ways. How we can do that and actually protect pharmaceuticals in Canada is another issue, which is the issue addressed in this committee report.
The issue was not studied intensely in committee but reference has been made to it over the last couple of years as we travelled across Canada. Last year it came up in Manitoba which is where Internet pharmacies started and where the bulk of Canada's Internet pharmacies sit. They employ over 5,000 individuals in Canada. However these Internet pharmacies are not just in Manitoba. They have expanded into British Columbia, Alberta and, to a lesser degree, into other provinces across Canada. It is a Canadian industry and it is a Canadian issue.
What we have seen over the last year is an expansion of Internet pharmacies to where they are being used more and more and, in fact, have exploded. It went from an industry with an estimated $400 million in sales in 2003 to over $1 billion in sales last year. When we see such a significant growth in an industry like this, it sets off all kinds of alarm bells.
However that is not really why this motion is in the House and it is not why the committee unanimously said that we should be bringing this forward. It is coming forward because of what is happening south of the border. In the United States, the senate and the congress have two or more pieces of legislation to change U.S. laws and allow Canadian drugs to legally enter the U.S., not just from the Internet pharmacy to the individual but to allow bulk sales.
We have a significant number of states in the U.S. starting to change their laws. In the last report I saw that 25 states were changing their laws or already had laws on the books to allow bulk sales of pharmaceuticals to be bought from Canada. Ten of those states have actually had that legislation passed and have them on the books at the present time.
Why the urgency? It is because we are seeing this push for the changing of laws in the United States.
Pharmaceutical companies are starting to kick back and we are seeing advertisements in the United States at the present time saying that drugs from Canada are very dangerous and that no one can be sure the drugs are really from Canada. These drugs could be from India or even from China. In fact, most of our pharmaceuticals are not really manufactured in Canada. They are imported from other places.
(1020)
The controls on some of the brand name pharmaceuticals are coming from places where they do not meet the same kinds of tests nor the same kinds of standards that we have in Canada.
I see no evidence of that, and it is refuted by the Internet pharmacy people, but I think it would be fair to say that most of the drugs that are manufactured in the United States and come into Canada fall under our the prices review board. The board then significantly lowers the prices on these drugs for Canadians and then they are imported back into the United States. The pharmaceutical companies are saying that is unfair. Why would they bring their pharmaceuticals into a foreign country, have them fall under a review board just to have them come back into their country and destroy the market forces that are at play in a foreign country?
As members and as Canadians our first goal should not be looking after Americans. Our first goal should be looking after Canadians. We should respect both the availability of these products and the price of these products. If either of these is compromised then this House has to act. We should act swiftly, not sitting around throwing balls in the air and expecting that something will change or something will happen.
A while back the committee told the minister not to act on the issue until it had some indication of where it was at on the matter. The committee held meetings with both sides on the issue in an attempt to understand the dynamics of the situation. There were some significant reasons for the industry being there and some very good arguments as to why it should not be destroyed.
We have three choices. First, we could very easily kill the industry by just shutting it down. What would the repercussions be of destroying the industry? First, we would destroy all the jobs and all the opportunities for those jobs in Canada. I also do not believe it would be in the best interests of the United States. Right now most of these pharmaceuticals go to individuals in the United States who are outside of a health program or a pharmaceutical program in the United States. These are the people who cannot afford the drugs and who will not be buying the drugs at any rate from the United States because they cannot afford them.
We are supplying that relief valve to the market in the United States through the Internet. That is not a bad thing. In fact, the pharmaceutical companies are saying that they can live with that.
It is when we get into the bulk sales. This is where this industry is about to grow that it becomes a significant problem.
We could kill it but I do not think that would be productive. I do not think it would necessarily be fair for a free enterprise market which exists in Canada and the United States. I also do not believe that would be in the best interest of anyone.
Our second option is to leave it the way it is. However, if we do leave it the way it is we could see the situation explode over the next decade. We will see the numbers increasing as the laws in the U.S. change to allow these products into the United States, not only to individuals but also to states, in bulk lots. We could be looking at the situation exploding not just to a billion dollars a year, but to many billions of dollars a year. Therefore, it would destroy the industry.
This would have an impact. It would have an impact on our price market review board because it would no longer be able to control the industry. The pharmaceutical companies would say that it was foul play and they would be legitimate in saying that. Then they could say that they will not supply the Canadian market. Why would they when we are exploiting the market review in Canada and apply this rule to a foreign country.
Therefore I think the pharmaceutical companies would be quite legitimate in saying that it was not appropriate, but to leave it just the way it is, is not an option. We need to act and we need to act on behalf of Canadians because of supply and because of price.
We would either compromise the price and see the price jump or we compromise the supply and see availability drop. One of the two would happen if we were to leave it the way it is. Therefore that is not an option.
The third option would be to control it by trying to contain the industry. We could allow it to continue supplying jobs to Canadians and that relief valve to Americans but we must not allow it to grow to the place where it becomes prohibitive or an irritant and a threat to our availability and our price.
How we contain the situation becomes the magic of this argument and the magic of this whole industry. How in this House can we come together and do what is not necessarily political, whether we are a Conservative, a Liberal, an NDP or from the Bloc, but something that is in the best interest of all Canadians, which is to protect our pricing and our availability of products?
(1025)
As I have said, as we move forward into the next decade of the 21st century we are going to use pharmaceuticals more than we ever have before. In fact, that is one of the problems we have. As a society, we have become so accustomed to using a pill every time we have a sore ankle, a sore knee or a problem of any kind that the first thing we say is “there is medication for that”.
We have become a society that is dependent on this, so much so that we believe there is a pill for every problem we have. The first thing we look for in our health care system is how we fix our problem with medication. Until we become a society which also understands that every pill has a problem, we are not going to have a fair balance and enough knowledge to understand how to use those medications appropriately.
At present, whether we look at the June study I mentioned earlier, on the 24,000 deaths per year in Canada, or at the abuses in our seniors' homes and the intensity and the amount of pharmaceuticals used there and the deaths being caused because of addiction to these medications, we are not going to be able to move forward in our health care system in the way that we should for Canadians.
Addiction to pharmaceuticals is, as I say, the other side of this. I introduced a private member's bill last session calling for any adverse events to be reported to Canadians so that we have an understanding of who is addicted and what kinds of adverse events are being created. Then we could actually deal with them. I think these are important things to look at when we see the number of deaths that are being caused because of this.
I want to close by imploring the House to consider the motion. As I have said, it comes from the health committee and has significant support. I say that because when we talked to the Internet pharmacy people, they agreed with the motion. They are saying to not let us get into bulk selling of pharmaceuticals. They are saying to stay out of it, that we do not need to go there. They say they just want to keep on with the business they have at the size they are at the present time.
They are calling for this. They are saying that this is a good move. The brand name pharmaceuticals are also saying that this is a very good move, that we need this to be able to stop the explosion of what could happen with the legislation coming in the United States.
No one on either side of the issue is saying that this is a bad motion. They are saying that it may not be totally satisfactory and it may not go far enough for some of the brand name pharmaceuticals, but so far everyone is saying that as far as shutting down bulk sales into the United States is concerned it is the way we should go.
Here is what I would say to the minister. Instead of throwing balloons into the air and trying to take his cue from the Prime Minister, who dithers on everything, as we have seen since he has come into office, instead of being Mr. Dithers too, the health minister should say, “Let us have some leadership and let us actually do something that is in the best interests of Canadians and the Canadian pharmaceutical industry”. And that is to shut down bulk sales of pharmaceuticals.
I know this rubs my colleagues on the other side the wrong way, but the truth is the truth and that is exactly what I am saying with regard to a health minister who said last November that this was his number one priority and he was going to fix the system. We have seen absolutely nothing to this point.
Let us get serious about fixing the problem, we say, and let those of us in this House take a look at this motion. I dare anyone to stand on the other side and say no, this is something we should not do. We should do this. We should do it now. We should give a directive to the health minister that this is where we need to go, because he does not seem to be able to get off the fence on this one.
Every colleague in the House should consider this motion in a serious way. That is why we have brought it here: to have the House concur with what the health committee has already agreed to. I implore everyone to consider this motion in a very serious way, because it is the right thing to do for Canadians, it is the right thing to do in the House and it is our obligation. Let us get it done and get it done today.
* * *
(1030)
Citizenship and Immigration
Hon. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Madam Speaker, discussions have taken place among all parties concerning the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration presented to the House on Tuesday, June 7. I believe that you would find consent that the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, presented in the House on Tuesday, June 7, be concurred in without debate.
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine): Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to present the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine): The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
Health
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I very much enjoyed listening to the member for Yellowhead, except for the last part of his speech, but we will not go there.
I want to congratulate the health committee for a lot of the work that it has done in this Parliament. On a collaborative basis, it is one of the best committees on the Hill in terms of producing important information and reports for the House.
With regard to this matter of pharmaceuticals, I note that the report from the committee, as the member outlined, was simply to ban bulk exports of prescription drugs except for those that are in fact produced in Canada for export purposes. I am sure there is more to this, and this report probably could have been much larger. I hope members will take an opportunity to look at some of the evidence that witnesses brought forward because, as I understand it, there are bulk exports of drugs that are not supply sensitive. This in fact may be too broad or too sweeping a ban and may run into some trade problems.
I want to ask the member to comment on a couple of issues. Certainly the number one issue is with regard to the drug industry. We are talking about a business. We are talking about trade and free enterprise and why the industry is not doing anything to police itself.
Here is the view of the Canadian Medical Association, and in fact of the American Medical Association, with regard to the responsibility of physicians: it is that a physician must be somewhat in charge and responsible for the ultimate prescription of these prescription medications. These prescription medications must have, one would think, under the rules of ethics for the prescription of drugs by the medical profession around the world, a physician somewhat in charge and responsible for the ultimate prescription of these.
I also have some concerns about the possibilities, or the impossibilities, let us say, of controlling the Internet, because there are other areas in which we have had some difficulty, particularly with regard to matters such as child porn and somehow imposing controls. I also want to specifically ask the member for an answer with regard to what I think is the most fundamental issue, and that is the seriousness of the supply situation for medically necessary drugs for Canadians and how this activity over the Internet has placed at risk the health of Canadians.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Madam Speaker, the member has asked a number of questions. I will start with the last one about how this has placed at risk and compromised Canadians. It has in a sense, because the government's health minister has not dealt with this appropriately in a timely way, so some of the pharmaceutical companies, on their own, have started to pull back the availability of some of these products to the Internet and to Canadians. We are starting to see some shortages out there.
That is what I have always said. If it gets to the place where either the availability or the price of pharmaceuticals is comprised, we have to step in and do something. We are at that place right now. Do we need to kill it? No, we do not.
Getting back to his other comment on whether this is ethical or unethical trade, I have looked at this argument. The health committee has yet to report on it. Our report is not at all complete, but we are unanimous on this. All sides are unanimous on shutting down bulk sales. But as for the idea of whether it is unethical, the member is really saying that the patient-doctor relationship in the United States is not as valid as it is in Canada. If a doctor fills out a prescription here, people can go across the province to another pharmacy and have it filled. I do not see a lot of difference between that and what we are seeing with the Internet pharmacy. We can argue that both ways. We can say that it is illegal, that it must be prescribed by a doctor in Canada.
All of that is probably true and I have not come to a conclusion on it, but I fail to see the ethical dilemma here. I do not believe that doctors in the United States are inferior to the doctors in Canada. In fact, the other way around may even be true. I just do not think that is a fair and valid argument.
This is one of the balloons that the minister put in the air: that it is unethical. I do not think that is fair and I do not think it is accurate. Why does he not just say what the truth is? The truth is that it compromises our price and availability of product. If it does that, then let us deal with the potential growth of this industry. That is what shutting down bulk sales would do. We are not saying that it is the total solution but it is certainly a solution for the immediate term, which is what the legislation in the United States is about to compromise. We have to act and we have to act right now.
Why is it so urgent for us to be here? Because this is something that has to be done immediately. These pieces of legislation could pass in the upcoming weeks. Likely it will take until early fall before they will get through in the United States, but members can be assured that they are coming, not only at the federal level but also at the state level. It is important for us to deal with it and to deal with it now.
I think I have answered most of my hon. colleague's questions.
(1035)
Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for bringing this motion forward and raising a very important issue for Canadians. Many Canadians' access to drugs is already compromised. We currently have a situation in which some drugs in Canada were not protected under price regulation as they were more than 25 years old. Some of these drugs have now risen in price from $48 a month, let us say, to thousands of dollars a month. This is a very important issue for Canadians.
My hon. colleague spoke about price and supply. I wonder if he could comment specifically on the fact that we must continue to have drugs accessible by and available to Canadians and about the concern many of us have felt around the lack of transparency that Health Canada has when it considers any of this information. We have been calling on Health Canada to be much more transparent and open about its process.
This issue around Internet pharmacies is really a good example of the fact that we cannot access the kind of information that is required for us to be able to consider it in a reasonable way. This is certainly one of the reasons why many members of the health committee called on the minister to not do anything more about Internet pharmacies until we hear from Health Canada, and now we urgently need this response due to legislation in the United States.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague brings up an issue that I never had an opportunity to address in my dialogue. That is the Patented Medicines Prices Review Board deals with patented medicines. The non-patented medicines side is not regulated at all in Canada.
If we ask Internet pharmacies how much of these unregulated pharmaceuticals are being utilized through the Internet, they would say just a fraction. In fact, the only reason they are there is because of convenience. When people from the United States need products, they are there for availability. It is not there because the products are cheaper product.
If we were to do a study between the price of generics in the United States and the prices of generic pharmaceuticals in Canada, we would find that ours are higher. That is of some debate, but we have looked at that as well.
Those are the facts as I see them. The reason we are not seeing the generics being purchased through the Internet validates my findings. If there was a differential in price, Americans would capitalizing on that difference.
One also has to understand that the difference between the Canadian dollar and U.S. dollar also gives an edge. Even if they were on par, we would see pharmaceuticals being exporting. However, they are not on par. We pay more for generics and less for brand name, but the bulk of the pharmaceuticals we use are brand name.
We have to do whatever we can to ensure that we stand on guard for Canadians and for cheaper pharmaceuticals. If it compromises price or availability, we have to step in. That is why this motion is so important
Even with those lower prices, we see that pharmaceuticals are the number one driver of costs in our health care system and will be for the foreseeable future. That is the urgency and that is why the debate is taking place. I look forward to my colleagues' speeches on this throughout the day.
(1040)
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, this is certainly an interesting subject. I know many members on that side of the House are concerned about the issue, as are members on this side. However, we believe Canadians want the government and the House to proceed to legislation to implement the budget that the government presented. Therefore, I move:
|
That the debate do now adjourn. |
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine): Call in the members.
* * *
(1130)
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
|
(Division No. 124)
|
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson (Victoria)
André
Angus
Asselin
Augustine
Bachand
Bagnell
Bains
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélanger
Bell
Bellavance
Bennett
Bergeron
Bevilacqua
Bigras
Blaikie
Blais
Blondin-Andrew
Boire
Boivin
Bonin
Bonsant
Boshcoff
Bouchard
Boudria
Boulianne
Bourgeois
Bradshaw
Brison
Broadbent
Brown (Oakville)
Brunelle
Bulte
Byrne
Cannis
Cardin
Carr
Carrier
Carroll
Catterall
Chan
Christopherson
Clavet
Cleary
Coderre
Comartin
Comuzzi
Côté
Cotler
Crête
Crowder
Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley)
Cuzner
D'Amours
Davies
Demers
Desjarlais
Desrochers
DeVillers
Dhalla
Dion
Dosanjh
Drouin
Dryden
Duceppe
Easter
Efford
Emerson
Eyking
Faille
Folco
Fontana
Frulla
Fry
Gagnon (Québec)
Gagnon (Saint-Maurice—Champlain)
Gagnon (Jonquière—Alma)
Gallaway
Gaudet
Gauthier
Godbout
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Holland
Hubbard
Ianno
Jennings
Julian
Kadis
Karetak-Lindell
Karygiannis
Khan
Kotto
Laframboise
Lalonde
Lapierre (Outremont)
Lapierre (Lévis—Bellechasse)
Lastewka
Lavallée
Layton
LeBlanc
Lee
Lemay
Lessard
Lévesque
Longfield
Loubier
MacAulay
Macklin
Malhi
Maloney
Marceau
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca)
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Martin (LaSalle—Émard)
Martin (Sault Ste. Marie)
Masse
Matthews
McCallum
McDonough
McGuinty
McGuire
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
McLellan
McTeague
Ménard (Hochelaga)
Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Myers
Neville
Owen
Pacetti
Paquette
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Perron
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Chatham-Kent—Essex)
Plamondon
Poirier-Rivard
Powers
Proulx
Ratansi
Redman
Regan
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rota
Roy
Russell
Saada
Sauvageau
Savage
Savoy
Scarpaleggia
Sgro
Siksay
Silva
Simard (Beauport—Limoilou)
Simard (Saint Boniface)
Simms
Smith (Pontiac)
St-Hilaire
St. Amand
St. Denis
Steckle
Stoffer
Stronach
Szabo
Telegdi
Temelkovski
Tonks
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Valley
Vincent
Wappel
Wasylycia-Leis
Wilfert
Wrzesnewskyj
Zed
Total: -- 198
|
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Allison
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands)
Batters
Benoit
Bezan
Breitkreuz
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Carrie
Casey
Casson
Chong
Cummins
Day
Devolin
Doyle
Duncan
Epp
Finley
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Forseth
Gallant
Goldring
Goodyear
Gouk
Guergis
Hanger
Harper
Harrison
Hearn
Hiebert
Hill
Hinton
Jaffer
Jean
Johnston
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lauzon
Lukiwski
Lunn
Lunney
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Mark
Menzies
Merrifield
Miller
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Nicholson
O'Connor
Obhrai
Oda
Pallister
Penson
Poilievre
Prentice
Preston
Rajotte
Reid
Richardson
Ritz
Scheer
Schellenberger
Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country)
Skelton
Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul)
Solberg
Sorenson
Strahl
Thompson (Wild Rose)
Tilson
Trost
Tweed
Van Loan
Vellacott
Warawa
Watson
White
Williams
Yelich
Total: -- 88
|
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
I wish to inform the House that there are 2 hours and 29 minutes remaining for debate on the motion for concurrence in the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Health.
[Translation]
Accordingly, debate on the motion is deferred until a future sitting of the House.
[English]
The House will now resume with the remaining business under routine proceedings under the rubric motions.
(1135)
Mr. Brent St. Denis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask the House for unanimous consent to revert to reports from committees. Earlier this morning the industry committee adopted Bill S-18. I am wondering if I could report that to the House.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to revert to presenting reports from committees?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, due to the amount of noise in the House I know that a couple of the whips from the other parties did not hear the request from the member. I would ask for consent that the question again be put to revert to reports from committees.
The Speaker: Perhaps there could be some discussions. We are still in routine proceedings and the discussions could go on while we proceed with petitions. We are now on petitions.
* * *
Petitions
Marriage
Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present a petition on behalf of Albertans on the issue of marriage.
These petitioners say that marriage is an issue which should be decided by the elected people in this House and not by the courts. The petitioners want the members of this House to uphold the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Would it be appropriate for me to read the names of all the petitioners? No, I guess not.
Mr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I stand on behalf of well over 1,000 constituents from my riding of South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale who are asking that I present this petition.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to recognize that marriage is the best foundation for families and the raising of children, and that the institution of marriage between a man and a woman is being challenged. The House passed a motion in June 1999 that called for marriage to continue to be recognized as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others and that marriage is the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament.
Based on this information, they are asking that Parliament pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I would seek permission to read the roughly 1,300 names in sequential order.
The Speaker: I think the hon. member knows that the practice with relation to petitions is that the member give a brief summary of the petition, which he has done in brilliant form. He is going to have to assuage his enthusiasm with what he has already done and refrain from reading out the list of names, as his hon. colleague from Vegreville—Wainwright discovered when he asked the same question.
* * *
Autism
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first is from the area in and around Penticton and the second is a like-minded petition from people around British Columbia.
The first petition is from parents of very special children, children who are autistic. They are requesting, and I support their request, that Parliament amend the Canada Health Act and corresponding regulations to include certain therapies, which are identified, for children with autism as a medically necessary treatment and require that all provinces provide or fund this essential treatment.
They are also asking for the creation of academic chairs at a university in each province to teach these very specific IBI/ABA therapies, which are proven to be very beneficial with very high success rates for children with autism.
* * *
(1140)
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my second petition is from a group of university students, with whom we held a news conference. Colleagues have tabled similar petitions.
These students, in the midst of preparing for examinations at the university level, still took the time to petition and call upon the government to push the UN and gather international support to broaden the mandate of the African Union to allow for intervention under chapter 7 of the UN charter in order to provide multinational resources in Darfur.
I congratulate these university level students for taking the time to have an effect on a very challenging situation on this planet.
* * *
Marriage
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to rise and present a petition today on behalf of the residents of Prince George—Peace River, in particular the citizens of the communities of Tumbler Ridge, Wonowon, Hudson's Hope, Charlie Lake, Baldonnel, Cecil Lake and the city of Fort St. John.
These petitioners wish to draw to the attention of the House of Commons that they believe that marriage is the best foundation for families and the raising of children. They note that the institution of marriage as the union between a man and a women is being challenged under Bill C-38 in this place.
They also note that marriage is the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament. Therefore, they call upon Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
* * *
Employment Insurance
Hon. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents I wish to present the following petition. The petitioners call upon Parliament to build a better and fairer employment insurance system and to do so by first making the legislative reform as recommended by the House of Commons committee on February 15, 2005.
* * *
Canada Post
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions from villages in my riding that request that the government ask Canada Post to keep their post offices open. They believe that while Canada Post spends millions of dollars advertising at such events as hockey games, it could consider keeping the presence of the post office. These post offices give a federal presence in every small community across Canada, the province of Quebec, the Maritimes, Atlantic Canada and the north. The petitioners would like their post offices to remain open.
* * *
Marriage
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of Canadians, over 10,000 now, including a number from my own riding of Mississauga South, on the subject matter of marriage.
The petitioners want to make three observations. First, they believe that the fundamental matter of social policies should be decided by elected members of Parliament and not by the unelected judiciary. Second, the majority of Canadians support the current legal definition of marriage; and third, it is the duty of Parliament to define marriage.
They therefore call upon Parliament to use all legislative and administrative measures possible including the invocation of section 33 of the charter, commonly known as the notwithstanding clause, to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage as being the legal union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to present a petition on behalf of 300 to 400 constituents in St. John's East who wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the majority of Canadians support a democratic government where elected members of Parliament represent the voice of Canadians in matters of social policy in the nation and not an appointed judiciary.
The majority of Canadians support the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. They call upon Parliament to enact legislation to uphold and protect the current definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman.
Mr. Brent St. Denis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am going to ask the House once again, now that we have had clarification. The Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology earlier this morning passed Bill S-18. I am asking the House to revert to reports from committees for a moment.
(1145)
The Speaker: Does the House give its consent to revert to reports from committees at this time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Committees of the House
Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology in relation to Bill S-18, an act to amend the Statistics Act.
* * *
[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.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Government Orders]
* * *
An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-48, An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
* * *
[English]
Speaker's Ruling
The Speaker: There are three motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-48. Motions Nos. 1 to 3 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.
* * *
Motions in amendment
Hon. John Godfrey (for the Minister of Finance) moved:
|
That Bill C-48, in Clause 1, be amended by restoring Clause 1 thereof as follows: |
|
“1. (1) Subject to subsection (3), the Minister of Finance may, in respect of the fiscal year 2005-2006, make payments out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund up to the amount that is the difference between the amount that would, but for those payments, be the annual surplus as provided in the Public Accounts for that year prepared in accordance with sections 63 and 64 of the Financial Administration Act and $2 billion. |
|
(2) Subject to subsection (3), the Minister of Finance may, in respect of the fiscal year 2006-2007, make payments out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund up to the amount that is the difference between the amount that would, but for those payments, be the annual surplus as provided in the Public Accounts for that year prepared in accordance with sections 63 and 64 of the Financial Administration Act and $2 billion. |
|
(3) The payments made under subsections (1) and (2) shall not exceed in the aggregate $4.5 billion.” |
|
That Bill C-48, in Clause 2, be amended by restoring Clause 2 thereof as follows: |
|
“2. (1) The payments made under subsections 1(1) and (2) shall be allocated as follows: |
|
(a) for the environment, including for public transit and for an energy-efficient retrofit program for low-income housing, an amount not exceeding $900 million; |
|
(b) for supporting training programs and enhancing access to post-secondary education, to benefit, among others, aboriginal Canadians, an amount not exceeding $1.5 billion; |
|
(c) for affordable housing, including housing for aboriginal Canadians, an amount not exceeding $1.6 billion; and |
|
(d) for foreign aid, an amount not exceeding $500 million |
|
(2) The Governor in Council may specify the particular purposes for which payments referred to in subsection (1) may be made and the amounts of those payments for the relevant fiscal year.” |
|
That Bill C-48, in Clause 3, be amended by restoring Clause 3 thereof as follows: |
|
“3. For the purposes of this Act, the Governor in Council may, on any terms and conditions that the Governor in Council considers appropriate, authorize a minister to |
|
(a) develop and implement programs and projects; |
|
(b) enter into an agreement with the government of a province, a municipality or any other organization or any person; |
|
(c) make a grant or contribution or any other payment; |
|
(d) subject to the approval of Treasury Board, supplement any appropriation by Parliament; |
|
(e) incorporate a corporation any shares or memberships of which, on incorporation, would be held by, on behalf of or in trust for the Crown; or |
|
(f) acquire shares or memberships of a corporation that, on acquisition, would be held by, on behalf of or in trust for the Crown.” |
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, your having to read all of the motions was a completely unnecessary exercise, but I guess it reflects the fact that we are off to a wonderful start on the bill. I know that hon. members opposite are absolutely thrilled with the opportunity to delay government legislation.
This is actually an interesting bill. It is legislation which deals with an unplanned surplus. I am not sure that any such bill has ever been introduced in the House before, because by virtue of the fact that the government has run surpluses over the last number of years, we have had some rather happy surprises. I know members opposite prefer the opposite kind of surprise. They would prefer deficits, but it appears that the government over the last eight years has been able to run surpluses, some of which have led to a reduction in the national debt in the order of about $60 billion. That has left us in a relatively good situation.
Going forward, the budget anticipates that there will be a further five years of surpluses. In anticipation that there will be further surpluses, and given the commitments to running a balanced budget and given the commitment that we have made in the budget and in this bill to at least a debt reduction of $2 billion on an annual basis, the question which arises is what we would do if we had any additional moneys beyond the threshold moneys of $2 billion. This bill attempts to address that.
The bill is novel in the sense that we as a government are indicating the areas in which we would spend money in the event that we had money beyond $2 billion on an annual basis. It leaves quite a bit of discretion to the government as to how to time those moneys.
First of all we have to meet the threshold of meeting the $2 billion. It could all be spent in one year, or it could all be spent in the second year, or it could all be spent in a combination of either year. Additionally we could spend the money in a fashion which mixes all of the above. There is a fair bit of flexibility.
The Conservative Party tried to introduce its own version of legislation on an unplanned surplus by directing all moneys beyond the $2 billion or $3 billion threshold to tax relief. While that may be an attractive alternative to a certain ideological set who think that by giving tax relief we can somehow or another attain nirvana here on earth, there are other priorities. Those other priorities are being spoken to by the government in this bill.
Canada's social foundations are key to our identity. There are areas in which we would have liked to have spent some additional moneys, such as affordable housing, post-secondary education, the environment and foreign aid. All of those are coherent with the original budget as presented in Bill C-43 and the preceding budgets 2004, 2003, 2002, et cetera.
Far from being as opposition members allege a deal cooked up on the back of a napkin in a motel room or in the back of a Chevy Nova--and I frankly have never understood what those hon. members have against Chevy Novas--this bill, which was entered into after negotiations with the NDP, reflects the priorities of Canadians. One example is affordable housing. I do not quite understand why members opposite have a problem with additional expenditures in affordable housing. Can they give a coherent reason as to why they would be opposed to spending on post-secondary education, or the environment, or foreign aid? Apparently they do not appreciate that Canadians have aspirations other than merely tax relief or debt reduction.
(1150)
The Government of Canada over the past number of budgets has put significant sums of money into affordable housing. The significance of this $1.6 billion that is going into affordable housing is that it is not attached to a matching funds regime and it also includes aboriginal housing. Previous funding has been somewhat contingent upon matching funding generally from the provinces or other entities, but in this particular case, the investment of $1.6 billion is not contingent upon matching funding from the provinces.
This builds upon the $2 billion that has already been put toward homelessness and affordable housing over the last number of years. For instance, in 1999 we launched a three year national homelessness initiative, otherwise known as SCPI. That constituted about $305 million. That was to address a specific number of problems.
Madam Speaker, you and I share somewhat parallel demographic profiles in our respective ridings. Certain sections of the ridings are quite affluent and other parts of the ridings though are somewhat less than affluent.
In my riding there is what is called the strip. My riding is the easternmost riding in Toronto. Before highway 401 was built, it was the gateway to the eastern section of Toronto along highway 2. As a consequence there were a number of motels along that section of the highway. Over time they have fallen into something less than an ideal state. The consequence of that was they were available for shelters for homeless people and refugee claimants.
This was supposed to be a temporary measure, but after 10 years of temporary measures it was perfectly obvious to anyone who did an objective study on the area that it was not an acceptable way in which to house homeless people. At one point there were about 1,400 people in the riding each and every night who were either refugee claimants or homeless from other parts of Canada. We felt that something had to be done.
Madam Speaker, I know that you and other members of the caucus approached the GTA political minister at the time, the hon. David Collenette, and others to address the issue. The result was a significant infusion in cash. The hon. minister of labour took over the administration of the supporting communities partnership initiative, otherwise known as SCPI. She poured her heart and soul into that initiative, the result of which I am happy to say in my riding has been a reduction from about 1,400 people a night down to 75 people a night.
I look to that as one of the initiatives taken by the government that has been very successful on the ground. It has addressed real and meaningful needs on the part of Canadians.
Budget 2003 provided a three year extension of the SCPI initiative at $135 million per year which is welcome money in the community. Madam Speaker, I know that you and I and certainly members on this side of the House appreciate the efforts of the Government of Canada to address the social scourge of homelessness in our respective ridings.
In budget 2001 simultaneous with the announcement of the $305 million was the announcement of a further $680 million over five years for affordable housing. I just want to mention to those who might be listening, as I do not anticipate that members opposite might be listening, but at least other people might be listening, that this builds on $1.9 billion that is already there in support for housing by the Government of Canada.
In addition, the bill proposes $1.5 billion to increase accessibility to post-secondary education, building on a whole other set of initiatives that have been in place.
(1155)
As well, the budget proposes a further $900 million investment in public transit and energy refit, building again on a whole host of initiatives, particularly in budget 2005, for clean air, which was reflected in Bill C-43.
Finally, the bill contemplates the additional investment of $500 million in international assistance, which I know, Madam Speaker, you are very keen on seeing.
I hope hon. members will support the bill and that it will be a reflection of trying to make this Parliament work.
(1200)
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, CPC): Madam Speaker, at the outset, I know the government likes to try to spin that we are trying to oppose and delay this bill. it is very true that we are adamantly opposed to Buzz Hargrove's bill.
This is $4.6 billion worth of spending, outlined on a page and a half of paper. I do not know how the government could possibly believe we could support that kind of reckless spending. We have no idea what it will spend it on. There is absolutely not an ounce of detail in the bill. It is like giving the Liberals a blank cheque. What they have done in the last years, it would be irresponsible for us to even begin to try pursue this.
We will object to this at every opportunity in the interests of Canadians. We have one of the major national banks now saying that the spending is wildly out of control and it is irresponsible.
An hon. member: The CFIB.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Exactly, and the CFIB. They are lining up.
What part of this do the Liberals not get? It is very clear that there was only one motive for this $4.6 billion in spending. It was a desperate attempt to buy power. Now they are trying to pretend this is something they believed in all along. Maybe that is their true cause with the NDP. It is not something we can support and we will oppose it at every level, at every opportunity, on a matter of principle.
How can the government expect us to support a $4.6 billion blank cheque when the bill is barely a page and a half long? Does it not believe Canadians are entitled to just a little of detail? Do the Liberals think that their record is that great, considering what is happening at the Gomery commission, that people should trust them in the way they spend the money?
Mr. John McKay: Madam Speaker, it is amusing to have the hon. member stand up and say that they are not trying to delay this, having spent the entire morning trying to delay it. Then the bill was returned from committee as a blank bill, having been stripped of all of its contents. Of course they are not trying to delay this.
I would appreciate it if the hon. member would read the bill. That would be a good start. If he had read the bill, he would know that this is entirely contingent spending. I do not care whether the hon. member or his acolytes, or people who apparently support his position, say that this is wild, crazy and reckless spending. That is idiotic nonsense. It is contingent spending. It will not happen unless the contingency occurs. If the contingency occurs and we have a surplus, then that money will be spent. Otherwise it will not be spent.
The hon. member has just given a classic illustration of why that party has spent 12 years in opposition and it is more than likely going to spend another 12 years there.
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Madam Speaker, I think most Canadians know that the government was going to put in place $4.6 billion in tax breaks for corporations in the initial budget. In the NDP bill, we are giving $4.6 billion of services to Canadians rather than giving the tax breaks.
It is my understanding that the Conservatives voted unanimously for the $4.6 billion in tax breaks to corporation. Their leader was out within seconds after the first budget reading supporting those tax breaks. Now they somehow call it free and unruly spending to give those dollars back to Canadians.
I just want to verify if that is the actual situation that has taken place.
Hon. John McKay: Madam Speaker, the original budget, Bill C-43, did contemplate corporate tax reductions in roughly that amount. My recollection of the number is $4.7 billion. As part of the arrangement with the implementation of Bill C-48, that legislation will come in on a separate track and restore those tax measures.
The hon. member needs to bear in mind that Bill C-48 and the restoration of tax relief and tax competitiveness are delinked. The bill proposes that in the event there are moneys in surplus in excess of $2 billion, then this will be the direction in which the government spends money: affordable housing, foreign affairs, environment and post-secondary education. All those items are perfectly consistent with previous spending initiatives that the government initiated in previous budgets and indeed, in budget 2005.
(1205)
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC): Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and address Bill C-48.
I want to say at the outset that the Conservative Party of Canada believes very strongly that Canada has an obligation to provide its citizens with a much higher standard of living than we have today. We think that, ultimately, Canada can become the most prosperous nation in the world. We think Canada can ultimately offer its citizens, no matter where they live in this country, an opportunity to find a job, or ensure that when parents go to bed at night, they can go to bed knowing that when their children go into the workforce, they will have the chance to live the Canadian dream of finding good, well-paying jobs. We think Canada can offer them the a higher standard of living and ultimately a comfortable retirement and strong social programs to support them if they need them. The Conservative Party of Canada believes in that.
It troubles me when the government brings forward legislation like this. I believe firmly that this takes us further away from that vision.
In fact I want to answer the parliamentary. He asked why are we opposed to some of the things in Bill C-48, like money for post-secondary education, housing and other things. We are opposed to it for the same reasons his own government was opposed to it back in February. If it is such a good idea, why did the government not include it in its budget in February? Because it is imprudent to keep recklessly spending year after year when we carry a half a trillion dollar debt, when interest rates are rising, when spending was raised the previous year by 12% in a single year and when spending has gone up 44% since 1999. The reason we oppose it is the same reason the government opposed it in February.
However, it goes beyond that. We oppose it because, as my friend just pointed out a minute ago, the bill is only 400 words long and it proposes to spend $4.6 billion. Yet there is not one detail on how that money should be spent. Furthermore, we are having this debate in the context of the worst corruption scandal to ever grip the country, a corruption scandal brought on by the Liberal government. How could we, as parliamentarians, look at ourselves in the mirror if we allow this to go through unchallenged, in that context? That would define what it means to be irresponsible. We cannot do that.
When the parliamentary secretary in his sarcastic, nasty tone accuses us of wanting to block this vital spending, spending that the Liberals themselves did not support a few months ago, it really causes me to wonder about this place. It causes tremendous cynicism amongst the public today, and I cannot help but admit that it makes me pretty cynical as well.
We have a job to do and we intend to do it. We will hold the government to account on legislation that has been roundly criticized by groups, ranging from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the voice of small business in Canada, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the voice of business in Canada, the Canadian Council of Chief Executive Officers, another voice for large employers in the country, and by virtually every economist in the country. Almost nobody believes this is good legislation. They believe it is poorly crafted and they have tremendous problems with it.
(1210)
There is a better way to do this. The answer is to have a budget process like the budget process we have always had in the past, where we hear from witnesses and then we make some judgments. The finance committee hears from witnesses and makes some judgments upon their testimony. We offer a report to the finance minister.
The minister considers this. He considers all the input he has received from people elsewhere. It is mulled over and put it into a budget document. It is brought before the House. There is debate. There are witnesses. There is testimony. Ultimately there is a budget and legislation flows from it. That is how it usually happens in Canada.
This time, halfway through the process, the government cut a backroom deal in a Toronto hotel room with the leader of the NDP and Buzz Hargrove of the Canadian Auto Workers. Guess what: we now have $4.6 billion in spending that the government itself did not agree with even days before. When the finance minister was being quizzed about that spending by the NDP, he said that “we can't allow the budget to be stripped away piece by piece”. He said that people could not “cherry-pick the budget”.
He opposed it all. He opposed everything the NDP was proposing. Then his own Prime Minister undercut him and turned around and said they would cut that deal so they could get 19 votes. It was more vote buying by the government and we ended up with this deal cut in a back room in Toronto somewhere.
I think it is reprehensible. I think Canadians deserve better. Although it will be difficult to defeat the government on this, I think there are some things we can do to try to amend this legislation so that hopefully we can limit the damage of this irresponsible approach the government and its NDP colleagues have taken. I will move those amendments now.
I move:
|
That Motion No. 1 for Bill C-48 be amended by replacing “$2 billion” with “$3.5 billion” in subclauses 1(1) and (2). |
|
That Motion No. 2 for Bill C-48 be amended by adding after subclause 2(2) the following: |
|
“(3) The Governor in Council shall table in Parliament, before December 31 of every year, a report describing the payments referred to in subsection (1) that are to be made, and the report shall include, with respect to each payment, |
|
(b) the expected results; and |
|
(c) the details of the delivery mechanism. |
|
(4) The report referred to in subsection (3) stands permanently referred to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates and the Senate Standing Committee on National Finance.” |
|
That Motion No. 3 for Bill C-48 be amended by adding after clause 3 the following: |
|
“(2) A corporation wholly owned by the Government of Canada that has been incorporated by a minister in accordance with an authorization referred to in paragraph (1)(e) or shares or memberships of which have been acquired by a minister in accordance with an authorization referred to in paragraph (1)(f) |
|
(a) is deemed to be a government institution for the purposes of the Access to Information Act; |
|
(b) is deemed to have accounts that are accounts of Canada for the purposes of section 5 of the Auditor General Act; |
|
(c) is subject to the Official Languages Act; |
|
(d) is subject to the Privacy Act; |
|
(e) shall annually submit a corporate plan to the Minister of Finance for the approval of the Governor in Council; and |
|
(f) shall, within three months after the end of each fiscal year, submit an annual report to Parliament on the corporation's activities during that fiscal year. |
I look forward to questions from members.
(1215)
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was more amused by the revisionist statements of the hon. member than the actual content of his speech. He seems to have a peculiar recollection of facts.
As I recollect the facts, the opposition leader was virtually out the door about five minutes after the finance minister delivered the budget to say that he would not defeat the government on this particular point.
Then the opposition leader apparently had an on the road to Damascus experience and thought that maybe that was not quite the best thing he had ever done in his political life. He reversed himself and said no, this government had to be put out of its misery.
We then had a difficult situation. Would we effectively collapse and show the Canadian electorate, which clearly said it did not want an election, that Parliament cannot work in a minority situation? That was not an acceptable choice, so as a consequence we entered into this particular configuration, which, I would point out to the hon. member, is a 1% change in the contingent spending profile but consistent with the fundamentals, objectives and goals of the budget.
I put it to the hon. member that his recollection of the facts on which we got here is deficient, and that the basic reason we are even debating the bill has to do with the withdrawal of the Conservatives' support prematurely of Bill C-43.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for giving me the opportunity to set the record straight on what he has just said. I point out to my friend that of course when the throne speech came in and the Conservative Party was able to force the government to include in it ideas like lowering taxes for all Canadians, that ultimately was reflected in the budget. We are happy for that. We thank the government for listening to some common sense from the Conservative Party on that issue and agreeing to do that.
We were happy to see that in the budget. After having been in lock-up for several hours reviewing the budget, my leader came out and said that we do support the idea of reducing personal income taxes and corporate taxes and some of the spending initiatives that were in there. We thought those were good things. We liked the idea that ultimately the Atlantic accord would get paid out. We did not think it should be in the budget, but the government was making a commitment, we thought, to pay that to Atlantic Canada.
We support those things, but when it became apparent through testimony before the Gomery commission that the Liberal Party had been involved in corruption, and it was very clear that Canadian support for the government had evaporated and a lot of people thought the government no longer had the moral authority to govern, we took our cue from the public. We moved a non-confidence motion at that time.
The government stalled for a time, violated some ancient traditions of this place, and ultimately got onto the issue of the vote on Bill C-43, the budget. That is how this all came about. I would suggest that it is my friend who has a sort of faulty memory when it comes to how this all came about.
I would remind him that at the end of the day he is answerable for having to explain why it was that the Liberals cut a backroom deal with the NDP solely to hang onto power, which I think they will be judged for ultimately, and they will be found wanting.
(1220)
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the constituents of the member for Medicine Hat are going to hang on every word and understand every nuance of what the Conservative finance critic just put forward in his rationalization about where they are at now. Nobody can understand it. It is a lot of bafflegab.
I have to chuckle at the line that the finance critic from the Conservatives is peddling here, because I do not think people are really buying it. The suggestion is that Bill C-48 is hollow, that the money is not really there, that it is financially irresponsible and there is no detail.
Come on, I say, this bill is on the same basis as Bill C-43, which the member and his party voted for. It is based on a fiscally responsible budget. It is based on no deficit. It is based on paying down the debt. It is based on expenditures that people want.
What the member cannot stomach, and maybe he could comment on this, is the fact that people out there like this bill. They want to see housing. They want to see education help for students. They want to see public transit. That is what he cannot stomach.
Mr. Monte Solberg: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to see that my friend across the way has become so bitter about this.
Now she is laughing but she was not a moment ago.
I would say that if she does not believe the Conservative Party, and I do not expect her to, in a sense, I ask her what she says about the commentary from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. It has said that this is an awful deal. This is the independent voice of small business across Canada and it is deeply concerned about this.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce thinks that this is reckless spending, spending without any details, spending that kicks the doors open to more abuse, waste and mismanagement, the same waste and mismanagement that this government is famous for.
I do not understand how the NDP can support one of the most corrupt governments in the history of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois had hoped for an opportunity to introduce some subamendments to the bill before the House. Unfortunately, parliamentary procedure prevents us from doing so. Once the official opposition puts forward any subamendments, we are prevented from doing likewise on the same clauses. This is unfortunate.
I understand the Conservative Party for having taken this opportunity to put forward amendments to Bill C-48 that are consistent with its convictions. However, we wanted to introduce a subamendment to the bill, on respect for the areas of provincial—and Quebec—jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, everything in Bill C-48 falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. Unfortunately, we were unable to put forward this subamendment.
We would also have liked to continue the battle that we, as a political party, have waged in the Standing Committee on Finance. In other words, we wanted to include the main priorities of Quebeckers in the bill. Unfortunately, we could not do that, either.
We take issue with the following aspect of this bill. The NDP is patting itself on the back, saying it concluded the agreement of the century with the Liberal government. I do not understand the NDP. If it says it has this power, I do not understand why it has abandoned the unemployed. EI is not one of the concerns the NDP presented and expressed in Bill C-48.
The NDP has boasted for years about fighting to improve EI, which excludes 60% of the unemployed who would normally be entitled to it, were it not for such inhumane criteria.
From the start, the government considers the unemployed as potential con artists. Benefits have been slashed for people hit by unemployment, a problem for thousands of families in Quebec and Canada. The NDP has abandoned the unemployed. We have not abandoned them. During each stage of Bill C-48, we have done everything possible to reintroduce such consideration for the unemployed into the bill. Not so the NDP.
As far as the fiscal imbalance is concerned, all parties in opposition believe it exists. The sub-committee I have the honour of chairing has just tabled a report. That sub-committee travelled the length and breadth of Canada to hear people's testimony. They all expressed their concerns about the fiscal relationship between the federal and provincial governments and the inability of the governments of Quebec and the provinces to provide basic services like health to their populations. Regardless of last September's agreement, they still lack the funds to be able to provide health systems that operate to their full potential.
As for post-secondary education, the provinces are faced with under-funding, since they simply cannot afford to invest in post-secondary education, although in a way investing in our youth means investing in our future.
Then there is the problem of disadvantaged families. In the provinces—and in Quebec—the funds are not there for lifting entire families out of poverty. None of these considerations exists in the bill, nothing to correct the fiscal imbalance, nothing to improve employment insurance either. Even if those lefties keep saying something needs to be done about EI, the unemployed have been abandoned.
We in the Bloc Québécois have not abandoned them. Nor have we abandoned the key priorities of Quebeckers and Canadians. In fact, in the rest of Canada we heard considerable concerns expressed about the fiscal imbalance and the under-funding of essential public services. We have not given up on this, If the NDP has, so be it. History will judge them, and they will get their come-uppance in the next election.
As for the rest of us, we will continue to fight and to push for reforms. Our basic premise is consistency. The first budget was bad, and the second is a fool's bargain. The NDP is boasting of its great gains. I will read an excerpt from the bill.
(1225)
This analysis was confirmed last Monday evening when we studied Bill C-48. A senior Treasury Board official was there. He told us flat out that this bill did not commit the federal government at all and the NDP had signed a fool's bargain. The government has not made any commitments to any of the areas in which it promised to invest. It has not really made any commitments to social housing, or education, or foreign aid, or environmental programs.
I will read some excerpts which the senior Treasury Board official emphasized: The government has not made any commitments. The government “may” invest in it. So the government has not made any firm commitments. I will read some excerpts from subclause 1(1) of Bill C-48. It says: “Subject to subsection (3), the Minister of Finance may, in respect of the fiscal year 2005-2006, make payments —”
That does not mean he is going to make them. It does not say that he must make them or that he will make them. It says that he may make these payments.
It is the same thing in subclause 1(2): “Subject to subsection (3), the Minister of Finance may, in respect of the fiscal year 2006-2007, make payments—”
We know that “may make” does not necessarily mean that he will make. There are also a lot of conditions surrounding the end of year surpluses. The government can decide to do anything else that it likes during the financial year knowing that it will have surpluses at the end of the year. It can take any initiatives at all other than those in Bill C-48. This is a real fool's bargain. Nothing is gained here. There is no commitment on the part of the government to any of these things.
In English and French, the bill says the same thing. It is “may” not “must” and there is no commitment. A real fool's bargain.
The NDP has stood the world on its head, saying that it was good, it had negotiated some things and we had not done our work very well. To that I say it has not done anything if one looks at this agreement. When there is an agreement and a bill says “may make payments”, that means the government can do anything it wants.
For all these reasons, in committee, we worked hard—which cannot be said for the other political parties—to amend the bill, to consider everyone who was forgotten in this budget bill, and by that we mean the unemployed and the sick, among others. Given the rate at which spending in health care is increasing—at the rate of approximately 7%—they will not recover the time or the resources lost in order to get the system to operate as it should. In fact, the current Prime Minister made savage cuts in this area when he was finance minister.
They have also forgotten students, who are dealing with an education system that has been underfunded for years. In Quebec alone, it would take an investment of $1 billion a year for the next five years to catch up.
We in the Bloc have tried to get these amounts and move things along. However, the government and the other opposition parties are not interested in supporting amendments to improve EI, to help the unemployed—about 60% are excluded at the moment—and to help people who are sick and to help the students.
We also tried to get international aid increased to 0.7% of the GDP. With the amounts involved at the moment, we will need 25 years to reach this objective. We tried to help farmers in Quebec and Canada, who are facing a very serious crisis. However, the government was not interested in supporting our amendments and suggestions to improve this bill and make a firmer commitment than the one providing that the government “may”.
In conclusion, it is a fool's bargain. The amendments we had proposed were rejected. The bill is still totally unacceptable. The NDP has no reason to boast about this agreement. There is no commitment on the government side. The people understand.
(1230)
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I always find this member's interventions in the House to be entertaining although maybe from time to time, not totally factual. I was somewhat amused by his suggestion that the word “may” in the bill in the first two clauses was inappropriate. If the member would have read the clauses, he would have seen that any amounts payable on this would not be permitted if it would put the surplus below $2 billion.
There are limits as to what could be made. In the event that there are unforeseen circumstances, it is possible that payments may not be made here, so the word “may” is appropriate even under the language of the clauses if he would read them.
My question has to do with the question of fiscal imbalance. I know the member chaired a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Finance on fiscal imbalance. I was pleased to join him in Ontario, when we found that even the Government of Ontario misled the committee by saying it had a fiscal imbalance. It did not include the tax points that had been extended to all the provinces including Ontario, which have the same value as cash.
The member did say that the provinces are underfunded and do not have the means to fund post-secondary education and then he went on to mention poverty. Will the member rise in his place and admit that each and every province has the same or greater authority to charge taxes, whether it be income taxes or other, as the federal government, and therefore has every opportunity to raise the money it needs to provide these services to the people of its province?
(1235)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect for my colleague, he is rerunning the same old tape he often plays, just like his colleagues.
We have barely concluded a four-month Canada-wide consultation. From Halifax to Victoria, via Quebec City, Toronto and Regina, the Subcommittee on Fiscal Imbalance, which I had the honour of chairing, heard the same thing everywhere: the current financial relationship between the federal government and the provinces cannot continue. It is impossible to plan for the future when the federal government is generating such astronomical surpluses each year in relation to its responsibilities to the public, and most of the provinces, with the obvious exception of Alberta, do not have enough money to provide the public with the fundamental services set out in the Constitution.
These days, even Mr. McGuinty in Ontario is fighting just as hard as Quebec has fought for the past three or four years. This battle began under Bernard Landry, who was, to some extent, the father of the Séguin commission. How is it that everyone, even Ontario, recognizes there is a fiscal imbalance, agrees on the need to correct it and is aware of the lack of resources required to provide services to the public, while the Liberals, on the other hand, are still wondering if the fiscal imbalance even exists?
I would be careful if I were the hon. member because he comes from Ontario. If the Ontario government thinks there is an injustice and wants to make changes, the hon. member should watch himself during the future election because he will be held to account.
On the matter of the wording of the bill, a senior official appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance on Monday evening. He said the government had no obligation in the bill. In other words, it can do what it wants. The word “may” is not so insignificant or innocent. The government knows full well that with a bill like this, it can do what it wants. It can take initiatives during the year, get to the end of the year, not have the necessary surplus and completely thwart its so-called promises. I did not say that, a senior official from the Treasury Board did.
[English]
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I attended the fiscal imbalance subcommittee meetings in Winnipeg. We had representatives from the mayor's office and from many municipalities from across our province indicating the kind of moneys needed for infrastructure and the kind of moneys needed to run the province in a way to improve the quality of life in the province for Manitobans.
There was great disappointment in the fact that the gas tax did not roll over into the provinces immediately. There was much delay from the present government. When it was spoken about, suddenly the rules were changed and that gas tax funding could not be used for infrastructure. It had to be used for green projects only.
Could the hon. member comment on the infrastructure money and how this budget has impacted in a very negative way on the provinces?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, even with the policies the government has implemented, we are in a situation where ad hoc agreements of this nature need to end.
If correcting the fiscal imbalance would provide the governments of Quebec and the provinces with enough funding, then they would have enough money to transfer these provincial resources to the municipalities for infrastructure, for example.
Just by restoring the federal government's contribution to social programs and education to 25%, as was done for health last September, would give the provinces an additional $11 billion. That money would prevent the governments of Quebec and the provinces from being choked by responsibilities such as health, post-secondary education and help for families and the poor. They would be able to make their own funding available for infrastructure.
Unfortunately, such is not the case. The current measures do not go far enough. The fiscal capacity of the federal government is much too great. Over the next six years, it will have accumulated a surplus of roughly $100 billion. This has to change. The quality of services provided to the public depends on it.
(1240)
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the House today to the report stage of Bill C-48.
I want to congratulate the finance critic for the NDP who did a remarkable job in the finance committee of shepherding through the bill and sitting through hour after hour as the Conservative and some Liberal members tried to frustrate the bill, which they were unsuccessful in doing. The bill is now back in the House and we fully expect it will be approved.
After listening to the finance critic from the Bloc and after hearing the Conservative finance critic suggest that somehow the bill was not real, I just want to make a couple of general comments.
I think a double standard is being applied here. The bill is being put forward and is characterized on exactly the same basis as other appropriation bills. I would like to read some of the comments of the Comptroller General of Canada when he came to the finance committee on June 13. He said:
|
Similar to other appropriation bills, Bill C-48 would provide enabling legislative authority to ministers to make payments for the specific purposes approved by parliament. |
Let us be very clear. What is contained in the bill and the manner in which these payments are authorized is no different than any other appropriation bill.
The Comptroller General of Canada also said:
|
This represents a prudent approach to fiscal management in that such fiscal dividends would only be authorized to the extent that there is a $2 billion surplus in those two years. |
I read this into the record because it clearly contradicts what the Conservatives are trying to put forward, which is that this particular budget bill is financially irresponsible, that it is not based on a balanced budget and that it is not based on ensuring that there is no deficit. This is a financially prudent bill.
We in the NDP are very proud of the bill and what it represents. It represents real work that was done in this Parliament by this party working with the government to ensure that concrete measures will be taken to address the fundamental needs of Canadians in very core areas, like housing, post-secondary education, help for municipalities in terms of an increase in the gas tax moneys that will go to public transit, help for smaller communities and foreign aid that would address our commitments in the international global community.
Those are real things that were achieved. I have to say that we thought that Bill C-43 was inadequate in that regard and we made it our business to go out, to work and to get a better deal, and that is exactly what we did.
I am very proud to stand here knowing people in local communities right across the country like this bill because they know it is real. They compare that on the one hand and look at something that is substantive against all of the other stuff that is going on in this place, all of the procedural war games, all of the wrangling that we saw the Conservative Party trying again today. It will do anything because it just wants to hold up this bill.
An hon. member: It's the people's bill.
Ms. Libby Davies: Yes, as my colleague said, they are holding up the people's bill, a bill that would put the money where it is needed, where it will be delivered to build housing units, to get public transit, to meet our commitments in the global community and to ensure that students get relief from the incredible tuition fees they have to pay.
We are happy to be here today to speak to the bill and to ensure it goes through. As the housing critic for the NDP, I am particularly happy to see the $1.6 billion in the bill that is earmarked for affordable housing. Bill C-43 contained no new money for housing other than a small amount for on reserve aboriginal housing which is very important but which was very inadequate. The minister responsible for housing himself has pointed out that 1.7 million households in Canada, households not people, are in need of affordable housing.
We know that people in local communities across the country do not know if they will be able to pay their rent every month. They do not know if they are going to be evicted. The streets will become their home. It is appalling to see people living on the streets, particularly in the winter months when they can freeze to death, and especially in a country as wealthy as Canada.
(1245)
The bill is not perfect. It does not do everything we want it to do, believe me, but it takes real concrete steps, particularly on the housing question to ensure those units will be developed.
In terms of aboriginal housing, I think it is an absolute shame that we still have aboriginal people living in housing on reserve that would not meet any minimum standard anywhere. We are talking about third world housing conditions right here in Canada.
In the urban environment, aboriginal housing is a very important question. I recently met with a delegation of Inuit people who were pressing to ensure that the Nunavut Housing Corporation's 10 year plan for 3,300 units in the north would be met. Nothing has happened on that plan because of government inaction.
As a result of this bill, the funds are now available and the authority is there for the Minister of Labour and Housing to make those housing commitments. For example, with regard to housing in the north where we see the worst overcrowding conditions in Canada and high housing costs, we want to ensure that the materials to build at least 100 new units by April 2006 are delivered to the north by ship. That is a logistical issue that has to be dealt with. Literally the boat was missed this year, so no housing will be built because the time has now come and gone for the materials to be delivered.
Bill C-48 gives us the opportunity to meet those very real and pressing needs in the north. I wanted to make a special point of mentioning that because it is something that is often ignored. I want to say to the Minister of Labour and Housing that this is a commitment that absolutely has to be met and I will be pressing him at every opportunity to ensure that the materials are delivered and the houses are built.
Another critical point in the bill has to do with post-secondary education. The bill sets a very good precedent in that it would provide federal funds specifically for post-secondary education. I also hope that fund will be increased in future budgets.
We in the NDP and organizations, such as the Canadian Federation of Students, the Canadian Association of University Teachers and many other organizations, have called on the federal government to provide funding for post-secondary education. This is the first time this has happened, so it is very significant.
What is more important is that the money in Bill C-48 is directed toward tuition reduction and help for students. If members want to know the incredible debt students have been bearing, they need only talk to the families that are trying to put their son or daughter through college or university, they need only talk to the students who, on average, have debts of $25,000, or they can talk to graduate students who might have debts and loans of $50,000 or even $60,000. Many students are graduating into debt as a result of years and years of inaction by the federal Liberal government of not providing assistance to students.
Finally we have some direct measures that are directed toward students.This is a very important measure and we would like it to be used as a model of what can be done in future budgets to say that there must be an infusion of federal funds into post-secondary education to ensure accessibility for all students across the country.
We do not want to read any more reports from Statistics Canada saying that the accessibility to post-secondary education for low income people will plummet to the bottom because of their socio-economic status. That is not good enough in this country. We want accessibility across the board and that has to be done by the federal government coming to the table and making it clear that post-secondary education is accessible.
(1250)
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Vincent (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague when she speaks about education, housing and everything in the bill. However, this is just wishful thinking on her part.
The alliance between the NDP and the Liberals in order to obtain something is still stuck at zero. Our colleague told us earlier that there are only “mays” in the bill. The government “may” do something and “may” make payments. Well, may and actually do are two very different things.
Today they are trying to sell this idea. But I am not so sure. I am not the NDP members. In order to sell something, you need something to sell. But there is nothing here today.
There is nothing in this bill that we are discussing today and on which we will be asked to vote. I would like to know whether the NDP is proud today of its alliance with the Liberals.
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member was here earlier when I specifically read from the Comptroller General of Canada, who was at the finance committee and spoke about the fact that similar to other appropriation bills, Bill C-48 would provide enabling legislation. This is a fact; it cannot be disputed. The basis on which the bill is designed and brought forward is on the same basis as any other appropriation bill. It is no different.
If the hon. member has a criticism with that, why is it being brought up here and now today on this bill and not on all the other bills that the Bloc and other members have dealt with?
The money in this bill is as real as anything else that we deal with in the House. If the member is questioning everything we do, that is fine, but we would rather be here and get something accomplished in a concrete way than sit in our seats and do nothing.
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I tend to agree with my colleague from the Bloc when he calls it an empty bill. The member from the NDP referred to the bill as the people's bill and that the people support this spending, but what the people generally do not understand is parliamentary procedure. However, the members opposite understand parliamentary procedure.
I wonder if the member was here when the parliamentary secretary said a few minutes ago that this is contingent spending. It is contingent, of course, on the surplus being above $2 billion, but the way members opposite have been spending money hand over fist, I wonder how many people will see any of the money that has been promised in this grand public relations exercise for the NDP. I am wondering if the NDP grassroots supporters themselves are disturbed by the NDP propping up Liberal corruption.
The bill, as my colleague mentioned, is only a two page bill with basically 400 words. Members opposite are talking about giving $4.5 billion to the government without a plan on how to spend it. We have seen what happens when we give the government large sums of money without a plan. That is what leads to sponsorship scandals and gun registries that go from $2 million to $2 billion. That should probably be the subject of an inquiry itself. How could the government possibly spend $2 billion to register a few guns in the country?
The Liberals have a contingency plan, of course. It is an escape plan and not a penny of this money will be spent unless the surplus remains over $2 billion, which will probably take 18 months and we will probably be well into an election before then, I would suggest.
I am wondering if the NDP is not disturbed about creating an illusion that all these things will be met, creating a public expectation for all these noble causes, and they are worthy causes. We would like to see all of these things addressed. However, I wonder if the NDP is not concerned about creating an illusion, because ultimately illusions lead to disappointment.
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, it is ironic how everybody's argument and debate is suddenly focused on this one bill. Everybody wants to throw in everything but the kitchen sink. I would pick up on one point that the hon. member has made. The bill is not about an illusion. It is based on reality. It is based on real financial expenditures and on the real financial picture.
The member asks how we will know if the surplus will be there? Maybe he has not been reading what has happened over the last year. If he will remember, the Liberal government predicted there would be a $1.9 billion surplus. Then it turned out to be $9.1 billion. Now it is actually $9.8 billion. That was for the previous fiscal year. The hon. member suggested that surplus will not exist. He should believe me, it will be there in the billions. He should read any financial forecast.
That is why the bill is based on financial prudence, as reported by the Comptroller General, because that surplus does have to exist. I agree with that. I will agree with the member that it has to be above $2 billion. He is questioning whether or not it will be there. I tell him to read any financial forecast and he will see that the surplus will be there and that expenditure will be there.
(1255)
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate briefly in the report stage debate on Bill C-48. I wish to remind members of the issues.
The member who previously asked a question said there are no plans on how to spend the $4.5 billion. It would be somewhat inappropriate to come up with micro plans on every dollar and penny when in fact the spending of the $4.5 billion is contingent upon making sure that the provisions for fiscal responsibility are respected. That means we are not going back into deficit and, indeed, keeping the $2 billion contingency.
Having said that, the bill specifically identifies the plans. The first is in clause 2 for the environment, which the member opposite said there was nothing stipulated for, including public transit, the energy efficient retrofit program and low income housing in an amount not to exceed $900 million. The second would support training programs and enhance access to post-secondary education and benefit aboriginal Canadians in an amount not exceeding $1.5 billion.
The third addresses affordable housing, including housing for aboriginal Canadians, in an amount not exceeding $1.6 billion and the fourth provides foreign aid in an amount not exceeding $500 million. All of this, as the Bloc member tried to be critical of, is subject to the dollars being available in excess of the $2 billion surplus.
Having said that, in terms of considering their position on Bill C-48, members have to ask themselves whether or not the priority areas for Canadians regarding the environment, affordable housing, post-secondary education and foreign aid are important to Canada in terms of additional initiatives in those areas. There is no one issue I can think of where one could do everything one would ever want in one budget. These are all incremental. They are steps and they are important.
It is going to be extremely important for those who do not support Bill C-48 to identify with which portions they disagree. Would they go out in an election campaign, for instance, saying they are not going to support the environment, affordable housing, foreign aid and post-secondary education? I do not think anybody in this place is going to tell the people of Canada that these are things they do not support, to what extent and are they fiscally prudent.
I want to address the point the member just mentioned about it not being in the budget. The member is absolutely right. Bill C-48 is an expansion of the budgetary initiative that we are prepared to support. They would have been done eventually by us, although maybe not in this budget. One has to look at a series of budgets to see the priorities.
Bill C-48 exists because we have a minority government. I would suggest to the member opposite that if we did not have Bill C-48, June 26 would have been election day and he probably would have lost his seat.
The reality is that in a minority government, which there has not been since 1979, there is a responsibility to collaborate, cooperate and negotiate as necessary to ensure that Parliament works. Bill C-48 is the linchpin to ensuring this Parliament works. We in the Liberal Party want government to work. The NDP wants the government to work, but it is the unholy alliance of the Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois that do not want Parliament to work.
It was through the collaborative efforts of those who want this minority Parliament to work on behalf of Canadians not to spend or misspend $250 million to $280 million on an unnecessary and unwanted election.
(1300)
It is the responsible thing to do to show Canadians that a minority Parliament works. I am proud of the decisions that were taken by our party and I very much support Bill C-48.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to what my Liberal colleague had to say, and he completely forgot a few details. When he said that what the Liberal Party wanted with Bill C-48 was to govern in cooperation with the NDP, it is simply not true.
The Liberals have formed an alliance with the NDP in order to stay in power. They are not interested in governing, they are only interested in staying in power. We have seen all kinds of legislative sleight of hand in the House to put off legislation, to disregard certain situations such as unemployment and the fiscal imbalance. Votes have been bought. That is the Liberals' trademark. They do not want to manage and administer ideas that are not even their own—these are NDP ideas. They have engaged in flagrant opportunism in order to cling to power.
I would not be afraid to go to my riding or Quebec and say how this government is much more attached to being in power than to really governing.
I therefore ask the member, if there was so much openness, why did the government forget the unemployed and ignore the fiscal imbalance, which is the cause of all the socio-economic problems in Quebec? Why did his government not take advantage of Bill C-48 to include these things, which are essential to the Quebec economy? Why?
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I reject the premise of the member's intervention. He talks about having an arrangement simply to keep power. Those are just words. It is not a matter of just keeping power; it is a matter of keeping governing. That is the difference.
With regard to the fiscal imbalance, I discussed this in debate with his finance critic. The bottom line is that the provinces have the resources and the means necessary to raise taxes to fund their programs. Any fiscal imbalance that exists is illusory. It is a matter of the federal government properly managing the financial affairs of the country. It has a surplus and provinces, like Quebec, simply say to give it to them. That is not accountability and transparency, and it is not going to happen.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to read an article by Jacqueline Thorpe in today's National Post. She states:
|
The $4.5-billion New Democrat budget deal, new provincial health care and side deals, changes to equalization payments and a surge in program spending under Paul Martin's Liberals have led to a crazy-quilt of programs and blurred the lines between federal and provincial responsibilities, the Bank of Nova Scotia said in a report. |
She is quoting a report from the Bank of Nova Scotia. I think most intelligent Canadians would say the very same thing. This is basically a flotation jacket for the Liberal Party. The Liberals wanted a lifeline to survive on the floor of the House of Commons and they did it. They did it with a spending spree of $4.5 billion on a plan that was sketched out on the back of a napkin in a hotel room in downtown Toronto. How can the member possibly support that type of deal?
(1305)
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, it is important to remind the member that selective media commentary does not tell the whole story in most cases.
If the $2 billion surplus can still be provided, and the $4.5 billion in the areas outlined in Bill C-48 can be delivered upon, the spending of the Government of Canada would still remain in the range of about 12% of GDP, which is the same level. We would remain at the same level of spending compared to what the last Conservative government was spending, which was 17% of GDP. It is clear that fiscal prudence and proper fiscal management are in place with this government.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-48, perhaps not for what is in it, but for what is not in it. I also want to mention Bill C-43 because of what is in it and what is not in it.
Bill C-43 was delivered as a good news budget and everything was great, but a line item in Bill C-43 indicates that the government is going to close the agricultural experimental farms in Canada. Four experimental farms are going to be closed at a time when farmers need more help than they have ever needed before. They need more research, more help and the government is quietly going to close the farms. I was hoping that those farms would come back in Bill C-48 but they did not.
I want to talk about the farm in my riding as it applies to Bill C-48. Nappan Experimental Farm has been in my riding since 1880. It has been a cornerstone of the agricultural community. It has been part of our lifestyle in the maritime provinces. It is located in the exact geographic centre of the Maritimes. The Liberals have announced they are going to close it. What is their reason? They gave us the reason of cost saving.
Before I get into that, I want to acknowledge that the Cumberland County Federation of Agriculture has made an incredible effort to try to stop the decision to close the Nappan Experimental Farm. Those people have put the rest of us to shame. They have dropped their farming needs and all the work they have to do and have gone at this with a vengeance. They have circulated a petition on which they have obtained 2,667 signatures. I will be tabling that petition eventually.
I want to congratulate the president of the Cumberland County Federation of Agriculture, Frank Foster, the secretary, Marilyn Clark, who did a lot of the work, and board members Carl Woodworth, Leon Smith, my friend Kurt Sherman and all the other members. They have done an exemplary job. It is extraordinary what they have done in spearheading this and I take my hat off to them.
I also want to thank my local newspaper which has done a great job in raising this issue. All the media in the area have been very supportive in every way. They have helped us a lot. I also want to thank our agriculture critic, the member for Haldimand--Norfolk, for her tremendous support, and our leader for the efforts to stop the closure of Nappan Experimental Farm.
We were blindsided. We were told at one point that the farm was not going to close. It was not that long ago the government said that there were no plans to close the farm and that everybody could rest easy. Two months later in the budget, the government announced that it was closing the farm. The Liberals did not tell anybody. They did not have a press conference.
I want to compliment the Amherst Daily News on an article it published yesterday. In her article “Whatever happened to Ottawa's commitment to farm?” Sandra Bales describes how just a few years ago a Liberal senator came to the farm and announced that the government was spending $500,000 and made a total commitment to the farm. She describes it as a hot day in the summer. The senator was holding a press conference at Nappan to hand out $500,000 for the Nappan federal beef research station. She describes how communications officers were handing out press releases, and how the personal assistants to the politicians were handing out business cards.
There was a big flurry when this was announced, but in February, after the Liberals had said a couple of weeks earlier that there were no plans to close the farm, they did not come to the riding. They did not come to the farm. They did not tell anybody. They called in the staff at the Nappan Experimental Farm and gave them their walking papers while the minister was reading the budget speech. I think that was so offensive.
Sandra Bales of the Amherst Daily News points out how, the Liberals will come to the region in a big flurry with their assistants, business cards and press releases when they have good news, but when they are firing people, they hide in their ivory towers of Ottawa. That was the way she said it. I thought it was an excellent article and I compliment her. I could not have said it anywhere near as well.
First I want to talk about the decision to close the farms. Our critics and our members of the agriculture committee recently were questioning the minister who acknowledged, and it is written up in the The Western Producer, that the effort to centralize decision making on budget and research for agriculture is wrong and he has agreed to review it. He said, “I have asked for, and it is being done, a review of how we approach science in the department”. He is already acknowledging that the system that makes decisions is flawed. Overall the whole system that makes the decisions is flawed.
(1310)
Now I will talk about the decision regarding Nappan. I was told that they had to cut it because they needed to cut costs to maintain research. I believe them for what they say, but I made an access to information request and did I ever get a surprise when I got the information. Not only am I surprised, I am angry. The decision was made for wrong reasons. Obviously the department is in disarray, in chaos. The reasons are inconsistent. I want to read a few things from this access to information.
In an internal memo, 11 Department of Agriculture officials go through all the reasons they are going to save money and the justifications and then it says that all of this casts some doubt on the savings but scientists are saying that this will be guaranteed.
They are saying it is going to save $250,000. It is $250,000 and they will not do it. I noticed in the paper the other day the Liberals are spending over $402,000 on the legal fees for Alfonso Gagliano, but they will not spend $250,000 on research for the agricultural community in Atlantic Canada. Even internally they question the numbers and the savings. It goes on and then on another page of this document from two years ago exactly, they announced:
|
[The Department of Agriculture] has made a long-term commitment to the future of the experimental farm and has no intention of closing it. Last year, we invested $800,000 to enhance [the facility]. |
Last year the government spent $800,000 and now the government says it is going to save some money, but even the department doubts that.
The most offensive thing in the access to information is a memo to the deputy minister. It says:
|
Purpose. To inform you of an opportunity for [the Department of Agriculture] to demonstrate leadership on Expenditure Review. The department wants to discontinue the research at its experimental farm in Nappan. |
And get this:
|
This exercise could demonstrate exemplary behaviour with respect to Expenditure Management Review (EMR) and position [the department] as a leader. |
The government is closing the Nappan Experimental Farm to make the department and the officials look good. I cannot believe it. Exemplary behaviour in the Liberals' point of view is firing 14 people and closing down a farm that has been serving the agricultural community for over 100 years. To position the department as a leader is not what this is about. This is about agriculture. It is about research. It is about science and it is about the future. They are trying to impress the expenditure review committee, but on another page the expenditure review committee is reluctant to accept that position.
Some of them say they are going to save money. The department says they question that. The expenditure review says that they do not believe it, that they do not accept it, but the department wants to do it so the department looks good. That argument about saving money does not hold water.
There are other things that are totally inconsistent in this document which really make me angry. I was told that research was going to go from one place in Nova Scotia, Nappan, to Kentville in Nova Scotia. Throughout this document it says that research on forage and diets and meat quality currently at Nappan could move to Lacombe, Alberta. In another place it says:
|
Nappan is one of the four original experimental farms created by legislation in the 1880s. Research here could be shifted to Lacombe, Alberta. |
Then in another part it says:
|
The beef research from Nappan would move to the University of Guelph at New Liskeard. |
My point is that the department does not know what it is doing. It does not know whether it is saving money. It does not know if it is not saving money. It does not know if it is going to move the research to somewhere else in Nova Scotia, or to Ontario, or to Alberta.
The minister has already agreed that the process is flawed. I contend that the decision on Nappan farm is flawed as well.
I met with the minister today. I asked him to stop this decision, to put a moratorium on the decision. I asked him to allow the people to have input, which they were denied totally. We were told on December 8 that the farm was not going to close. There was a great big headline in the newspaper, “Nappan station to stay open”. Then two months later in the budget the Nappan research station is to close.
We should have an opportunity to present a case for the Nappan Experimental Farm. It has been a key component of the agricultural community in all the maritime provinces. It is absolutely necessary more now than ever, as is the beef research more necessary now than ever. I am asking the minister to put a moratorium on this closure until he knows what is going on. I do not think he knows.
The information that I gave him this morning was the first time he had seen it. I take total, absolute exception to the department saying that this is exemplary behaviour and if it closes Nappan it will show the department as a leader.
(1315)
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's speech and actually found it quite interesting. Unfortunately, it had nothing to do with what we were talking about today which is Bill C-48. I am rather hoping that the hon. member has read Bill C-48. His colleagues apparently have pointed out that it is a rather short bill. I am hoping that some time prior to the delivery of his speech he read Bill C-48.
I want him to comment on the remarks of Charles-Antoine St-Jean, Comptroller General of Canada, who in his notes to his remarks says that Bill C-48 would provide enabling legislative authority to ministers; that Bill C-48 is unique in that this is the first time that spending authority would be provided that is subject to there being a minimum fiscal surplus; that this represents a prudent approach to fiscal management; that in addition, it provides a $4.5 billion cap on spending; that in advance of year end, it also provides more lead time to determine the specific management framework; and that everything is subject to Treasury Board approval prior to March 31.
Having heard those comments, and I hope having read Bill C-48, I wonder if the member would think the Comptroller General of Canada is giving substantial approval to the frame of this bill.
Mr. Bill Casey: Mr. Speaker, the member says that this does not refer to Bill C-48, but as a matter of fact in every way it does. There is no community in our country now that needs more help than the agricultural community. What is in Bill C-48 about agriculture? Nothing. It is absolutely incredible that there is nothing in Bill C-48 and the only thing in Bill C-43 is that the government is going to cut back on research. It is going to cut back on its help to the agricultural community. It is not going to help the farming community. This has everything to do with it.
As far as the Comptroller General is concerned, I do not even have to go there because the Liberals' own cabinet expenditure review committee questions the decision to close the Nappan farm. It said, “we don't even think it will achieve the savings”. Their own internal documents say, “we question the savings that are presented by the officials”.
I come back to the memo to the deputy minister which says, “This could demonstrate exemplary behaviour”. Is the member proud that this is exemplary behaviour. Is firing 14 hardworking people and closing the Nappan Experimental Farm when it is most needed what he calls exemplary behaviour?
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member bringing forth an issue in his own riding and the way that Liberals are pulling back funding for projects that are important in many local communities. What is not in the budget is certainly part of this discussion. Responsible spending and responsible budgeting is what this discussion is all about.
The member mentioned the experimental farm in his riding. We certainly support the concerns that he has, but we have other ridings in this country where there is no RCMP support at the border crossings. The Liberals have pulled that back as the RCMP does not have any money for manning the border posts. Just the other day we had a big discussion about arming our border agents, but the Minister of Public Safety said that they have pepper spray and batons, to go up against guns or a speeding car coming across our border.
In my own riding we have a very serious concern. We have a concern here in Canada now about potentially 1,000 Chinese spies. A few years ago there were so-called Chinese immigrant ships, migrant ships off the coast. We have no money for surveillance services. Just in the past few weeks two ghost ships have passed by along the coast of Vancouver Island. No transponders; no communications; no radios; no lights. When our Coast Guard officials call the RCMP and DND, is there any response? Are there any flights that go out? Worse, have they any money for their flights or money for maintenance of the aircraft?
My question to the hon. member is can the NDP not understand and does the member opposite not understand it is about productivity and it is about responsible spending? As the chamber of commerce says, they are crippling the ability to meet the very needs that they are purporting to meet in this illusion budget.
(1320)
Mr. Bill Casey: Mr. Speaker, this is about responsible spending. In my presentation I pointed out that there are so many different points of view on the decision to close the Nappan Experimental Farm. No one agrees with it, except the people who want to make the department look good and even the people making that judgment do not agree with it.
I am glad the member brought up the RCMP because I have the same problem in my province of Nova Scotia. Top RCMP officers have told me that they do not have the funding to employ the minimum number of RCMP officers to do the minimum level of law enforcement. That is not exemplary behaviour, but apparently the Liberals think it is: cut back on the RCMP; cut back on the farming community; do not give them any money, but give Alfonso Gagliano $402,000 for his legal bill.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC): Mr. Speaker, where do I begin on Bill C-48? Perhaps I should just pick up where the member from Nova Scotia left off.
I was jotting down some notes in thinking of how to start off this debate. Government should be about addressing the real needs of Canadians as opposed to the political needs of the party it represents; in this case the Liberal Party of Canada.
The parliamentary secretary is yakking away on his side of the House. I would expect him to at least listen. When it is his opportunity to speak, I will listen and we can debate it back and forth. However, his yakking over there does not really add much to this place.
I would question whether the real needs of Canadians are being met in Bill C-48. The member from Nova Scotia set out some of the areas in Nova Scotia where a little of money could make a big difference in terms of jobs and stability in our agricultural sector, research and so on.
I want to point out some of the same issues in the province of New Brunswick where a little money could make a lot of difference.
Some of these we could argue are not a little money but a lot of money. For example, there is the refurbishment of Pointe Lapreau. The Government of Canada has said that it would assist the refurbishment of Pointe Lapreau. It is a $1.5 billion expenditure. Most of it will be borne by the Province of New Brunswick and the utility, the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission. They are asking the Government of Canada to come in with some assistance. The number that is being thrown about is somewhere between $200 million and $400 million. We are not sure what it is going to be, but we are hoping the Government of Canada will be there.
It could have been there, but when one goes on a wild spending spree with no plan for the future, as Liberals have done, the question becomes, how much money is going be left over for those programs and spending priorities that should have been there in the first place?
In addition to that, we have an aquaculture industry in New Brunswick. I know, Mr. Speaker, you are familiar with that, coming from the west coast which has a significant aquaculture industry as well. To restructure and get through some difficulties the industry has experienced through new fault of its own in the last number of years, it needs somewhere in the order of $60 million is required. That is way short of a billion dollars. Just to remind the House and Canadians a billion is a thousand million.
I was making some notes before I came to the chamber because it is kind of interesting when we actually measure. How much is a billion dollars? A thousand million. How much is a thousand million? It is normally not the kind of change we are familiar with. It is a lot of cash.
I invite members to carry out this research, but they will have to believe me on this one. A million dollars is two metres high if it is being counted in $100 bills. If we had $100 bills stacked on top of each other, it would be just about my height. Therefore, think of this as a billion is a thousand million. Therefore, a billion dollars would be 2,000 metres high, about a mile and a half high in the sky. Talk about pie in the sky.
Therefore, when we are talking about almost $5 billion, we are talking about a 9,000 metre high pile of $100 bills stacked on top of each other. I believe Mount Logan is the highest mountain in Canada. It would dwarf Mount Logan. I am sure it would dwarf the tallest building in your riding, Mr. Speaker, with a lot left over to spend.
That is the point that I am making. It is a lot of money that has been just thrown out there for nothing more than political support. It is a life jacket for the Liberal Party of Canada. Basically, it bought off the NDP with a lot of money, $4.5 billion. On top of that, it could be argued that the member for New Brunswick Southwest is on a political mission. We probably all are on a political mission.
(1325)
I want to go back to what has been reported in the national press in terms of this $4.5 billion spending spree. I quoted from an article written by Jacqueline Thorpe, in which she quotes what some of Canada's chief economists have said about this. She has saying that this is a deal makes no sense. I will quote an another article that appeared today. She says:
|
The NDP deal, for example, funnels federal spending specifically to post-secondary education and training, affordable housing and energy conservation, areas that provinces would have funded through federal social transfers--if they so wanted. |
The government is out on a patchwork, hodgepodge spending spree simply to get the support of a political party in order to survive a vote on the floor of the House of Commons. It boils down to the fact that the Liberals simply do not want an election. However, it is costing every Canadian and it is costing the credibility of the Government of Canada.
When this same government lost power in 1984 to the Conservatives, it bragged. I believe it was Jean Chrétien who authored these words when the Liberals left office in 1984. He said, “There's nothing to worry about, because we left the cupboard bare”. The Liberals bankrupted the country when they left office, knowing it would be very difficult for the next government to get its financial house in order, given the level of bankruptcy in which they left the Government of Canada.
The Liberals brag about what they have done in terms of managing the economy. However, most Canadians know that the deficit has been eliminated. That is fine. We know how that was done and we will not argue the point today. We will give them credit for that. Obviously they did it because of the growth in the economy, because of free trade and because of the revenues flowing in from the GST.
What the Liberals do not talk about is the accumulated debt in the country, which is still approaching about $500 billion. In terms of interest charges, that is costing Canada today, as we speak. Every time we pay interest on that $500 billion accumulated debt, which we still are, it costs every Canadian.
This is one of the lines that our finance critic came up with and it is quite clever. I know the Liberals hate to hear this, because he is much more clever than they are. He says, “The Conservative Party will clean up government, but the Liberals want to clean out government”.
That goes right back to the same old philosophy of the 1980s: “Spend it because we're in power. Forget about the future of Canada, forget about what we could be doing with that money”. This is absolutely irresponsible spending at the hands of the Liberals. They simply do not deserve to be re-elected when an election takes place. This is simply a lifeline that they are throwing out in order to survive votes in the House of Commons. They basically bought the NDP. They bought 19 members of Parliament to the tune of $4.5 billion on a plan that was written on the back of a napkin, courtesy of Buzz Hargrove, in a hotel room in downtown Toronto. That is just about as sad as it could possibly get.
(1330)
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, first I want to acknowledge my colleague from New Brunswick. Usually he and I are a little closer on agreement on some issues, but today I cannot help but question him as to how he can somehow answer to Canadians that he supported $4.6 billion in corporate tax cuts. Was that not spending or giving up taxpayer dollars? The NDP said that it wanted services back for all Canadians, not for the Conservatives' friends through corporate tax cuts.
My colleague talked about the heights of money. He had it as being 9,000 metres and he went on indepth as to how high the money would stack. Totally relevant to that comment, I have to ask him this. If the princess was on top of the money, would she have felt the pea?
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, it is doubtful that she would have. That is a lot of cash.
When the member talks about tax breaks for businesses and ordinary Canadians, I guess that is where we Conservatives part with the NDP. The fact is it is businesses and individual Canadians that pay the bills around this place. We are talking about are tax breaks to companies, big and small, and individuals to help grow the Canadian economy. We believe growing the Canadian economy and spending responsibility is something the NDP simply does not understand.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Lévesque (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have been hearing speeches about Bill C-48 ever since this morning. Not long ago, we were debating Bill C-43. Even before Bill C-43 was introduced, numerous meetings were held among the various party leaders and the various finance critics.
I understand very well, although the ordinary taxpayer does not, why this government felt obliged, after all the time it had before tabling its budget, to hold these panicked negotiations with another party when it did bring in the budget and began to feel the impending threat of defeat. The NDP negotiated this agreement, partly because it too needed to avoid an election, not being able to afford another campaign, but also to build up its credibility. The bulk of its financial backing comes from the labour movement, and the workers have been totally neglected. There is not one red cent in it for the unemployed.
I have a question for the hon. member from New Brunswick whose riding is close to the Quebec border. He might in fact find it advantageous to look toward Quebec. My question: apart from the measures in favour of the oil and gas industry and the automotive industry, what else is there in Bill C-48 that is worthwhile?
(1335)
[English]
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, there are lots of good things in Bill C-48, provided the government can afford it. One thing one has to remember in this place is that people very seldom argue with spending money on particular programs. There are always a lot of self-interest groups. I guess we are part of them because a lot of that money will be spent in areas we like.
It comes down to corrupting the process of budget making in the House. Remember, we supported the original budget, Bill C-43, brought in by the finance minister. We believe in a minority government we have to do the best we can, put a little water in our wine and hope we can allow the government, which is about a year old, to proceed and not defeat it.
That goodwill was thrown out the window when the whole process was corrupted. After the finance minister delivered his budget, the Prime Minister flew to Toronto three or four weeks later. He made a side deal with the NDP to the tune of $4.5 billion and the finance minister was left completely out of the loop. In most cases like this a finance minister, with any backbone or integrity, would have simply resigned because the entire process was corrupted. That is the point I am attempting to make.
Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join the debate. If I may, I would like to pick up where the previous speaker left off, although obviously I will go in a different direction, because it takes me straight into most of my points.
I find it fascinating that the previous speaker and the Bloc and Conservative members who have spoken, the Conservatives in particular, have focused on this issue that the NDP really had no moral right, and these are my words, to join in this agreement to create a better balanced budget because the Liberals are too corrupt. I think I have the argument correct, do I not?
There is a problem I have with that. There are a lot of problems with that, but one is the very amendments that the Conservative Party has tabled today, and the very first one, Motion No. 1, their own amendment. Does it say that this is too corrupt a deal and a process and that therefore the bill should be killed? No. Does the amendment say it ought to be pushed back so that it has the de facto effect of killing the bill? Is it that kind of parliamentary manoeuvre? No.
All it does is say this: instead of there having to be a guaranteed $2 billion surplus as a trigger before the $4.5 billion gets spent, it moves that line from a $2 billion trigger to a $3.5 billion trigger.
I thought your argument was that the whole thing is--
The Deputy Speaker: I would just remind the hon. member to direct his comments to the Chair. We would appreciate that for the debate.
Mr. David Christopherson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Some of us are slow learners. I apologize again, Sir.
The argument from the Conservatives is that the whole thing is too corrupt in terms of content, process, relationship and Gomery, and therefore under no condition should the NDP have joined in any kind of deal, yet here they are moving an amendment that amends it. It does not get rid of it. It does not kill it. It just amends it. The official opposition's arguments are specious.
My colleague has just finished pointing out that the Conservatives were in favour of a $4.6 billion corporate tax cut, which, by the way, nobody had a mandate to bring in and nobody was lobbying for except the Conservatives. That expenditure was contained in Bill C-43, the original Liberal budget. Not only did the Conservatives support that $4.6 billion, which, by the way--
(1340)
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think we need to have some clarification here. The member is talking about an amendment to a bill, and he is absolutely correct on that, but I just want to remind him that the amendment was placed to make a bad bill better.
The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. I thank the hon. member for his point, such as it was, but it was not a point of order.
Mr. David Christopherson: Mr. Speaker, I think they just do not care to hear these messages today and one way to kill time is to raise points of order that are not really points of order.
The fact of the matter is that the Conservatives were quite prepared to support, in the original Liberal budget, $4.6 billion being spent. Tax cuts are expenditures. They are no different from program spending. Whether we are spending the money we receive on programs and services or whether we deny ourselves that revenue, it has the same impact on the budget and it is still called an expenditure.
The Conservatives were quite prepared to accept that, but not the $4.6 billion that is going to help ordinary Canadians in the things that matter to their lives and to their families, things for which they are looking to this House to provide some remedy.
There are tens of thousands of young people who are going to be affected by the fact that the NDP better balanced budget will make sure that we provide direct assistance to students who are facing enormous debt loads. We know that they are the future of this country. And since the Conservatives are so concerned about the economy, let me say that the young people of Canada are also the future engine of economic activity.
You thought, the Conservatives thought, it was more important to--
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. How many times does he have to be corrected on parliamentary procedure? Surely this member can learn sooner or later.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is correcting himself, but I would urge him, of course, to speak in the third person or direct his comments to the Chair. That way, we will not have these points of order.
Mr. David Christopherson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I accept the criticism. I am doing my best.
Let me go on to talk about the Conservatives. I want to have fun with them because their arguments are the most ridiculous. The Conservatives have made the argument that it is fiscally imprudent for the NDP better balanced budget to pass.
Yet, as has already been said on the floor of the House today, and it bears repeating, on June 13 at the finance committee meeting, the Comptroller General of Canada made the point that the appropriations bill, as it is formed, meaning the wording that is in it, is enabling legislation and is just like every other piece of budget legislation that has come into this place, whether it was a Liberal budget or a Conservative budget. Get off that point, I say to the Conservatives. They need better arguments.
The Comptroller General also said this was fiscally prudent because it guaranteed that there had to be $2 billion in surplus before the $4.6 billion is triggered. That was deemed to be fiscally prudent by the Comptroller General of Canada.
Let us make no mistake about it. When the leader of the federal New Democratic Party entered into these negotiations, yes, the expenditures were without a doubt foremost on our minds. Sure, we were led by our heart, no question about it, but the leader of the New Democratic Party also made sure that there were no tax increases, that the tax cuts for small and medium sized business remained, because we do support that concept, and that there would still be paydown on the debt.
An hon. member: And the budget would be balanced.
Mr. David Christopherson: And the budget would balance. I thank my colleague for that point.
This was the foundation that the leader of the New Democratic Party had when he walked in and began negotiations with the Prime Minister of Canada. I think that is what is driving those members crazy, especially the Conservatives.
They cannot argue with where the money is going, because I have to assume that their cities, like my hometown of Hamilton, need the money. The young people in Hamilton need the help. Our transit system needs the help. We need the investment in municipal infrastructure in Hamilton. We need the environmental protection. Do I need to make the point?
I have to assume that every community represented by the Conservatives will benefit. We do not hear them attacking what the money will be spent on because they dare not. It is supported by the Canadian people and for good reason. These are good investments. They are sound investments.
What we are left with is a Conservative Party that is trying to play games around procedure. It is saying that this is fiscally imprudent and that the bill is only a page and a half long. These are very silly arguments that can be knocked down in a blink.
I hear rumours that the Conservatives are planning to put up 90 speakers. They had better get their researchers working quickly because the Conservatives do not seem to be comfortable attacking money invested in homelessness. They do not seem to be interested in attacking money being invested in bringing down poverty in the rest of the world. The Conservatives are concerned about big business. The NDP is concerned about poverty around the world. We have an obligation to care about that.
The Conservatives are left trying to argue procedure and wordsmithing. That will go nowhere. The best thing they could do is shut down this debate, get off what is an embarrassing subject for them and let us get on with--
(1345)
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Essex.
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the NDP has said that it supports a national system of child care and early learning. I think it is interesting that Buzz Hargrove of the CAW, a major proponent of this, authored Bill C-48, along with the leader of the NDP and that group over here. They left child care out of the agreement.
The CAW's estimate for a national system of child care is $10 billion to $12 billion a year. This is important, because the members were talking about fiscal forecasts, how many surpluses are still ahead of us and how big these surpluses will be. This national system of child care would produce a $10 billion a year funding black hole.
Bill C-48 is going to eat some of these surpluses beyond $2 billion or, if our amendment is successful, $3.5 billion. That means less money available for national child care and early learning.
I have a question for the NDP and my colleague opposite. Are they giving up on national child care to get Bill C-48? Or do they want the high taxes, program cuts or deficit spending that will be necessary to pay for child care? Which principle are they giving up, fiscal prudence or child care?
Mr. David Christopherson: Mr. Speaker, this is interesting, because the Conservatives do not support either. The fact of the matter is that if we look at what happened in this place and to the finances of the country under Brian Mulroney, they should blush at the memory of it.
In terms of child care, we know that the Conservatives do not really want to have a universal child care system across Canada. They prefer their own little way of going on, where the more money one has, the more services one can have, and one can also pay less tax. That is why there is not enough money to provide a universal program that everybody can access.
Listen, I say, the fact of the matter is that once again the Conservatives do not have the guts to stand up and attack where the money is being spent.
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member equates spending increases with tax cuts. It seems that the most fundamental thing about the NDP is that it knows full well how to spend money, but it does not seem to understand how it is generated.
It comes down to a simple word called competition. Business creates jobs. Jobs mean employment. Employment means that people can pay taxes. We are falling behind. Canada's productivity is down. This week the finance minister sounded the alarm on Canada's lagging productivity. He was speaking in Halifax. Business groups and economists are saying:
|
--the Liberal government's spending promises made in anticipation of a spring election, coupled with a $4.6 billion NDP budget deal, leave it with little or no financial room to focus on productivity enhancing initiatives. |
The head of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce said:
|
We wished he had converted prior to agreeing to spend $4.6-billion as part of the NDP deal...and placed the country in a straightjacket. |
Canada's productivity is falling behind. We are 18th out of 24 industrial countries. If we continue this spending spree, we will not have the jobs to generate the income for the programs we would like to see advanced. What is it about this that the NDP member fails to understand?
(1350)
Mr. David Christopherson: Mr. Speaker, not a word do we not understand. The fact of the matter is that the leader of the federal New Democratic Party entered into negotiations with the Prime Minister of Canada and said that we want the $4.6 billion corporate tax cut rolled back so we can make investments in the lives of Canadians in a way that will improve their quality of life.
An hon. member: You missed the point.
Mr. David Christopherson: If the member would stop heckling, I would answer the point.
The answer is that we made sure the cuts that we agreed are legitimate economic investments stayed, and that means the cuts for small and medium sized business, not the Stronachs of the world, not the other billionaires in Canada or large corporations. Small and medium sized businesses are the ones who need the tax cuts and that is why we supported this aspect staying in the original bill.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the second half of the Liberal budget bill, Bill C-48, that the NDP and the Liberals put together in the dark of night in a hotel room to save the government basically. It is not outside the realm that this is basically an IOU. There are only 19 people in the country who believe that IOU will ever be fulfilled and they sit at that end of the chamber. For $260 million a vote, the government bought a little more time. That is really what Bill C-48 does.
The finance minister of the day had made statements in the media. When we questioned the original budget and said we would support it but wanted to see some amendments done in committee, and we talked about some of those amendment, the finance minister went on record at that time with a bit of a rant saying that there was no room for any amendments. This was the most complete budget. He was not going to change a thing. Nothing was going to persuade him to change or tweak anything in the budget. He is on record saying that a number of times.
Not long after that we suddenly get an edict from the Prime Minister, without consultations with his finance minister, saying that the Liberals were going to add another $4.5 million worth of spending in programs that they already agreed with. They did not put them in the original budget but they certainly agreed with them.
There is a problem with that. If that type of thing had happened to the now Prime Minister when he was Chrétien's finance minister, he would have gone berserk. He cut the legs out from underneath his finance minister. The finance minister of the day will tell us straight to our faces that he has not got legs to spare. He is already height impaired. To cut the legs out from underneath him like the Prime Minister did to buy votes is just unconscionable in this country. That is $260 million a vote.
Canadians will assess before the next election and during the next election as to whether that was a good use of taxpayers' money. I would argue that it was not and not anywhere close.
This is a modern day fairytale. I do not know how many years ago the old fairytale of Jack and the Beanstalk came out. The bumbling guy, Jack, on his way to town traded off the family cow, the cash cow, for a few magic beans. We have the same situation here. We have Jack bumbling on his way to Ottawa, trading off the cash cow, taxation, on a few magic beans, some promises that will never ever be fulfilled. It is an IOU, as I said.
If we want to talk about the Prime Minister standing behind his IOUs, then we want to talk to Premier Danny Williams. We want to talk to Premier Hamm of Nova Scotia and find out how that Prime Minister lived up to his IOUs. We can also talk to Premier McGuinty in Ontario as to how the Prime Minister and his finance minister are standing up to their IOUs. We can talk to any province across the country that had their health and social transfers cut by $25 billion. We can ask them how the Prime Minister then finance minister stood up to their IOUs. They will all tell us that their track record stinks.
Now we have more IOUs piled up. We have 19 people here who believe this. They swallowed it hook, line and sinker and it does smell fishy. When we look at all of the things that are outlined in the bill, they are holding the so-called corporate tax cuts for big business in abeyance. They did not kick in for four to five years to begin with. We needed the cash flow from that in order to pay this type of wishful thinking, this budget that is never going to happen.
The NDP members love to rant and rave about how they stopped the tax cuts for big business. Yet we had the leader of the NDP stand in the House last week decrying the fact that General Motors, one of these big businesses, is going to pull out of Canada because of productivity. It cannot make a go of it here because the regulations and taxation are too high. Yet his own budget is the thin edge of the wedge that is pushing big companies like that out of the country.
We cannot have it both ways. When we flip a coin there are two sides. The NDP members say it is going to land on its edge and they can have the best of both. It is never going to happen.
The NDP members say that these promises that are in the bill cover everything on the NDP wish list. They completely missed agriculture. They talk about being there for the little guy. There is absolutely nothing in the Liberal-NDP budget to address agriculture.
We talked about putting amendments through on Bill C-43 to address the shortfall in agriculture. The government programs do not hit the mark and do not get out to the mailboxes on the farm. Therefore the NDP missed on that one.
(1355)
There is nothing for shipbuilding. Members of the NDP stand here day after day decrying shipbuilding in this country while the Prime Minister gets his done in China at discount rates, yet there is nothing in here about shipbuilding. There is nothing for seniors. There is nothing in here addressing the problems we have with the equalization formula.
It is fine that the NDP made this backdoor deal in the dark of night with Buzz Hargrove and the Prime Minister, but it missed the mark. The NDP could have built on Bill C-43 and instead it is going to tear it down. The good news is that we put through an amendment that $2 billion of the debt has to be addressed in the next two fiscal years before any of this takes place. That is the poison pill, and by putting through our amendment to make it $3.5 billion, this will thankfully never happen.
We need to see some common sense applied in this place and it is not in this particular budget. We sat fast and allowed Bill C-43 to go to committee. That is the right thing to do. Canadians had to see what was in there. We talked about amendments. We brought it back to the House. It is better than it was. It is still not good enough for Canadians because we also see the finance minister agreeing with us that Canadian productivity is lagging.
How do we address that? We do that by taking the boot off the necks of taxpayers, letting them do what they do best, and produce things in this country that we can export. We are an exporting nation. This bill will be regressive. I could never sit on my hands or not vote against this type of a bill.
There is good money going after bad. The government talks about money for housing. Everybody agrees with that, but we spent $2.2 billion in the last little while with no benchmarks that there has ever been any positive effect. We are going to add another $1.6 billion. I can hear the toilet flush now. There has to be a plan.
The finance committee brought four of the ministers who will be involved in this before the committee. None of them could say how this money will be spent. Where is the plan? There is nothing in the original budget other than a big bill for the environment, but no solid plan other than the Kyoto accord which everybody knows is a flawed document.
We are seeing good money flushed after bad in this one. Jack got the magic beans, but they are not going to grow. As I said, it is just a major IOU. We have economist after economist and all the major banks decrying this. We have the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, that represents big, medium and small sized businesses, saying this is ridiculous.
We have become a laughing stock to the rest of the world because of this type of economic action. If any of this was reasonably good to begin with, why was it not in the original budget? Greg Weston in the Ottawa Citizen says:
|
In practice, here is how the money will flow -- or more likely, won't flow: First, nothing can flow anywhere until the government determines if it has a surplus-- |
The government is great at spending that surplus, so there is no surplus. There never will be any money to address this and these guys fell for it. They sucked it all up and said, “Look what we did”. They sold themselves out for an ideal that the government will never ever respond to.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will have another couple of minutes after question period to complete his speech.
Statements by Members
[S. O. 31]
* * *
(1400)
[Translation]
Bastille Day
Mr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on July 14, France and its friends around the world will celebrate Bastille Day.
As the president of the Association des amis de la France au Canada, I am pleased to invite all the members of this House to join me in celebrating this important day.
On July 14, 1789, the people of France marked the start of a new period of change in France and the dissemination of new ideas around the world, such as equality, liberty and fraternity, along with new ideas on governance, which are still valid today.
Let us join France and the world as a whole and celebrate Bastille Day 2005.
* * *
[English]
Transportation
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC): Mr. Speaker, after almost 12 years of Liberal government, the results on transportation policy for British Columbia are clear. The Liberals have failed. By contrast, a Conservative government will deliver real solutions for B.C.
A Conservative government will work to eliminate, not just raise, the borrowing limits imposed on the port of Vancouver, so it can continue to serve as a pillar of B.C.'s economy. We will ensure that all of B.C.'s harbours are safe and well maintained, and we will put gas taxes into roads to ease congestion, fight smog and build the communities we need.
We will cut airport rents and the air security tax to help Vancouver International Airport grow. We will eliminate needless regulations on B.C.'s smaller airports so they can serve British Columbians.
A Conservative government will help ensure that the 2010 Olympics are a success by supporting all necessary infrastructure demands. We will work with Fraser and Delta Ports to protect communities all along the Fraser River from flood danger by addressing the dredging issue. A Conservative government will work to expand commuter rail into Vancouver.
Our agenda is clear. A new Conservative government will deliver on transportation for British Columbia.
* * *
[Translation]
Education
Ms. Denise Poirier-Rivard (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, BQ): Mr. Speaker, all too often, unfortunately, we hear that many of our young people are not finishing high school. Dropping out is a social issue as well as an educational one.
Well, in Saint-Constant, in my riding, there is a school called “Le Tournant“. As its name suggests, it marks a turning point for young dropouts between 14 and 18 and is devoted to them alone.
On May 30, several hundred people were invited to a gala organized by and for the students to mark their efforts and to showcase their many talents. It provided an excellent opportunity to show that success, although not always easily achieved, in the end rewards those who go after it. This is all the more true when it applies to young people, the future of our society.
I congratulate the school's principal, Lucie Legault, and her hard-working staff, who have given back to our youth a belief in their abilities and their future.
* * *
[English]
Aboriginal Youth Suicide Prevention
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House the national aboriginal youth suicide prevention walk. Six young people are making this trek and they are set to officially walk into Ottawa on Friday, June 17. These dynamic young adults have walked from Duncan, British Columbia, giving presentations, taking part in lobbying, and in general, bringing to the forefront the alarming numbers of youth suicides in our aboriginal communities.
I would like to applaud these young people for their determination in completing this walk while achieving public awareness. They would like as many people as possible to join them in their final stretch of the walk from Victoria Island to Parliament Hill beginning on Friday at 11 a.m on Victoria Island. I invite everyone to join them on the last leg of a long coast to coast journey.
* * *
Diabetes
Mrs. Susan Kadis (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last Sunday marked York region's fourth annual walk to cure diabetes. Similar walks took place in 28 other cities across Canada. All funds raised will go directly to the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation toward finding a cure for diabetes.
This year York region's walk alone included 1,000 participants and hoped to reach a fundraising goal of $275,000. The event was organized by Lynn Conforti, chaired by police chief Armand La Barge, Harvey Kessenberg, Brian Johnson of Monarch Development and youth ambassador, four year old Coner Doherty.
Coner is one of 200,000 kids currently living with juvenile diabetes in Canada. Diabetes strikes infants, children and young adults suddenly, makes them insulin dependent for life, and carries the constant threat of devastating complications.
Events like this raise money to help find a cure and give great hope to the thousands of children and their families that have to live with diabetes every day. We are making breakthroughs, but we must continue to fight vigorously and never give up until we find a cure for our children, our future.
* * *
Turnaround Achievement Awards
Mr. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate students from Quispamsis, Kingston Peninsula, Hampton, Belleisle and Sussex, who are the recipients of the Turnaround Achievement Awards.
The Turnaround Achievement Award program recognizes students in grades 6 through 12 who have demonstrated exceptional commitment and perseverance in turning around their lives. This program is founded on the principle that rewarding students for their hard work and celebrating their success is an essential part of building self-esteem.
Last month I was honoured to join these remarkable students, their parents and teachers from school district 6 in celebration of these achievements at the official awards ceremony.
This is the time of year when we recognize the accomplishments of high school, college and university graduates at graduation ceremonies across Canada.
I would like to take this opportunity to extend my congratulations to all secondary and post-secondary students graduating this spring in my riding of Fundy Royal. I thank them for the contributions they have made to their communities and the contributions they will make in the future.
* * *
(1405)
[Translation]
Pay Equity
Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to salute the commitment my government has made to equity in the workplace.
As a matter of fact, it was a Liberal government that created the pay equity task force in 2000, and we are determined to implement its recommendations and make the legislative reforms needed.
The Liberal government has provided constant support through concrete initiatives, such as the employment equity embracing change support fund, in order to help federal departments meet their equity objectives.
I want to remind the House that the Leader of the Opposition asked the government to repeal what he referred to as this ridiculous pay equity legislation and said that taxpayers are being misled about pay equity, which he felt had nothing to do with gender equality.
My government is proud to have continually worked for pay equity in Canada, since the Liberals came to power in 1993.
* * *
Canadian Cancer Society
Ms. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a Relay for Life was held on June 3 in the riding of Vaudreuil-Soulanges to raise money for the Canadian Cancer Society.
Over 700 walkers and more than 250 survivors of this terrible disease were in attendance. Together, they raised over $151,000. I thank the many donors, who doubled their contribution to this cause this year.
These funds will help finance promising research projects, provide information services and support programs, advocate for public policies to prevent cancer and improve the quality of life of those affected by this disease.
I thank everyone for their generosity and attendance. I had a lot of fun spending the night with them.
I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate the organizers on their resounding success.
* * *
[English]
Conservative Party Youth Caucus
Ms. Ruby Dhalla (Brampton—Springdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in March of this year, the Conservative Party, led by members of the Conservative caucus, rejected a youth wing for the party but today they announced a club for their own self-styled youthful caucus.
Did those caucus members feel threatened? Did they feel that the Reform-Alliance takeover--
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Brampton—Springdale has the floor.
Ms. Ruby Dhalla: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party caucus members certainly were not cheering last month at their convention.
Many of the Conservative members felt that the Reform-Alliance takeover of the Progressive Conservative Party would be exposed by the Progressive Conservative youth wing and yet they have actually formed a caucus.
It is quite interesting that the Conservative Party voted against the youth wing at its previous convention. One former member of the Progressive Conservative Party youth wing actually said the following:
|
I'm not sure what they were thinking... It makes no sense philosophically or strategically...Every party in the western world has a youth wing--every mainstream party...We should be encouraging young people to get involved. |
This was said by a Progressive Conservative Party member and I could not say it better myself.
* * *
World Scout Jamboree
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in 1955, over 11,000 scouts from 71 countries gathered in Niagara-on-the-Lake for the eighth World Scout Jamboree. It was the first major international gathering of scouts outside of Europe. In September we will welcome them back to Niagara for the 50th anniversary of this historic event.
In 1955, the local scout lodge stood on the present site of the Shaw Festival Theatre and Parliament Oak School was turned into a hospital by the Department of National Defence. Seventy-five hundred tents were set up on the commons in the old town. Governor General Vincent Massey opened the festivities and Lady Baden Powell addressed the assembled gathering.
It was a historic gathering that was commemorated by a Canadian stamp to mark the occasion. There was one uninvited guest. Hurricane Connie passed through five days before the event and created major havoc. In typical Canadian fashion, volunteers showed up in great numbers to restore the site, so many, in fact, that some had to be turned away.
Everyone wishes the organizers of this year's special anniversary tremendous success, and no hurricane.
* * *
(1410)
[Translation]
Magog Region
Hon. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Magog region has been experiencing a serious employment crisis for the past year. After the textile crisis, the recent job losses at SaarGummi and now the closure of Olymel have added to the bad news for workers.
I wish all my fellow citizens affected by these closures to know we have not yet said our last word on this. An industrial revitalization committee has been set up to seek solutions. All of us are working very hard to keep jobs in the Magog region and to see new ones created.
I must also thank a number of my colleagues who have supported us in this. Moreover, tomorrow the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec will be in Magog to make an important announcement, and we will be meeting community stakeholders to discuss the economic situation in the region. All levels of government must work in close cooperation on this.
Solidarity is needed now more than ever.
* * *
Wind Energy
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last week the leader of the NDP urged the federal government not to invest in refurbishing New Brunswick's Point Lepreau nuclear power plant. The federal government is prepared to invest $200 million in this initiative, the total cost of which will be $1.4 billion.
The NDP is opposed to this investment, and feels that the focus ought to be on green energy instead, such as wind power, which better reflects the objectives of the Kyoto protocol.
Northeastern New Brunswick has a lot to offer, and would be an idea location for the development of wind energy. In fact, promoters in the Lamèque region have begun a project to develop a wind farm.
Another wind energy development project is being considered in the Clifton region.
This industry might create several hundred jobs in Acadie—Bathurst, as well as the Bay of Fundy area.
The NDP is environmentally sensitive and well aware of how vulnerable the environment is. This is why we are calling upon the federal government to apply the Kyoto protocol and to invest in green projects which will create sustainable employment.
* * *
[English]
Kingsclear Reformatory
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, over 30 years ago, one of Canada's most horrific examples of mass pedophilia took place at Kingsclear Reformatory in New Brunswick. Hundreds of boys were systematically abused by over a dozen pedophiles inside and outside the walls of this insidious institution.
Finally, after years of protestations, the RCMP complaints division is mounting an extensive investigation, the largest in the force's history, larger even than the famous APEC inquiry.
However this past week the New Brunswick government reportedly refused to turn over important information on the Kingsclear case, once again dashing the hopes for justice.
I encourage all to embrace and wholeheartedly assist the investigation. A full and transparent investigation, leaving no bulging carpet unturned, no trail not followed, no lead not investigated, will finally bring blessed closure for the victims, the RCMP and the good people of New Brunswick.
* * *
[Translation]
Debt Forgiveness
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last Saturday in London, the ministers of finance of the G-8 countries reached a historic agreement. This agreement forgives the national debt of 18 developing countries, most of which are in Africa, and proposes to do the same in the near future for 20 other nations, under certain conditions.
The Bloc Québécois welcomes this first step, but, aware of the growing disparity between rich countries and poor countries, again calls on the government to increase its humanitarian aid to developing countries, with no further delay, in order to reach 0.7% of GDP by 2015.
If this government is as outraged by poverty, child poverty in particular, as it claims to be, then maybe it should prove it and put an end to Canada's dubious distinction of being one of the least generous of the world's richest countries.
* * *
[English]
Conservative Party Youth Caucus
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to announce that today the Conservative Party of Canada officially launched the young Conservative caucus, a group of 20 Conservative MPs aged 40 and under.
Our party is young and energetic, led by the youngest leader in the House. We have the youngest caucus in the House of Commons today and one of the youngest in recent history, with over 20% of our members aged 40 and under.
We have almost as many young members sitting in the House of Commons today as all the other three parties combined. We have the three youngest parliamentarians.
Our party has been extremely successful in bringing young MPs to the House of Commons. We want to build on that success by encouraging young Canadians to be involved in politics.
This caucus will provide a forum for our party to communicate with young Canadians facing a heavy tax burden, mortgage payments, student debt, child care challenges and environmental concerns.
The young Conservative caucus is a diverse and influential group that will help shape the policy and priorities of the Conservative Party of Canada and our country for years to come.
* * *
(1415)
Devils Lake Water Diversion
Hon. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today's news that Canada has won an agreement to delay diverting water away from Devils Lake while negotiations are ongoing is very significant.
I would like to thank the Prime Minister for consistently raising this issue with President Bush.
Hopefully, this delay finally signals North Dakota's acknowledgement of the serious environmental and political ramifications of such a project.
To divert these waters into Manitoba's rivers and lakes risks setting a precedent that would compromise the integrity of our longstanding boundary agreements with the United States.
[Translation]
I want to encourage all the hon. members of this House to join me and my Liberal colleagues, and a growing number of voices on both sides of the border, in calling on North Dakota to respect the Boundary Waters Treaty and to agree to a joint reference to the International Joint Commission.
We want to preserve water quality in the rivers and lakes of Manitoba while maintaining good relations with the United States for future generations.
* * *
Logilys
Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the entire staff of the firm of Logilys in Victoriaville, which was recently recognized for the quality of the French in its ProDoc software at the Gala de la Francofête.
It was cited in the category of information technology, application and software for small and medium organizations.
Logilys, whose president is Pierre Brochu, is an example of the importance of developing regional economic diversification. It is a computer company with acknowledged expertise in consultation, analysis and the development of specialty applications.
It serves manufacturers, engineering consulting firms, companies providing rental services for facilities, halls and sports fields, and charitable organizations.
The Bloc congratulates the entire Logilys team on its work and its concern for the quality of the French language in an ever changing field.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[English]
National Security
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, for some time there has been growing evidence of a large spy network being operated in Canada by the Chinese government. Today the former head of the CSIS Asia desk confirmed reports from defectors that close to a thousand Chinese government agent spies had infiltrated Canada.
The Prime Minister has been evading answering this. I want to ask him very directly. Did the Prime Minister explicitly raise this violation of our sovereignty when he met with leading Chinese government officials in Beijing earlier this year?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I dealt extensively with Canada's interests. I dealt extensively with Canada's sovereignty and the need to respect state sovereignty between countries.
It is also well known that Canada maintains a vigorous counter-intelligence program to safeguard Canada's security. It is also very clear, and Canadians can rest assured, that we maintain a very strong law enforcement and security system that will enable them to be assured of their own protection and security.
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, judging from that answer, the Prime Minister did not explicitly raise this issue. Not only does a foreign spy network undermine our security, it is in this case damaging our economic interests.
Today the former head of the CSIS Asia desk has said that the Chinese government is engaged in industrial espionage that costs our economy $1 billion a month.
Would the Prime Minister tell us whether he or anyone in his government has ever issued a formal protest of any kind for this type of activity in Canada by the Chinese government?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we always take all these allegations very seriously. Clearly, we enjoy a very constructive dialogue with China. We work with the Chinese. We expect from them respect for our sovereignty. When they are here, they are meant to respect our Canadian laws.
When things are brought to our attention, we refer them to the appropriate authorities in our country.
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, those are non-answers to a serious question of security and national sovereignty. We should be getting answers and they should be coming from the leader of the country.
It is a matter of public record that a foreign government is spying on the activities of Canadian citizens and engaging in industrial espionage. Would the Prime Minister tell us whether his government plans to do anything at all about this in the future?
(1420)
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me be absolutely clear, as I was yesterday. CSIS and the RCMP are engaged in an ongoing basis in ensuring that the collective security and economic interests of our country are protected.
I have said before that I will not discuss operational detail. I can reassure the hon. member that CSIS and the RCMP do everything that is necessary and required, based on the circumstances of any given situation, to protect the collective security of Canadians.
* * *
Border Security
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is appalling that the Prime Minister will not get up and answer a question about this file.
Yesterday the Senate committee issued a scathing report about the Liberal government's inaction on securing key border crossings. Among the problems, border crossings remain vulnerable because of the lack of pre-clearance or reverse inspections. It will be six years after the signing of the smart borders declaration before a pilot project on pre-clearances will begin, let alone be completed.
The report says:
|
At that pace today’s children will have grey hair before reverse inspection is the norm across the country. |
When will the government introduce an implementation plan for pre-clearances at the border crossings as--
The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government is very serious about security, which is why we have been working so closely with our American neighbours to ensure that we identify low risk goods and low risk people so they can cross the border in an unimpeded fashion.
The hon. member talks about getting serious about security. We have spent $9.5 billion since September 11, 2001. Another $433 million has been committed in the last budget to ensure the CBSA has the resources to do the job at our borders.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the all party Senate committee, including Liberal senators, said that the government was not serious about security. In fact, they say that security is failing.
Over 1,600 vehicles ran the border last year. RCMP detachments are being closed. In most cases police officers cannot respond in a timely manner to border calls because they are either not there or they are not close enough.
Our border officials have bullet proof vests, but they do not have sidearms to stop dangerous travellers. The Senate committee said they should.
When is the safety of our border officials going to come first? Why have firearms and the appropriate training not been made available to our front line security officers in our country?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, let us go back to the whole question of running the border. I wonder if the hon. member knows how many border crossings there are every year between Canada and the United States. There are 71 million and all but a handful are legal crossings where either the American customs people or our customs people are interacting with those individuals.
In relation to the question of firearms, this is an issue of long-standing debate. I certainly understand the demands of the union in question. We have done numerous job hazard analyses and all those analyses have indicated that--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Laurier--Sainte--Marie.
* * *
[Translation]
Older Workers
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the program for older worker adjustment was eliminated in 1997, no permanent measure has been put in place since. However, on June 14, a Bloc Québécois motion calling for the creation of an income support program for older workers passed unanimously in the House. The Prime Minister has another chance to help older workers.
Will he finally walk the talk and create an income support program for these workers?
[English]
Hon. Belinda Stronach (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we were very happy to agree with the need to have a strategy in place for an older worker program. We recognize we must help older workers, not only to upgrade their skills to stay in the workforce, but we must work together to monitor the pilot programs that are in place. We will take those evaluations into consideration when making our strategy.
We do recognize the need to have an older worker strategy in place and I am doing so.
(1425)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister may be happy, but I would like older workers to be happy too.
Instead of talking vaguely about the need for a strategy, can she say what real action will be taken? Will the government proceed and create a permanent income support program for older workers, not pilot projects, for those unable to upgrade their skills and stay in the workforce? That is what workers want. They are not all millionaires.
[English]
Hon. Belinda Stronach (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we invested $50 million five years ago in pilot programs. We have extended those programs for a year because we do take this seriously. We understand the need to invest and create programs so older workers can develop their skills to stay in the workforce.
We used to have programs that enabled workers to retire. These programs are there to enable those workers who wish to continue to work to do so. We are studying them. We will take the evaluations into consideration and ensure we adopt, adapt and make the right program for older workers.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Lessard (Chambly—Borduas, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what is important is that the existing measures to help older workers have been seriously lacking since this government cut the former assistance program, POWA. The needs of some categories of workers are urgent.
How can the government refuse to re-establish a benefits program that would allow workers aged 57 or 58, for example, who have worked their entire lives for a company that is closing, to get by from the time they are laid off until they get their pension? In my opinion, this is a matter of social justice.
[English]
Hon. Belinda Stronach (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say again that we understand the need to help older workers, not only to stay in the workforce, but to ensure that we evaluate these pilot programs properly. We have extended the pilot programs. We take them seriously. We will take the outcomes of those pilot programs into consideration when we develop our strategy in tandem with the provinces.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Lessard (Chambly—Borduas, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister must distinguish between an adjustment program and an assistance program.
The government has raided the EI fund to the tune of $47 billion. But coming to the assistance of workers who are victims of a plant closure would only be fair and compassionate.
Why is the government, which itself cut the former POWA, refusing to put in place a new income support program for older workers unable to find work, so they could survive once their EI runs out until their pension begins?
[English]
Hon. Belinda Stronach (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the current programming we are looking at will enable workers to develop their skills to stay in the workforce, not just to retire. There is temporary income support through EI, but we are also looking at active measures that will teach workers to develop and improve their skills with technology. We are working together with the provinces to ensure we develop the right programs to enable workers to stay in the workforce longer, if they choose, to have economic freedom and the choice to do so.
* * *
Health
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. One week ago the Supreme Court delivered its ruling on our health care system and it was a wake up call to protect and to improve public medicare.
Rhetoric will not cut it. We have had 12 years of that and the Supreme Court essentially has said it does not work. The health care accord signed last fall will not cut it either because it does not mention privatization, not a word.
We need a plan. The country is waiting for it. Where is the Prime Minister's response to the Supreme Court ruling?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the very important federal-provincial conference, which led to the spending over a 10 year period of $41 billion, was in order to deal precisely with the issue with which the Supreme Court dealt. That is the issue of waiting times and the need to reduce waiting times, to increase the number of health care providers, to ensure the needed restructuring that will allow our hospitals to be more efficient and to set up a transition fund to focus on wait times.
We have dealt with all of that. It is now very important that it be put into place.
(1430)
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not address the point. It has to do with protecting public medicare and the non-profit delivery of our services. There was not a word about that in his answer.
The Prime Minister wants to talk about serious issues, yet we saw yesterday the tabling of The South Beach Diet for heaven's sake. I am sure the patients are still laughing.
Let us talk about tabling something. Will the Prime Minister table, by the end of the day, the minutes of the meetings that he has held in the past week on the Supreme Court decision so we know he is actually working on the issue and not just talking about it?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member does not seem to understand is eight months before the Supreme Court decision the federal government took the initiative to convene a federal-provincial conference to deal specifically with the issue of wait times.
The fact is we are working with the provinces. There have been extensive meetings, phone meetings and meetings of officials face to face across the country over the course of the last week, since the Supreme Court decision was handed down.
We take this very seriously. What is important to understand is what we are doing is strengthening the public--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.
* * *
Border Security
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my constituency borders the United States for 150 miles. The RCMP is closing five detachments along that border. The result is that 100 miles of the international border will be left unprotected.
Why is the government deliberately abandoning my constituents and Canadian border security?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the province, as the hon. member is probably aware, establishes the level of funding for provincial police services in the province.
In relation to the detachments in question, it is my understanding that the provincial government, the attorney general of the province of Saskatchewan, is in agreement with the approach being taken by the force.
These are matters that are left up to the force in discussion with the provincial government because they are in the province under a contract with the government of Saskatchewan
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this is not a provincial issue. It is happening all the way across Canada. This is a populated area of 5,000 square miles left without a single permanent RCMP officer or detachment. It will have 100 miles of unprotected border.
In the last two months the government has spent money like drunken sailors. The other night it just approved another $65 million for a useless gun registry.
With all that spending, why is there not enough money to provide my constituents with the same basic services that are granted to other Canadians?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I suggest the hon. member perhaps talk to the provincial government in Saskatchewan. These decisions, as it relates to the deployment within the province where they are policing under contract, are dealt with in conjunction and consultation with the provincial government.
The hon. member should probably talk to the government of Saskatchewan.
* * *
Transfer Payments
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Bank of Nova Scotia released a report arguing that the “financial arrangements between Ottawa and the provinces are in a mess and need a major overhaul”, and that the government needs to take a holistic approach to solving the issue of the fiscal imbalance.
The Conservative Party has long argued the need to reform the equalization formula and address the fiscal imbalance with a national vision. When will the Prime Minister finally admit that a fiscal imbalance exists and that his government's continuing denial of this serious problem is undermining the relationship among all orders of government?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact the decisions taken by the government over the last number of months have led to commitments that will see an incremental $100 billion transferred to support the provinces over the course of the next 10 years.
It is interesting that the report the hon. member refers to argues for increased tax cuts instead of transfers to the provinces. I wonder if the hon. member agrees with that.
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Nova Scotia report clearly states that the fiscal imbalance needs to be addressed for the good of our nation and the benefit of our provinces and our municipalities.
The Conservative Party of Canada is the only federal party that is listening to the provinces and municipalities and working toward solutions to rectify the fiscal imbalance. When will the Prime Minister admit that his approach to federalism is failing and is undermining the ability of provinces and municipalities to meet the needs of Canadians?
(1435)
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the premise behind the question is horse feathers. The fact of the matter is that the report the hon. member refers to argues for tax cuts instead of support for the provinces. I gather the hon. member agrees with that.
It also takes issue with detailed reporting requirements and targets for waiting times in health care. Do those members across the way also disagree with reporting requirements and targets for reducing waiting lists?
* * *
[Translation]
International Trade
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, currently, only companies are authorized to file complaints with the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to protect themselves from unfair competition. Unions are calling for this same right.
Does the Government of Canada realize that not only companies but also unions need the right to file complaints in order to defend jobs threatened by dumping or other unfair trade practices?
The Speaker: The hon. minister—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: The very popular and honourable Minister of International Trade obviously wants to respond.
[English]
Hon. Jim Peterson (Minister of International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if there are problems being caused in this country by unfair trade practices, we have our remedies under the NAFTA and we have our remedies under the WTO. We will work as we have in the past, such as with softwood lumber, in order to protect the rights and the jobs of our workers.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the world has changed and the Liberals are confused. It is the Minister of Finance who is responsible for the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. Clearly, trade legislation in Canada is outdated. These days, companies here often outsource part of their production.
Will the government admit that some companies sometimes refuse to file a complaint simply because it suits them not to and that the workers who do not have this right are left powerless to do anything in situations that may mean loss of jobs?
[English]
Hon. Joe Fontana (Minister of Labour and Housing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ. The unions and workers in this country and those working for foreign companies have the opportunity to lodge any complaint against unfair working practices. It is this government that protects workers' rights. They do have the right to complain. We have an agreement with NAFTA. We have agreements with other countries to protect working conditions, working standards and labour standards.
* * *
[Translation]
Foreign Affairs
Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a jurisdictional dispute, which has been going on for two years now, is preventing Quebec parents wishing to adopt children from Vietnam from doing so. As it happens, the President of Vietnam will be visiting Canada in late June.
Ottawa has been dragging its feet on this matter for two years. Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs intend to at last sign an agreement during the President of Vietnam's visit to Ottawa later this month?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the negotiations have intensified and considerable progress has been made in recent days. I hope that this difficult situation can be resolved, for the sake of those wishing to start or expand their families, and for the sake of these Vietnamese children, whom their government is anxious to protect with an international treaty having the effect of international law. I very much hope that we will be able to conclude the negotiations within days.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ): Mr. Speaker, using China as an example, the federal government had signed a comprehensive agreement, but the appendix on adoption mechanisms was signed by Quebec, since it has exclusive jurisdiction over adoption procedures.
Why is the Minister of Foreign Affairs hesitant to use the same procedure here? Why not sign the comprehensive agreement with Vietnam as soon as possible, and then let Quebec integrate its own agreement on adoption mechanisms subsequently, particularly since Vietnam and Quebec reached agreement on that two years ago?
(1440)
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Vietnam requires its children to be protected by an international treaty with the legal effect of international law. We must respect that reality.
We do, of course, respect Quebec's jurisdiction over adoption, but we have succeeded in reaching agreement with all the provinces and territories of this country. We will also be successful with Quebec, for the sake of the adopting families in this country and the children in Vietnam who need to be adopted.
* * *
[English]
Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board
Mr. Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on February 9 the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development appointed Mr. Todd Burlingame to the position of chair of the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. The board is critical to the approval of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. Internal board correspondence in my possession confirms that this board is now in crisis.
Specifically, the new chairman is engaged in personal vendettas, board business has been unilaterally suspended, and other members say the board chair has subverted the fairness, independence and transparency of the board. Will the Deputy Prime Minister intervene and remove this individual?
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Minister of State (Northern Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Burlingame's appointment is based on merit. He is absolutely the right person for the job. Reports today say that the board has had unanimous approval from its members to go forward with an integrated resource management strategy which will be needed for the Mackenzie Valley pipeline.
Further to that, no approvals on permitting and licensing have been delayed as the member opposite indicated. Everything is going--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Centre-North.
Mr. Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that would be bull feathers.
This appointment has inspired anger across the north. This individual was not recommended by the board following a public nomination process. He was not recommended by the department. He did not even make the short list of candidates. The Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, who appointed him, has said he did not even know who he was.
The view in the north is that this person was appointed for one reason only, because he is a friend of the junior minister, the Minister of State for Northern Development.
Will the Prime Minister explain why he allowed the junior minister to circumvent the government's own--
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of State for Northern Development.
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Minister of State (Northern Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would have assumed a much higher level of professionalism from the member opposite.
I am confident that Mr. Burlingame is ensuring that the board is operating in its usual professional capacity and that all business is being addressed in a timely and expeditious manner. There are no delays to ongoing development projects.
* * *
Government Appointments
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last year during his “mad as hell tour”, the Prime Minister promised to condemn to history the politics of cronyism and patronage.
Now we learn that the industry minister's official agent in the last election campaign, Mr. Bracken-Horrocks, has been appointed to the board of directors of the Business Development Bank of Canada. Why did the Prime Minister break his promise to end patronage and cronyism?
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a classic example of where an appointment that is made purely on the basis of merit is brought into disrepute.
Mr. Bracken-Horrocks is one of the top accountants in this country. He has never been a federal Liberal. He is regarded by the chairman of the board and the board of directors of BDC as one of the best appointments made to that board.
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): It is unbelievable, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that this appointment clearly demonstrates that the Prime Minister broke his promise. The industry minister appointed his own official agent, according to Elections Canada, his top volunteer, the person who signs off on his election returns, to the Business Development Bank of Canada, a government bank that reports to the minister himself.
Does the minister not see anything wrong with appointing his own official agent to a bank for which he himself has responsibility?
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, some of the members opposite could learn a few lessons from the practices that we have applied here. We brought in one of the top accountants in this country, an accountant I met through my professional associations on boards of directors, an experience, I am sure, that none of the members opposite have had.
We brought pure competence into the political process to make sure it had integrity.
* * *
(1445)
Natural Resources
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are impressed by the leadership that the Prime Minister is showing to avoid the water diversion from Devils Lake to the Red River and the Lake Winnipeg watershed without a proper environmental assessment.
My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Could he tell the House what support he has received from outside the border on this issue?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first let me acknowledge the support given on this issue by both the House of Commons and the Senate's standing committee on the environment.
Indeed, we have a lot of support from our American friends who share our view that Lake Winnipeg must be protected, along with the Sheyenne River and the Red River. I want to mention especially, in addition to various environmental and aboriginal groups, senators from Minnesota, Ohio and Indiana, governors from Missouri, Minnesota and Ohio, the mayors of the Great Lakes, including the mayor of Chicago, and various U.S. house representatives.
* * *
Marriage
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today the justice minister is saying that Bill C-38 will not make it through. I would like to ask a question of the government House leader. This debate on equal marriage has been going on now for almost three years. Last June the Prime Minister promised, “Your fundamental rights don't belong to a political party. They belong to Canada and we're going to protect them”.
Why is the government selling out on human rights? Where is the commitment to pass Bill C-38?
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the hon. member begins to play politics with such an important piece of legislation. Our approach on this bill has been consistent right from the beginning. Our commitment is to get the budget bills passed and pass as many other pieces of legislation as possible, like Bill C-38. We have demonstrated our commitment by extending the sitting hours to midnight so that we can have more legislation debated in the House.
It is the Conservatives who do not want to allow Bill C-38 to come to this House and who will not allow for the democratic process to proceed.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, whether--
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. We cannot possibly hear the member for Vancouver East with all the noise. I know that all hon. members want to hear her question. The hon. member for Vancouver East has the floor.
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, the government House leader cannot hide behind politics. A majority of MPs support equality. A majority of citizens support equality. Eight courts have ruled.
The Prime Minister does not have to duck and hide on this one. His responsibility is not to Liberal MPs who want to act like the Conservatives. His responsibility is to human rights.
I ask again, where is the leadership and the commitment to get this bill through? It has been around long enough. Where is the commitment?
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I need not take any lessons from the hon. member. Our commitment and responsibility are to Canadians. That is why we are in the House. That is why we put forward legislation. That is why we debate legislation.
The real question is why the Leader of the Opposition continues to delay the debate on Bill C-38, and why the Leader of the Opposition continues to put forward procedural motions instead of debating budget bills and debating other issues that are important to Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
Whistleblower Legislation
Mr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as it stands, the Liberals' whistleblower legislation does more to discourage than to protect whistleblowers.
Without an independent commissioner to hear their disclosures, whistleblowers have no protection.
The Conservative Party has a challenge for the Liberals. Give us an independent body to protect civil servants, or the bill will die in committee. Will the minister choose independence or death?
(1450)
[English]
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the member will be patient for another 40 minutes he will have his answer. He knows full well that I will be going before the committee to discuss that very issue.
Mr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party, along with every stakeholder and expert, has consistently demanded an independent office to protect whistleblowers and investigate their disclosures.
The dithering has to end now. I have an ultimatum for the minister: either he amends his bill to create an independent commissioner who reports directly to Parliament, or the Conservative Party will make sure the bill dies in committee. Independence or death, which will it be?
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is exactly how those who would govern conduct themselves. The reality is that the other parties in this House have struggled hard to make a bill that is the best possible protection for public servants while that party has played games. We will talk at the committee.
* * *
[Translation]
Health
Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned that 120,000 Quebeckers are on surgical waiting lists and 43,000 of them have waited longer than is medically acceptable.
What concrete measures is the government going to provide to resolve the waiting list problem highlighted by the Supreme Court?
[English]
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has said, we recognized this issue over eight months ago and provided $41 billion. I understand each of the provinces is engaged in reducing wait times. Whether it is in Saskatchewan, in Quebec, in B.C., in Alberta or in Ontario, all the provinces are worried about this, which is why the first ministers of the country got together to deal with this issue last September.
[Translation]
Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, thanks to the Minister of Health, Canadians have access to waiting lists, but not to medically required care. The minister has said in this House that the health care system would be judged by waiting lists.
If more than one in three Quebeckers waits longer than is medically acceptable, how does this compare with other provinces?
[English]
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact is that this side of the House has been busy for the last eight months trying to find solutions to this particular problem. The fact is that the Leader of the Opposition and that opposition party are interested, not in strengthening health care but in privatizing health care. We will fight them every time they stand up to support private health care.
* * *
[Translation]
National Defence
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have learned that an American company has decided that Goose Bay, Labrador, would be an appropriate site to establish a radar station, which could play a role in the American missile defence shield project.
Are we to understand that the steps taken by this company in Canada indicate a change in the government's policy on the missile defence shield?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I responded to the press this morning, the government was not approached. It has not changed its policy. No request was made of our government.
An American company is in fact speculating about the possibility of setting up a radar base in various places. We will see what happens. We cannot, however, react to something that does not exist.
(1455)
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, and yet it was he, the Minister of National Defence, who said in April, “If X-band radar facilities were built in Labrador, it would extend radar coverage of the coast, which could be useful to some extent for the missile defence shield”.
Is this statement not proof that the government already has had its arm twisted and is preparing to present us with a fait accompli regarding its participation in the missile defence shield?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I said, I said. Still, I come back to this. No request was made of the government, so we cannot say that anything has changed. A request has to be made at least, before we can contemplate any sort of a response.
* * *
[English]
Natural Resources
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Devils Lake water diversion project in North Dakota will soon open and flow contaminated water into Manitoba's water system.
Now some members of the House are taking the position to impose trade sanctions against the U.S. as a threat which will further damage Canada-U.S. relations.
When will the Prime Minister put a stop to further damaging Canada-U.S. relations and make sure this matter is immediately referred to the IJC?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the longstanding first course of action that the government has been supporting has been to refer the matter to the IJC.
However, in parallel, the White House has been seized with the dossier and with its own environmental analysis that it is doing on the United States side. We are now sitting down with the Americans and looking at how we can absolutely protect the integrity of the water system in Canada.
We have placed our demands out there but we want the boundary waters treaty to be respected in every way.
Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC): Mr. Speaker, after listening to the earlier comments by the environment minister, he actually is gullible if he thinks North Dakota's decision to delay the pumping of water from Devils Lake is due to outside political pressure.
The North Dakota delay is all about the high level of the Red River Basin which makes that diversion operation outside of the project's parameters. Once the river level drops, North Dakota will start pumping contaminated water into the Red River Basin.
What is the government's plan of recourse after North Dakota starts diverting bad water into Manitoba later this summer?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the official opposition is wrong to give up. Very intense negotiations are going on right now with the White House's council on environmental quality thanks to the Prime Minister who insisted on having that with the president.
I wish to hear that the official opposition will support the Government of Canada, the Government of Manitoba, the Government of Ontario, the Government of Quebec, countless environmental groups and the House and Senate committees on the environment, instead of always being negative and trying to undermine what Canada is doing.
* * *
[Translation]
Agriculture
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
The egg and poultry industry contributes some $13 billion per year to the Canadian economy and provides about 72,000 jobs.
In negotiations with the World Trade Organization, is the government prepared to protect over-quota tariffs at their current levels to discourage further imports beyond the level of market access already negotiated at the WTO?
[English]
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously, in our WTO negotiations, as we move toward negotiating improved market access, one of the things that we have said clearly is that individual countries need to have flexibility in how they achieve that. That includes allowing our producers to choose their domestic marketing schemes and that includes supply management.
The government very much supports supply management. We have for 35 years in the past and we will continue to do so in the future.
* * *
Firearms Registry
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there is an even bigger scandal waiting for Justice John Gomery to investigate.
The government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on computer contracts to implement the gun registry and plans to spend hundreds of millions more on computer contracts in the years ahead.
To put this spending into perspective, we can register 40 million cows for $8 million.
Will the minister please explain why it has cost $1 billion to register only seven million guns?
(1500)
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this program has an $85 million cap. The operating budget for the entire program in 2005-06 is $82.5 million.
As it relates to the gun registry component of the program, we imposed a $25 million cap in 2005-06. In fact, the registry component of the program will cost only $15.7 million. In fact the costs of this program, since 2000, have gone down consistently.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is pretty obvious that the minister still refuses to take responsibility for her role in this federal firearms fiasco.
The cattle industry can locate a cow in any barnyard in Canada in seconds. The gun registry still cannot locate hundreds of thousands of gun owners and is still missing millions of guns.
How many lives could have been saved if we had spent this wasted billion on DNA analysis, cancer research or more police on the streets?
The gun registry is either a huge scandal or gross incompetence. Which is it?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I just indicated, the costs of this program are under control and going down.
Let me also share with the hon. member that since December 1, 1998, more than 13,500 individual firearm licences have been refused or revoked. The program is accessed over 2,000 times a day by front line police officers.
In spite of the ongoing protestations of the hon. member, it is time he pulled his head out of the sand and understood that--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Haute--Gaspésie--La Mitis--Matane--Matapédia.
* * *
[Translation]
National Defence
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last week, when I asked the Minister of Defence simply whether he would finally decide to meet with the people in charge of the Cap-Chat cadet camp to reassure them about their future, he provided nothing more than a very general, vague and totally unclear reply.
The question is clear and requires a clear answer. Will the minister be meeting soon, as promised, with the people in charge of this cadet training centre, yes or no?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am always prepared to meet with people to discuss ways of having the best program for our cadets.
We believe camps provide cadets with optimum learning opportunities as well as the chance to meet Canadians from other backgrounds. That is the case in Quebec, where we have a program of which I am very proud.
Once more, I am always prepared to meet people if that is what the hon. member wants.
* * *
[English]
Fisheries
Mr. Don Bell (North Vancouver, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans made an important announcement today on the management of the Fraser River fishery for this season.
Could the minister tell the House what investments the government is making to ensure fishery compliance this year?
Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, earlier today I announced a $5.2 million action plan in response to the standing committee reports on the 2004 Fraser River fishery.
We are moving quickly and decisively with a comprehensive plan to address the complex situation on the river. These resources will increase compliance and conservation and facilitate change in my department.
* * *
Foreign Affairs
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga—Erindale, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, four million Palestinian refugees have been living under dire conditions for over 50 years. They subsist on voluntary yearly donations from some UN countries. This year's budget of $350 million is grossly inadequate.
As a signatory to the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees, is Canada willing to initiate talks at the UN to ensure Palestinians get the same treatment as convention refugees, guaranteeing basic human rights, adequate funding and international protection until such time as UN resolutions, such as 194, are implemented?