38th PARLIAMENT,
1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 121
CONTENTS
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
|
 |
The Speaker |
|
|
Statements by Members
|
|
|
Milton Farmers' Market |
|
|
Mr. Gary Carr (Halton, Lib.) |
|
|
Veterans |
|
|
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC) |
|
|
Brain Injury Awareness Month |
|
|
Hon. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.) |
|
|
Sports in Communities |
|
|
Ms. Denise Poirier-Rivard (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, BQ) |
|
|
Protest by Taxi and Limousine Drivers |
|
|
Hon. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Lib.) |
|
|
Nickolaus Meyers |
|
|
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC) |
|
|
Vera Loose |
|
|
Mr. Lloyd St. Amand (Brant, Lib.) |
|
|
Lactic Acidosis |
|
|
Mr. Robert Bouchard (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, BQ) |
|
|
Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique |
|
|
Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Alberta Floods |
|
|
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Centre, CPC) |
|
|
Ontario's Francophone Community |
|
|
Mr. Marc Godbout (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.) |
|
|
Aboriginal Affairs |
|
|
Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) |
|
|
Crystal Meth |
|
|
Mr. Randy Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, CPC) |
|
|
Citizenship and Immigration |
|
|
Mrs. Carole Lavallée (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ) |
|
|
Foreign Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
The Budget |
|
|
Mr. David Smith (Pontiac, Lib.) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
Citizenship and Immigration |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Ethics |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Citizenship and Immigration |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Transfer payments |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Ethics Commissioner |
|
|
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Citizenship and Immigration |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Gasoline Prices |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
International Aid |
|
|
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Aileen Carroll (Minister of International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Aileen Carroll (Minister of International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
Gasoline Prices |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Technology Partnerships Canada |
|
|
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.) |
|
|
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.) |
|
|
Infrastructure |
|
|
Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. John Godfrey (Minister of State (Infrastructure and Communities), Lib.) |
|
|
Bell Canada |
|
|
Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Belinda Stronach (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal, Lib.) |
|
|
Fisheries and Oceans |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Contracts |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mr. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Gasoline Prices |
|
|
Mr. Marc Boulianne (Mégantic—L'Érable, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Marc Boulianne (Mégantic—L'Érable, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Veterans Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Housing |
|
|
Hon. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Joe Fontana (Minister of Labour and Housing, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Taxation |
|
|
Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Inquiry relating to Member for Newton--North Delta |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Democratic Reform |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Response to Petitions |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Canada Marine Act |
|
|
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Minister of Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Procedure and House Affairs |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.) |
|
|
Agriculture and Agri-Food |
|
|
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.) |
|
|
Foreign Affairs and International Trade |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Procedure and House Affairs |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act |
|
|
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Public Service Employment Act |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Highway 30 Completion Bridges Act |
|
|
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Outremont, Lib.) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
Palestinian Rights |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.) |
|
|
Natural Health Products |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Bradley Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (West Nova, Lib.) |
|
|
Community Access Program |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) |
|
|
Nappan Experimental Farm |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC) |
|
|
Government Policies |
|
|
Hon. Bryon Wilfert (Richmond Hill, Lib.) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC) |
|
|
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc |
|
|
Motions for Papers |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Request for Emergency Debate |
|
|
Alberta Flood |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Points of Order |
|
|
Question Period |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Extended Sitting Period |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri |
|
|
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Manicouagan, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
|
|
Hon. Roy Cullen |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
|
|
Private Members' Business
|
|
|
Canada Elections Act |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
(Division 135) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)
|
|
|
Criminal Code |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
(Division 136) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Kyoto Protocol |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
(Division 137) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
(Division 138) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
|
|
|
Symbol for the House of Commons |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
(Division 139) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Extension of sitting period |
|
|
Notice of Closure Motion |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Request for Emergency Debate |
|
|
Speaker's Ruling |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Criminal Code |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Wajid Khan (Mississauga—Streetsville, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Tom Lukiwski |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
|
|
An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan |
|
|
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Tom Lukiwski |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay |
|
|
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
|
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
|
Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Claude Drouin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Rural Communities), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette |
|
|
Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
|
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Centre, CPC) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
|
Mr. Marc Godbout (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Marc Godbout |
|
|
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Marc Godbout |
|
|
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Marc Godbout |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit |
|
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit |
|
|
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit |
|
|
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit |
|
|
Adjournment Proceedings
|
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
|
The Speaker |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
[S. O. 31]
* * *
(1400)
[English]
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore.
[Members sang the national anthem]
Statements by Members
[S. O. 31]
* * *
(1405)
[English]
Milton Farmers' Market
Mr. Gary Carr (Halton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to recognize a unique and long-standing tradition in my riding of Halton. Operating weekly for over 33 years, the Milton Farmers' Market has been bringing traditional homestyle baking and farm fresh crops to the constituents of Halton. With family fun and locally grown fruits and vegetables, the streets come alive with vendors.
The Milton Chamber of Commerce operates the weekly Saturday morning event from May through October. With over 40 vendors, this certainly is one of Ontario's best outdoor farmers' markets.
I encourage all members of the House and residents of Halton and Milton to come to the Milton Farmers' Market for a wonderful experience. Try a mouth-watering bacon on a bun, my favourite, a crisp locally grown apple or purchase a beautiful handmade craft.
I ask everyone to show their Canadian spirit and Halton pride and come visit Milton Farmers' Market.
* * *
Veterans
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in conflicts from World War I to Afghanistan, Canada's veterans have risked their lives in the defence of our country, the freedom of Europe and Asia and for liberty itself.
Last year thousands of our veterans passed away with insufficient recognition from the government. Not one of the caskets of the heroes who departed this world in 2004 was covered with a flag provided by the Government of Canada.
The governments of many other countries provide flags for the caskets of their departed veterans. This practice would do honour both to our fallen heroes and to the flag itself.
In 2005, the Year of the Veteran, I call upon the government to give long overdue recognition to the heroes who still walk among us by immediately initiating a program to bestow upon each of them a Canadian flag as a symbol of the appreciation of a grateful nation.
* * *
Brain Injury Awareness Month
Hon. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the fine work of the Four Counties Brain Injury Association based in Peterborough which had a fundraiser last weekend. This is an organization which works with those who have brain injuries, their families and caregivers. They raise awareness of the implications of brain injury in our communities, focusing strongly on injury prevention.
One of its major projects year round, especially in Brain Injury Awareness Month, is promoting the use of helmets for people using bikes, scooters, roller blades and skateboards. The association conducts helmet clinics through which children learn the value of helmets and how to wear them properly.
I thank all those associated with this fine association and all the sponsors and volunteers who assist the Brain Injury Association in its fine work.
* * *
[Translation]
Sports in Communities
Ms. Denise Poirier-Rivard (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, BQ): Mr. Speaker, from July 3 to 30, some 30 young francophones, anglophones and Mohawks from the region near Châteauguay will take part in an extraordinary athletic and cultural experience.
On the heels of the Jeux de l'Amitié in May, which sought to promote exchanges among these young people so they could learn more about each other, sports will once again bring together the various communities in my region.
For almost an entire month, these 30 amateur cyclists will travel almost 1,500 km across Quebec, from Kahnawake to Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.
This athletic and cultural event will strengthen their organizational, leadership, listening and sharing skills. I will be eagerly watching them bike together to build a future in their style: fair, mutually supportive and Québécois.
* * *
[English]
Protest by Taxi and Limousine Drivers
Hon. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, taxi and limousine drivers at Pearson International Airport in my riding are requesting that the Greater Toronto Airports Authority issue licences to individual drivers on the basis of seniority. Despite their fair share recommendation, however, the Greater Toronto Airports Authority continues to only hand out licences to three limousine companies.
In today's Toronto Star, drivers complain that these companies are “little more than middlemen who profit off the backs of drivers by leasing the licence while offering little or no service”.
While drivers regret that the public has been affected this week by their legal protest at the airport, they promise to continue to fight for justice on behalf of the longest serving drivers among them. I would encourage all MPs in the GTA to listen to the concerns of drivers and to lend them their support.
Due to this situation's impact on travellers and concerned citizens in the GTA and across Ontario, I would strongly urge the Minister of Transport to--
* * *
(1410)
Nickolaus Meyers
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in 1936, General Franco installed a Fascist dictatorship in Spain, overturning the democratically elected Spanish Republic.
While Fascist Germany and Italy sent massive military aid to supply Franco's forces, western democracies failed to officially support the Spanish loyalists.
However, over 1,300 brave Canadians left their families and friends to travel halfway across the world to fight in the International Brigades against Franco for the causes of freedom and democracy.
If records did exist in Spain about the war, we would come across the following name: Captain Nickolaus Meyers, a Canadian whose real name was Nickolaus Myroniuk but, like many others, had to travel under an assumed name because of the opposition of their government to the war. Captain Meyers, my great uncle Nick, recently passed away, on January 21, at the age of 89.
Today I am rising in the House to pay tribute to my uncle who understood that evil cannot be escaped by ignoring it. My uncle and the many other Canadians who volunteered in an inspiring story of courage, conviction and determination, pressed forward and made sacrifices for freedom and liberty.
* * *
Vera Loose
Mr. Lloyd St. Amand (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the city of Brantford is a lesser place today as I rise to pay tribute to a great lady, Vera Loose, who died yesterday in her 79th year.
Vera was the loving and devoted wife of Paul and together they raised children who benefited tremendously from their caring nature and thoughtful ways. Six young persons had the privilege of calling Vera their loving grandmother.
Her taste in unimportant matters was ordinary. She wanted comfort, not luxury. She was drawn to genuine substance, not transparent style. However, she was anything but ordinary in matters that count. Rather, she was extraordinarily kind, uncommonly generous and exceptionally decent.
Vera was a person of very strong faith and achieved what we all aspire to do. She made a profound difference in the lives of her family and her community.
As the philosopher Proust said, “Let us be grateful for people who make us happy; they are the charming gardeners who make our souls blossom”.
Vera Loose brought happiness to the lives of many, particularly her family, and made many souls blossom. She fought the good fight and has gone to her just reward.
* * *
[Translation]
Lactic Acidosis
Mr. Robert Bouchard (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for a number of years now, one of my constituents has been battling a hereditary disease that is quite prevalent in our region. I am talking about Pierre Lavoie, the president of the Association de l'acidose lactique du Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.
Mr. Lavoie is working hard to raise awareness of lactic acidosis, encourage research, and involve our young people. The Pierre Lavoie challenge was held last week for this very purpose.
Since May, over 25 schools in my region and over 5,000 students have taken part in the inter-school challenge. Last weekend, the Pierre Lavoie challenge reached its apex, thanks to massive public support, with the collection of over $280,000.
The Bloc Québécois congratulates this courageous athlete for his perseverance, along with my entire riding, which is supporting him in his fight against this terrible disease.
* * *
Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique
Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique on its 60th year of existence.
Francophones have been an integral part of the economic, social and cultural fabric of British Columbia since 1793. There are over 60,000 of them, living in 37 communities in our province.
The federation has been so successful in keeping these communities in contact with each other and in preserving their vitality and influence that British Columbia now ranks second only to Quebec in the number of students taking French as a second language.
I have had the pleasure of working in close collaboration with the federation for the past 12 years, on the Canada-communities agreement, the new francophone affairs office of Simon Fraser University, and RésoSanté, a health service for francophone immigrants.
As our commercial links with the Asia-Pacific region expand to the francophone countries of Asia, the strong francophone presence in British Columbia will become an even more valuable asset.
* * *
[English]
Alberta Floods
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in the past two weeks, Calgary and southern Alberta were hammered by torrents of rain, with creeks and rivers rising to levels not seen in decades.
Thankfully, the worst seems to be behind us and the efforts of countless volunteers and emergency workers helped to reduce the damaging impact.
With both the Bow and Elbow Rivers flowing through my riding of Calgary Centre, I saw firsthand the risk that the rising waters posed. A state of emergency was declared.
True to our western heritage, these challenging times also brought out the true spirit of Calgarians. It was truly inspiring to see neighbour helping neighbour, pulling together to lend a hand.
As a Calgarian, I offer my sincere thanks to all those who volunteered their services, as well as the numerous city officials, Mayor Dave Bronconnier, Alberta Emergency Measures and Premier Klein, for their leadership and support throughout.
* * *
(1415)
[Translation]
Ontario's Francophone Community
Mr. Marc Godbout (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as part of the City of Ottawa's 150th anniversary celebrations, the Société franco-ontarienne d'histoire et de généalogie and its partners will be unveiling a plaque to commemorate the contribution of francophones to the growth and development of Ottawa.
The plaque will be permanently displayed at the Institut canadien-français, which is located at York and Dalhousie streets in the Byward Market. The unveiling ceremony will be held on Friday, June 24, Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, celebrated by all French Canadians. Representatives of all sectors of activity in the francophone community will be in attendance.
On behalf of all the Franco-Ontarians of Ottawa-Orléans, I wish to commend this initiative to immortalize more than 150 years of francophone presence in Ottawa. We are immensely proud.
* * *
[English]
Aboriginal Affairs
Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday was National Aboriginal Day. It served as a reminder that every day we must continue to speak up on social and economic issues faced by aboriginal people.
Earlier this month, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development tabled a report about on reserve matrimonial real property. There are strong recommendations in the report for action on behalf of aboriginal women from coast to coast to coast.
The report calls for the government to immediately draft stand-alone legislation dealing with matrimonial property and that this be done in partnership with the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations.
The NDP supports the report. This issue and other issues that impact the lives of aboriginal women in this country have been studied over and over. It is time for action, action on rights for aboriginal women when it comes to matrimonial property, action on violence against women and action on access to health services.
Rebecca Bruce, Raven Thunder Sky's sister, died today. Where is the action on issues like Zonolite? These are real issues that affect aboriginal women and their families and we need action now. It is time for the government to deliver.
* * *
Crystal Meth
Mr. Randy Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals must have heard by now the urgent cries of Canadians who want the government to take action to combat crystal meth.
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities and western ministers met recently to discuss this problem. They have made strong recommendations to the federal government to take action.
Municipalities and provinces are serious about fighting this deadly drug, but the federal government only says that it will look into it in the fall.
The Conservative Party, however, is committed to fighting crystal meth and has formed a crystal meth task force, of which I am the chair. I have submitted a motion calling on the government to develop a nation crystal meth strategy. The member for Palliser and I are working on a bill to move crystal meth from schedule III to schedule I, something we have been calling on the government to do for months. The member for Yellowhead has introduced a private member's bill to restrict access to precursors.
The Conservative Party will continue to pressure the government to take action against this drug. Every day that goes by is another day that crystal meth traps another Canadian in its deadly grip.
* * *
[Translation]
Citizenship and Immigration
Mrs. Carole Lavallée (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Sergio Loreto first came to Quebec in 1987, and has worked as a machinist at Pratt & Whitney for 16 years. Last September, he was living in Saint Hubert with his wife and three children, who are all Canadian citizens, when he received a deportation order for allegedly being an accomplice to war crimes in Guatemala.
Sergio Loreto says he did not commit any war crime or even take part in the civil war.
His CAW friends will tell you that he is a model employee who lives an exemplary life and that he has settled well into Canadian society.
Recently, leaders of the Saint Hubert community asked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to use section 25 of the Immigration Act to lift the deportation order and grant Mr. Loreto permanent resident status on humanitarian grounds. This would allow him to leave his sanctuary in Toronto and return to live freely in Saint Hubert with his family, who need him very much.
* * *
[English]
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, members on this side of the House have been adamant in insisting that the Government of Canada demand that Syria get out of Lebanon and permit the democratic process to proceed.
As usual, we have seen foot dragging and reluctance on that score. Nevertheless, the Syrian armies are out and the people of Lebanon are now choosing a new parliament. The process of forming a government is far from complete, however, and it appears that the Syrian dictators are still convinced that Lebanon belongs to them and not to the Lebanese people.
In this morning's papers we read of yet another assassination of an eminent politician in Lebanon.
I am asking the Minister of Foreign Affairs if he is supporting the demand of the elected leaders in Lebanon that the mandate of the UN team investigating this and earlier assassinations be expanded and accelerated.
I am asking the Minister of Foreign Affairs if he is taking other measures to let the people of Lebanon know that we stand with them in their desire to at last rid themselves of state sponsored assassinations and terror.
It is time for Canada's government to speak out in every forum and at every opportunity to let Syria know they need--
(1420)
The Speaker: The hon. member for Pontiac.
* * *
[Translation]
The Budget
Mr. David Smith (Pontiac, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at the signing of the new deal for cities and municipalities, the Premier of Quebec called on the support of Quebec MPs. Premier Charest urged Bloc Québécois MPs to support the budget bill that we will soon be called to vote on. He said:
|
They have a responsibility that goes beyond party lines: to make sure funding is available. The current government made a promise to make it available. Now it is up to Quebec MPs to act in the interest of Quebeckers and vote in favour of the budget to make the funding available. |
Upon leaving the House yesterday, the leader of the Bloc Québécois said he could not support the bill because of some other provisions. In other words, the Bloc opposes the additional $4.6 million investment in education, the environment and housing.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[English]
Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Ethics Commissioner's shady grey report on the former minister of immigration is black and white about one thing: issuing of temporary resident permits by the former minister during the election campaign was a clear violation of the conflict of interest code.
The commissioner writes that “the permits themselves seemed available...to the relatives and associates of those who were assisting the re-election campaign”.
Manipulating the process is the Liberal way. Why has this ethically challenged government allowed our immigration system to be abused in such a crass and partisan political way?
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I reject outright that there was any partisan political intervention. I gave an indication yesterday that over 1.1 million decisions are made every year. At this time of year, there are many more requests.
The minister responds to the constituent's requirements in the context of 1.1 million decisions made by the department. If the member opposite is telling us that 76 interventions by a minister in the context of 1.1 million is an undesirable action, then he has a--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Central Nova.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, let us look at the facts. Prior to the election, the former minister vowed she would never use temporary resident permits for election purposes. Au contraire: it comes to light that during the campaign 128 permits were granted by the minister, 74 of 76 were supported by Liberal MPs, 43 were authorized in the last week of the federal campaign alone, and four of those permits were issued to friends of the minister's campaign worker.
Why, I ask again, did the government so blatantly abuse the ministerial permit process for partisan purposes during the last campaign? Why?
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I guess those of us who actually serve our constituents are going to be accused of doing things for partisan purposes.
The fact of the matter is, and the member would know, that there are many parts around the country that are looking for an enhanced immigration service. This is part of an entire system where we are looking at the large range of people who we are going to take into the country and looking at both the quantum and the quality of immigrants who are coming in. Ministers who do their--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Central Nova.
* * *
Ethics
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Andrew Stark, a University of Toronto professor and noted expert on conflict of interest, said it was puzzling that the Ethics Commissioner was not investigating the Prime Minister's chief of staff for his involvement in MP vote buying for rewards.
Mr. Stark noted that the commissioner has just completed a report that investigated both the minister and her ministerial staff and that his refusal to investigate PMO chief of staff Tim Murphy is “inconsistent with what he's just done”.
Given the latest ethics report on Liberal wrongdoings, can the Prime Minister clarify whether he and his staff are subject to the conflict of interest code, and if so, why are they not being investigated? Why the special treatment? More who you know in the PMO?
(1425)
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Ethics Commissioner is an independent officer of this Parliament. In fact, his appointment was approved by the House. There is no special treatment for anyone. The Ethics Commissioner can decide and does decide on who he investigates and on the terms of those investigations.
* * *
Citizenship and Immigration
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today a senior columnist wrote that “the culture of government secrecy still rules Ottawa and warps the way our democracy works”. As an example, the government was asked about the allocation of visitor permits. The House was told the information was not available, but the Ethics Commissioner's report shows that such records do exist.
How does the Liberal culture of secrecy around visitor permits square with Liberal promises of openness and transparency?
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the member can stand up and pretend to be absolutely dumbfounded by this. All she needs to do is read the parliamentary report that was tabled in the House to know exactly how many visitor visas are given every year and how many are presented at which posts. If the member wants to say that she does not read the reports provided for parliamentarians, I can understand her desire to wallow in ignorance.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister knows very well that he is hiding who got the permits and at whose request.
Another journalist wrote today:
|
During the 2004 federal election campaign, the Liberals gave out visitor's visas as though they were mints. |
|
They did it to help their re-election prospects, by making sure Liberal ridings benefited and opposition ridings did not. |
The government tells Canadians it is committed to openness and transparency, so will it today make public the number of temporary resident permits issued to each MP?
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I suppose that some of the lawyers on the opposite side would know that temporary visitor visas are issued to applicants who want to visit. Presumably none of the members of Parliament on that side consider themselves to be visitors. We do not issue temporary visitor visas to members of Parliament. We issue them to applicants from abroad.
* * *
[Translation]
Transfer payments
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal education minister in Quebec says that Quebeckers are increasingly aware of the tangible impact of the fiscal imbalance and contends that the scenario remains unchanged from one budget to the next: conservative forecasts, a surplus, surplus applied to the debt or creation of foundations. In the meantime, the province is having a hard time maintaining services.
Does the Minister of Finance realize that Minister Fournier is reaching exactly the same conclusions as the Standing Committee on Finance and that the time has come to substantially revise—
The Speaker: I regret to interrupt the member, but his time has expired. In addition, it is difficult to hear the hon. member.
The hon. Minister of Finance.
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with the questions of my hon. friend and I think I can surmise the point he was trying to make. I would reply by pointing out that, because of decisions of this government, over the next 10 years we will be transferring an incremental $100 billion in federal resources to the provinces to help them meet their obligations at the provincial level. In addition to that, the statistics show that for the last 20 years provincial revenues have exceeded federal revenues and--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Roberval--Lac-Saint-Jean.
(1430)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the finance minister admit that the money currently transferred by the federal government is actually money that it has significantly over-collected? The fiscal imbalance is acknowledged by all the premiers of Canada and by all the parties in this House, except the government. If the fiscal imbalance were settled, it would mean the federal government would free up $3.5 billion annually for Quebec alone.
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, provincial revenues exceed federal revenues. Federal debt exceeds provincial debt. Federal transfers to the provinces are going up by $100 billion over the next 10 years. The hon. gentleman could help just a little bit by passing Bill C-48.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the report of the Standing Committee on Finance recommends an end to the piecemeal agreements and an increase in transfers for education and social programs, like health, to 25%.
Does the Minister of Finance realize that piecemeal agreements resolve nothing and, on the contrary, perpetuate the fiscal imbalance? Could he at least admit for once that the solution involves these two measures, which are the first move in a frontal attack on the fiscal imbalance?
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously the Government of Canada wants to seek equity and fairness across the country for all provinces. That does not, however, mean that it is necessarily a case of one size fits all or that we can apply a cookie-cutter approach right across the entire nation.
For example, in the matter of dealing with immigration arrangements, the province of Quebec has enjoyed a particularly favourable arrangement there. I wonder if the hon. gentleman would put that in the category of things that he would like to see cancelled.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the comprehensive solution involves not only these two solutions, but also a review of equalization, reflecting the rule of 10 and the transfer of tax points in order to permit the governments of the provinces and Quebec to fund their activities independently.
Is the Minister of Finance capable of understanding this reality, in light of the comments by Minister Fournier, who says that the provinces are having difficulty maintaining a complete range of services for their residents?
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we all want to make it possible for all governments to deliver adequate services to all of their citizens.
I would note on the review of equalization that Dr. Lacroix from the University of Montreal is one of the country's leading experts on this matter. He is in fact on the commission that is examining this very matter. I understand that he was even the hon. gentleman's personal professor.
I would also point out once again that to help this situation just a little bit, Premier Charest of Quebec has urged the Bloc Québécois to pass Bill C-48.
* * *
Ethics Commissioner
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is a follow-up to the question by the deputy leader of the Conservative Party with respect to the Ethics Commissioner. Mr. Shapiro appears to be able to do the impossible now, which is to make Mr. Wilson look good.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister about this. She made the point that Mr. Shapiro is an officer of this House. Would she therefore be prepared to say on behalf of the government that it would respect a recommendation by this House that Mr. Shapiro be removed for incompetence?
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as has been said earlier, the Ethics Commissioner is an independent officer of Parliament. Dr. Shapiro's appointment was in fact confirmed by all parties in the House of Commons in May 2004. I understand that a committee of this House is also seized with the member's concerns. I understand that they will be looking to address the motion on Thursday, that being tomorrow. I am not going to prejudge the work of the committee.
* * *
Health
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my second question is on a completely different topic. It has to do with health care. The question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, also a former minister of health.
She may be aware that the doctor who successfully challenged the ban on private insurance in Quebec is now being feted by conservatives in America. He is probably being quietly feted by Conservatives here, but they are not as open about it. He has gone to the United States and he says:
|
I would like to make a team with American entrepreneurs and go to Canada and create a private parallel health-care system. |
This is exactly the kind of thing the Prime Minister has said he is against. What is the government plan to do something about this before it happens?
(1435)
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me make it very clear. There would be no Americanization of the Canadian public health care system. The Prime Minister has been very clear. All of us have been very clear. Private health care is no panacea with respect to the difficulties we have. Let me quote two specialists from here:
|
It appears that countries with two-tier systems appear to have longer, not shorter wait times. |
|
The majority judgment assumes that new physicians-- |
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.
* * *
Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last month the member for York West tabled a letter from the Ethics Commissioner claiming that she had been cleared of all charges in the matter of the Romanian stripper.
What really happened is that the government altered the facts to whitewash the whole scandal. Why did the government mislead the House when it knew full well that the former immigration minister was guilty as charged?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Ethics Commissioner has issued his report. The Ethics Commissioner, as far as I am aware, does not conclude that there was any personal wrongdoing on the part of the member for York West.
The Ethics Commissioner has made a number of recommendations. We are reviewing those recommendations. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and PCO are reviewing those recommendations. I guess I do not understand what problem the hon. member has with the work the Ethics Commissioner has done.
[Translation]
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's guru thought he could fix the minister's mess by publishing this fabrication. This is the same Scott Reid whom the commissioner describes as an accomplice with full knowledge of this conspiracy, and he answers directly to the Prime Minister.
How can we believe a Prime Minister who claims not to know about a cover-up concocted by his own communications director and in his own office?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it very hard to follow that question because I am not sure whether it contains baseless allegations that are being thrown around by the hon. member as we have seen so often from the official opposition.
Let me go back to the fact that the Ethics Commissioner is an independent officer of Parliament. He studied this matter. He issued a report. He has made recommendations. We are studying those recommendations. I actually do not understand the problem.
* * *
Gasoline Prices
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister should really read that report. It has been two days now.
Every time the price of gas goes up at the pump, the government's GST take on gas also goes up. Even worse, the government also charges the GST on federal and provincial gas taxes. In other words, it gouges drivers by taxing the tax.
How can the government justify taxing the tax on gas when Canadians are paying record high prices at the pumps?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the phenomenon referred to by the hon. gentleman was carefully examined last year. It was determined at that time that it would be incredibly inefficient to try to eliminate the issue that he refers to.
Accordingly, we did two things. To the extent that there was revenue flowing from that situation, we applied it to the purchase of health care equipment by provinces. Now we are sharing the federal gas tax with Canadian municipalities, as soon as the budget passes.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the finance minister taxes the tax. Now he is taxing our patience here. Is there anything he will not tax? I am asking about the government's practice of charging the GST on federal and provincial taxes.
How does the minister justify gouging taxpayers by over $300 million a year with his tax on tax at the gas pumps? Why the gouging?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows very well the method of taxation with respect to the GST and the objective is to keep the administration of that program as simple as possible. Making the kind of exception that he refers to would add a very large administrative expense.
What we try to do is an alternative. We want to ensure that the revenues raised are put to the most useful purpose possible. In the circumstances now, we are sharing that revenue with municipalities so that they can build their infrastructure and create a better quality of life for all Canadians.
* * *
(1440)
[Translation]
International Aid
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first Bono, U2's lead singer, and now singer Bob Geldof has reminded the Prime Minister that Canada has a special responsibility when it comes to international aid, since it was Lester B. Pearson who proposed the 0.7% objective over 35 years ago. Mr. Geldof also said that if the Prime Minister does not double Canadian aid to Africa, he need not bother coming to the G-8 summit.
Will the government finally understand that it has to reach the 0.7% objective by 2015?
[English]
Hon. Aileen Carroll (Minister of International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has made it clear that he too wants to reach the 0.7%. He recognizes that it is a benchmark. It is very laudable and one that he hopes Canada will be able to attain. However, he also makes it clear that he will not give a date or give a commitment until we can come forward with a plan that says exactly how we will get there.
This country is renowned that when we make a pledge, we keep it. We disburse immediately our pledge. We do not make pledges we cannot keep, and we will not do so now.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister realize that Canada, which is the only G-8 country with a budgetary surplus, is projecting a very bad image to the rest of the world and that if it increased international aid by 15% annually, it could attain the objective put forward by Lester B. Pearson and the United Nations by 2015?
Hon. Aileen Carroll (Minister of International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I fully comprehend the member's concerns. At the same time, I am a bit confused, because her party has decided to vote against the budget. Much work has already been done in order to reach this very goal.
* * *
Gasoline Prices
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Industry said that the Competition Bureau has reviewed the price of gasoline on numerous occasions over the past 10 years and has never found any evidence of collusion.
Does the Minister of Industry realize that the reason no evidence was found is that current legislation does not give the bureau the authority to conduct the formal investigations into the industry that the competition commissioner has called for?
[English]
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the House would be interested in some facts. One interesting fact is that every time the price of gasoline rises, the members opposite allege some sort of a conspiracy to fix prices. They also allege that the conspiracy breaks down when the international price of gas falls. There have been five investigations by the Competition Bureau since 1990 with no evidence of collusion or anti-competitive conduct.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable. In actual fact, the minister does not really want to take action. The amendments he is proposing only increase the penalties but do not give any new investigative authority to the Competition Bureau.
If the minister is serious about wanting to monitor the oil industry, then is he prepared to vote in favour of the Bloc amendments to give teeth to the Competition Act, which would allow the bureau to bring the oil industry into line?
[English]
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we do have amendments to the Competition Act before Parliament. If the Bloc has something constructive to add, we will be happy to have a look at that if it is a useful amendment. If it is not a useful amendment, we will not support it.
* * *
Technology Partnerships Canada
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the industry minister admitted that consulting fees have been paid to some lobbyists as a reward if their clients were successful in securing a grant from Technology Partnerships Canada. Media reports state that at least $3.7 million in commissions have been paid to certain lobbyists, yet rewarding lobbyists for getting government grants is a breach of contract under TPC's own guidelines.
Will the industry minister reveal how many millions have been paid to lobbyists for securing government grants and which lobbyists have received this money?
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has finally figured out that this is a matter of a breach of contract by private companies that are being supported through TPC grants. TPC grants are not bank deals. These are risk-sharing agreements to help private sector companies implement technology for the betterment of the Canadian economy.
We are investigating the matter. We will be releasing our forensic audit. We will be releasing further audit details in the fall. We will be restructuring the technology partnerships program, but we will not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
(1445)
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Mr. Speaker, TPC's own guidelines say that this is a breach of contract. Certain Liberal lobbyists seem to have a very good track record in obtaining TPC funds for their clients. For instance, Ken Mackay, a lobbyist who has donated thousands of dollars to the Liberal Party, has a phenomenal record of obtaining TPC grants for his clients when compared to other lobbyists.
If the government were serious about cleaning up TPC, it would immediately release the audit results. When will the industry minister come clean and release the results of these secret audits?
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, here we go again with the mud pies.
These are consultants who are hired by smaller companies typically, because they do not have the resources themselves to determine where opportunities exist for those companies with government programs. There are many ridings held by members opposite where TPC grants have been issued and there are several members opposite who have done their own lobbying.
* * *
[Translation]
Health
Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, despite the favourable Supreme Court ruling, the Minister of Health said on Monday that private clinics would not reduce wait times for patients.
Yesterday, David Levine, an experienced health care administrator, announced seven new private clinics for Montreal. According to him, these new clinics will help cut wait times.
Who is telling the truth: the Minister of Health or the true experts on the front lines?
[English]
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, here are some experts who agree with what I said yesterday. Colleen Flood and Terrence Sullivan from the University of Toronto said:
|
It appears that countries with two tier systems appear to have longer, not shorter wait times. The majority judgment assumes that new physicians and nurses will materialize out of thin air to staff the private sector when, of course, they must come from an already taxed public system; when they are treating private patients, they will not be responding to queues in the public system. |
Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, once again, the minister is all talk and no action. When the Supreme Court struck down the ban on private medical insurance, it drew a direct correlation between the necessity of the ruling, given that “the public system fails to deliver reasonable services”.
When will the minister acknowledge that the announcement of yet more private clinics is a direct result of the failure of the government to provide quality health care to Canadians?
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I quoted from the Reform Party's 1995 taxpayers' budget yesterday. It said that the funding in the Department of Health ought to be phased out, and that Health Canada responsibilities that are undertaken by the federal government ought to be phased out.
Those people opposite are now taking the position of the majority who say private health care is acceptable in Canada. I say we want to strengthen the public health care system. We will fight and defeat the Americanization of the health care system in Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
Infrastructure
Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a historic day for communities in Quebec, because an agreement was signed on sharing the gasoline tax and public transit funds. The Quebec premier described this agreement as the most important agreement they had signed with the federal government to date.
In my region, this agreement will enable us to invest in water management, sewage treatment and public transit.
Can the minister tell us about this new deal for cities and communities, concluded in the interest of Quebec?
Hon. John Godfrey (Minister of State (Infrastructure and Communities), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud of the agreement signed yesterday to share $1.8 billion with the Province of Quebec. In keeping with provincial jurisdictions, the agreement will promote the sustainable development of cities and communities.
As the Premier of Quebec said yesterday:
|
—members of the Bloc Québécois... should recognize that the real interests of Quebec require this budget be passed and the money reach the right place, that is, the municipalities. |
* * *
(1450)
[English]
Bell Canada
Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the federal government is clearly taking sides in one of the most contentious labour disputes in Canada.
While Bell Canada's Subco workers have been on a legal strike fighting for better working conditions and wages, the company has resorted to using scabs to undermine its workers. Now the Liberal government is helping Bell by advertising scab positions on its HRSDC job bank without even telling applicants the true nature of the job.
Why is the HRSDC minister aiding and abetting Bell's union busting activities?
Hon. Belinda Stronach (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that this is within provincial jurisdiction and we should not be promoting replacement workers. From time to time we need to review the programs to ensure that they do not have unintended consequences.
* * *
Fisheries and Oceans
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in one year four reports have come out condemning the practices and policies of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Today the respected David Suzuki Foundation has issued yet another damning report saying that the west coast wild salmon could end up swimming the same fate as the east coast cod fishery.
My question for the Minister of Fisheries and Ocean is quite simple. When will he restructure, refocus and rebuild this dilapidated department?
Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has shown that it takes the management of B.C. fisheries very seriously.
A little bit later this week, I will be making my eighth trip to B.C. as minister to announce the wild salmon policy. Last week I announced comprehensive policies to address issues in the Fraser River salmon fishery.
Are there still problems? Is there still work to be done? Yes. Will we get that work done? Absolutely.
* * *
[Translation]
Government Contracts
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates adopted a motion forcing the government to impose fines in connection with the rental scandal. The Liberals broke the law by paying millions of dollars in rent for an empty building.
Is the Prime Minister going to force his Liberal buddy to pay up or is he going to sweep one more Liberal scandal under the rug?
[English]
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again Alexis Nihon provided the building as per contract, on time and within budget. Beyond that, my department wrote to Alexis Nihon recently stating, “Please inform us what corrective measures you have taken to arrange your affairs in such a way that you are not in breach of section 25(10) of the lease”.
Furthermore, section 25(10) of the lease referred to section 14 of the Parliament of Canada Act. Also, section 14 has been replaced by the Senate code of ethics, which was approved by this House in 2003. Currently, the Senate ethics officer is reviewing this issue. We look forward to his response. He is the person who is qualified and entitled to respond appropriately to this issue.
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that same public works minister admitted that his Liberal friend broke the law. He admitted it twice even though he does not admit it now.
Now our Commons committee wants that law enforced and wants those fines paid. The only question that remains here is whether the government is going to cover up this scandal or whether it is going to enforce the law and ensure that Liberal lawbreaker pays his fines.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: I only heard the tail end of the hon. member's question, but I have warned him before about being very careful in speaking about members of the other place in a disrespectful way. If his question said what I thought I heard at the end, he is going to have some difficulty after question period in dealing with me, but the Minister of Public Works and Government Services can answer the question now.
(1455)
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again, the discussion is now before the Senate ethics officer. He is the individual who is obligated, entitled and ought to be looking at this. I would urge the committee and the hon. member to respect the role of the Senate ethics officer and to let him do his work.
* * *
National Defence
Mr. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the primary function of the military ombudsman is to protect and defend the individual against any unfair treatment from the Department of National Defence.
When the minister selects an individual for the position of ombudsman, that person must be prepared to fight the system. However, the minister's hand-picked choice, Mr. Côté, does not appear to fulfill this requirement. He is a classic organization man always having defended the government, not the individual.
Does the minister intend to carry on with this appointment in spite of the committee's decision to reject him?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure members of the House that the selection of Mr. Côté was made after a fair and open process. Applicants were heard and we selected, in our view, absolutely the best applicant.
I have heard the objections of the members of the committee and I will consider them. However, I have to tell members of the House that this is a gentleman who has served Canada well and who has been an exemplary public servant.
I do not think it helps either what we are trying to do as a government or what we are doing in the House to attack him for his personal qualifications, which I suggest are quite impeccable as a public servant of our country.
Mr. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC): Mr. Speaker, so much for the respect of Parliament.
The government set up a process to choose the military ombudsman that guarantees the selection of an advocate for the organization rather than the soldier. Representatives from the highest levels of government, including the PCO, DND and the PMO, were all involved in the selection process.
To exacerbate the problem, the questions used by the selection committee were vetted by the JAG, the organization which its main job is to protect the interests of the department.
Why does the minister persist in using a selection process that is so biased against the needs of the individual soldier, sailor and aviator?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the selection process was open, transparent and fair. Everybody who wanted to apply was able to apply and we selected the best person we could.
Having the people who know something about the system comment on what they think is a good way to get the best possible result. We do not necessarily have to follow all advice. However, I ask the hon. member not to ask the government to ignore the advice of people who know what they are talking about in order to get some blind decision that does not respond to reality.
* * *
[Translation]
Gasoline Prices
Mr. Marc Boulianne (Mégantic—L'Érable, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Industry made a decidedly odd statement, “the last people in the world who should be trying to figure out what a competitive market looks like are politicians”.
Does the Minister of Industry realize that, by refusing to investigate, by refusing to give the Competition Act more teeth, he is siding with the gas and oil companies, and that in the end it is partly his fault if we are forced to pay more than a dollar a litre for gas?
[English]
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is just demonstrating that he is another one of the neanderthals who think that every time the price of oil goes up there is an international conspiracy to fix prices.
What about when the price of oil goes down? I was referring to the politicians opposite, not the members of this party.
[Translation]
Mr. Marc Boulianne (Mégantic—L'Érable, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we see that not only are the minister's statements odd, they are also very surprising.
This laid-back attitude by the minister and the government is, moreover, shared by the Minister of Transport, who wants to leave it up to market forces. What kind of signal is an attitude like this sending the oil companies other than they can do whatever they like, and the government will not do anything about it?
[English]
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have a very good Competition Bureau in our country which is rated among the top four in the world. It has investigated the oil and gas industry five times since 1990 and found no anti-competitive conduct.
The hon. member can blather on all he likes. The facts are the facts.
* * *
(1500)
Veterans Affairs
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence continues to deny any link between agent orange and cancer related diseases. I refer to yesterday's testimony by his officials. In fact, they dismiss medical evidence from the United States and other jurisdictions which acknowledge that link.
Having awarded two compensation packages in at least two cases, the Minister of Veterans Affairs recognizes that link. Why does the Minister of National Defence continually deny that link? Why is there the disagreement between the two ministers?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are not denying the link. What we are trying to do, despite the efforts of the hon. member, is to get some facts into this debate so we can understand exactly what happened some 40 years ago.
We know there was a limited amount of testing over seven days, over the course of two years, in certain areas within Gagetown. We are seeking to find out exactly all those who were exposed.
As the hon. member said, the Minister of Veterans Affairs has ensured that anyone who shows their exposure has been compensated with pensions. We are working on this. We do not minimize anything. We will find solutions and we will work with everyone to find the proper solution.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister still denies the cause and effect. In fact, he ignores his own information. The record will show that 300,000 gallons of defoliant were sprayed on Camp Gagetown in the period of which we are speaking. He continues to ignore medical evidence.
They are suggesting that in the new studies they are going to come up with, these ongoing studies, nothing new is going to be found. How can he ignore medical science, especially medical science that comes from the United States on this issue? The minister is not making himself very clear.
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my precise point is that we are not ignoring medical science as I have assured the House. The hon. Minister for Veterans Affairs has ensured that her department is examining carefully anyone who was exposed to agent orange. In those cases where that has been proven, pensions have been awarded.
We treat this very seriously. Our officials will be down there now explaining to the local population that we want to get to the facts. I can assure the hon. member we are not minimizing it. We will give those people who have been affected by agent orange what they need and what they require and that--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Beaches—East York.
* * *
Housing
Hon. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, co-operative housing is an important part of the housing continuum. It provides a secure, affordable option for low and moderate income Canadians. However, in recent months many federally administered co-ops funded under section 95 of the National Housing Act faced a subsidy shortfall when their mortgages came up for renewal. This problem was threatening the financial viability of many projects.
Could the Minister of Labour and Housing tell the House what he has done to fix the problem and to assist the people in that situation?
Hon. Joe Fontana (Minister of Labour and Housing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member for Beaches—East York, as well as the Liberal caucus, has been very supportive of co-operative housing. In fact, as I committed in April and delivered in Edmonton this past Saturday, for those co-ops that have suffered the negative impacts of reduced interest rates on subsidies, we have committed dollar for dollar $72 million over the next five years to fix this problem.
It is a commitment made and a promise kept. We also have waived the insurance premiums and we will do more for cooperatives--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Cambridge.
* * *
Taxation
Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, school boards in Ontario and Quebec took the Liberal government to court to prove they should be exempt from GST on the cost of transporting our children. The courts agreed and a final settlement was made, and all sides accepted it.
Guess what? The Minister of Finance then retroactively changed the law and now refuses to respect the ruling of the courts.
Why is the minister playing games with the rules of law in the country instead of paying the school boards of Ontario and Quebec what the government owes them?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the costs of education are paid for in a variety of ways across the country. The Government of Canada assists in a number of ways through transfers to provinces. Quite frankly, it is our view that systems of direct support are better than those other kinds that the hon. gentleman is suggesting through the tax system.
(1505)
[Translation]
Mr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the school boards in my region and in Quebec are the victims of fiscal injustice.
Despite the favourable and final judgment they have obtained, Revenue Canada is demanding millions of dollars in GST.
When will the Minister of National Revenue return to money that is owed to the students of Quebec and Ontario?
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, the methods chosen by the Government of Canada to offer support to provinces to cover the costs of education follow a different route than the one suggested by the hon. gentleman. However, the Government of Canada tries to be as helpful as it possibly can, while maintaining the integrity of our tax base.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
[English]
Inquiry relating to Member for Newton--North Delta
The Speaker: Pursuant to section 28 of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, it is my duty to present to the House the report of the Ethics Commissioner on an inquiry in relation to the hon. member for Newton—North Delta.
* * *
Democratic Reform
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a copy of the government's first annual report on democratic reform.
* * *
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 32 petitions.
* * *
[Translation]
Canada Marine Act
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Minister of Transport, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-61, an act to amend the Canada Marine Act and other Acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
Committees of the House
Procedure and House Affairs
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 44th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs concerning a question of privilege relating to mailings sent to various ridings.
Also, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented its 43rd report last Thursday. Since then, the committee has decided, pursuant to Standing Order 109, to request that the government table a response to this report.
I would therefore seek the unanimous consent of the House to table a revised copy of this report requesting that the government table a response, and for this revised copy to be substituted for the report presented last week. The committee agreed to this unanimously yesterday.
* * *
(1510)
[English]
Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
In accordance with its order of reference of Friday, December 10, 2004, your committee has considered Bill C-27, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, and agreed on Tuesday, June 21 to report it with amendments.
* * *
[Translation]
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade on mining in developing countries, entitled “Corporate Social Responsibility.”
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests a comprehensive government response to the report.
I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade on the “Elements of an Emerging Market Strategy for Canada.”
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests a comprehensive government response to the report.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. I misunderstood what he said and regret my mistake.
* * *
[English]
Procedure and House Affairs
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent, as I indicated a while ago, to present the revised copy of the 43rd report that I referred to a moment ago. I would like to substitute that report for the one already tabled in the House.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the proposal of the hon. member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The report is therefore substituted.
* * *
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-416, An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Nickel Belt.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with great honour that I introduce this private member's bill, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Nickel Belt.
This bill will substitute the name Sudbury--Nipissing for the name Nickel Belt, which will geographically reflect the constituents that I represent and will realistically illustrate certain community factors in terms of how the communities wish to be identified.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
Public Service Employment Act
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-417, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act and the Public Service Employment Act enacted by section 12 of chapter 22 of the Statutes of Canada, 2003 (area of selection).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to introduce my private member's bill, which is seconded by the member for Blackstrap. We want to stop the offensive practice of the Government of Canada's only hiring people for Ottawa jobs from people with postal codes in the immediate area of Ottawa. This restricts hundreds of people across the country, everywhere from Truro, Nova Scotia to Coquitlam, B.C. from applying for these jobs, even though they are fully qualified.
It sounds like a third world policy when a country says that the citizens of the country cannot even apply for a job in their own national capital.
If this bill passes, we will resolve that problem once and for all, that practice of discrimination by postal code.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
(1515)
[Translation]
Highway 30 Completion Bridges Act
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Outremont, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill S-31, an act to authorize the construction and maintenance of a bridge over the St. Lawrence River and a bridge over the Beauharnois Canal for the purpose of completing Highway 30
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
Petitions
Palestinian Rights
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the honour to table a petition signed by people from the island of Montreal on the rights of Palestinians.
* * *
[English]
Natural Health Products
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by some 150 residents of Calgary Southeast calling upon Parliament to protect freedom of choice for consumers of non-drug medicinal products such as health foods. They essentially want to ensure that these products are not overly regulated by the government, and that they are free to choose to use these naturopathic remedies and natural health products.
* * *
Marriage
Mr. Bradley Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to present a petition on behalf of my constituents, in particular, constituents from the towns of Munster, Middle Lake, St. Benedict and particularly the town of St. Brieux. It appears almost that whole town has signed this petition.
The petitioners are requesting that Parliament consider that marriage is exclusively heterosexual in nature, a truth respected by every major culture throughout all recorded history. Therefore, the petitioners humbly call upon Parliament to pass legislation that will protect the traditional definition of marriage as it has before affirmed.
Hon. Robert Thibault (West Nova, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of presenting, in both official languages, a petition signed by over 100 residents of West Nova calling upon all members of Parliament to support Bill C-38, an act respecting civil marriage.
* * *
Community Access Program
Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present on behalf of the people of Tofield in my constituency a petition regarding the community access program, which provides Internet and computer service for people who otherwise would not have it available. They are calling for that program not to end this year as scheduled.
* * *
Nappan Experimental Farm
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a very substantial petition with 2,667 names on it. The signatures were gathered by the Cumberland County Federation of Agriculture in support of keeping the Nappan Experimental Farm open. The petition is signed by 30 MLAs, including Premier Hamm, many MPs, including the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Warden Keith Hunter, and many other concerned people.
It demands that the government keep the Nappan farm open and for once support agriculture in Nova Scotia, keep the beef research and maintain this as a federal operation.
* * *
(1520)
Government Policies
Hon. Bryon Wilfert (Richmond Hill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition to the House from residents in the greater Toronto area who support the spiritually gifted Bryan Farnum on issues such as foreign ownership. They would like a restriction of 20% on oil and gas, also control of Canada's natural water resources. They state that issues such as family values and general health care should be put to a national referendum. They promote peace and obviously are interested in the issue of nuclear disarmament.
* * *
Marriage
Mrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells to present a petition calling upon Parliament to use all possible legislative and administrative measures to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and to recognize that marriage is the best foundation for families and for the raising of children.
* * *
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 78 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 78--Mr. Cummins (Delta—Richmond East):
With regard to programs and all other special expenditures for aboriginals in the riding of Delta—Richmond East, what was the total expediture by each federal department, agency or Crown corporation for fiscal years 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 for each band, aboriginal organization, aboriginal society and corporation?
(Return tabled)
[English]
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Motions for Papers
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-11, in the name of the hon. member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar is acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential information and the documents are tabled immediately.
|
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all documents, briefs, reports, memorandums and statistics regarding the recording and tracking of inquiries made by the staff of Members of Parliament within the Public Health Agency of Canada since its inception. |
The Speaker: Subject to the conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that Motion No. P-11 be deemed to have been adopted?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that other Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Request for Emergency Debate
Alberta Flood
[S. O. 52]
The Speaker: The Chair has received an application for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Lethbridge. I will now hear the hon. member for Lethbridge and his submissions on this point.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today under Standing Order 52 to ask for leave to move a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing the flooding in southern Alberta and across the southern Prairies and the disaster that has resulted, and the threat to human life, to safety and to property posed by continued flooding.
Although the rain has stopped and the flood waters are starting to recede, many across the eastern slopes of the Prairies, out across the foothills, across Alberta, Saskatchewan and even into Manitoba, have experienced flooding of a magnitude that has not been recorded in hundreds of years.
I know we are already sitting until midnight every night, but I think it would bode well if the House could allot a couple of hours within the next few days to allow members of Parliament the opportunity to bring forward the situations that exist in their ridings. It would also be a good opportunity for the government to bring forward some of the programs and opportunities that are available to people who are affected. It would be time very well spent.
Mr. Speaker, I hope, when you deliberate on this, that you do approve the application that I am making right now for an emergency debate on the flooding across southern Alberta and the southern Prairies.
The Speaker: I want to thank the hon. member for Lethbridge for his submissions. I assure the hon. member that I will take the matter under advisement and get back to the House in due course.
* * *
(1525)
Points of Order
Question Period
[Points of Order]
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you noted during question period, following a question from the member for Nepean--Carleton, you acknowledged what many on this side of the House felt when you said that you had formally warned the House I believe on two occasions to tread very carefully with respect to this issue while there is an investigation going on in the other place by the appropriate ethics officer.
Mr. Speaker, I hope you will carefully review the blues of this question period. That particular member has, in our view, on a number of occasions ignored your formal warning. We are hoping you will get back to the House as to what course of action would be appropriate once you have had a chance to review the blues. Maybe, for the benefit of that hon. member, you could, for a third time, remind the House of the need to be careful.
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I understand that this is a very touchy issue for members of the government, after all the public works minister has admitted on two occasions that his Liberal colleagues actually broke the law.
The point I am making is this and after making this point--
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: The hon. member is getting himself into more difficulty. I would suggest that we simply leave this matter.
The hon. parliamentary secretary has asked that I review the blues, which is fully my intention. I am waiting for the blues and have asked that they be brought to me. When I get them and have reviewed them I will deal with the issue that has been raised. My intention is to do it but I have not received the blues yet. The hon. member for Nepean--Carleton was just asking me if I have had a chance to review the blues and I have not because they are not here yet.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Extended Sitting Period
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) moved:
|
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice, when the House adjourns on June 23, 2005, it shall stand adjourned until June 27, 2005; at any time on or after June 27, 2005, a Minister of the Crown may propose, without notice, a motion that, upon adjournment on the day on which the said motion is proposed, the House shall stand adjourned to a specified date not more than 95 days later; the said motion immediately shall be deemed to have been adopted, provided that, during the adjournment, for the purposes of any Standing Order, the House shall be deemed to stand adjourned pursuant to Standing Order 28; commencing June 27, 2005 and concluding on the day on which a motion that the House stand adjourned pursuant to this Order is adopted, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays shall be 12:00 midnight. |
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Government Business No. 17 respecting the extension of the sitting of the House. Members are aware that the House is scheduled to adjourn on June 23.
Mr. Speaker, I would draw your attention to Marleau and Montpetit on page 347, which states:
|
There are times when the House may wish to temporarily set an adjournment time earlier or later than the time prescribed in the Standing Orders. |
The process for a motion to extend the sitting was set out in a June 13, 1988 ruling by the Speaker.
First, the Speaker ruled that it was acceptable for the government to place such a motion under government notices of motions. This is because the Standing Orders themselves do not define what is to be in a motion from the government, nor do they limit the government's ability to place such a motion under government notices of motion.
Second, the Speaker then ruled that the government could initiate a motion to suspend the sitting provisions of the Standing Orders, and the Speaker noted that precedents and procedural authorities enabled the government to put forward a motion to suspend the sitting provisions rules.
Third, the Speaker ruled that such a motion can be adopted by a majority decision of the House. The Speaker stated that “there is no doubt that the House can amend or suspend its rules by unanimous consent and the House can also do so by a simple majority decision”.
Fourth, the Speaker then reminded the House that parliamentary reforms had not changed the practice of the House and had not rendered prior precedents inapplicable.
Therefore I would submit that the motion in Government Business No. 17 is consistent with the Speaker's June 13, 1988 ruling. It is also consistent with a motion to extend the sitting of the House which was adopted following the Speaker's ruling.
The purpose of the motion that is before us is quite simple. Urgent legislation that is before the House is being obstructed. I point to Bill C-48, the budget companion bill, that would provide for $4.5 billion in urgent funding for the environment, including public transit and an energy retrofit program for low income housing, training and post-secondary education to benefit, among others, aboriginal Canadians. Also in that bill are moneys for affordable housing, including housing for aboriginal Canadians, and foreign aid.
Yesterday the premier of Quebec asked the Bloc to support the legislation which would give more than $1 billion to Quebec. The government agrees with Premier Charest that the bill is clearly in the interests of Quebecers and, indeed, in the interests of all Canadians, and needs to be passed. I would urge the Bloc members to support the interests of Quebec and to respect the request of the premier of Quebec and support the passage of Bill C-48.
In order to ensure that we have an opportunity to pass Bill C-48, we also need to consider what the official opposition is now doing. The leader of the official opposition is blocking passage of legislation that would benefit Canadian workers, students, the environment and foreign aid. Bill C-48 maintains the principles of the government's budgetary policy. It includes balanced budgets and expenditures in priority areas, and yet we have the example of the official opposition moving concurrence motions or other dilatory tactics for the simple purpose of looking to run out the clock until the scheduled adjournment of the House on June 23.
The opposition is also preventing the House from dealing with Bill C-38. The government is prepared to support an amendment to the bill at report stage that would provide greater certainty for religious institutions under the Income Tax Act. The amendment itself would be beyond the scope of the bill and it would require unanimous consent of the House. However I would hope that members across the way would give the House the opportunity to hear that amendment and that all members would wish to support such an initiative.
The government recognizes that the purpose of debate in the House is to help people make up their minds on issues. All members have clearly made up their minds on Bill C-38 so debate itself should not be used to delay Parliament from deciding.
(1530)
If we were to look back to the work done by the justice committee, although I know hon. members across the way and others would disagree, but the justice committee had detailed cross country hearings on civil marriage in 2002 and 2003. We have had extensive debate in the House on Bill C-38 at second reading. I indicated to my hon. colleague, the opposition House leader and other House leaders, that every member who wanted to speak to Bill C-38 should be allowed and will be given the opportunity to speak at second reading. I think that has happened. In committee we have heard from all sides on the bill.
I want to draw to the attention of members that an editorial in today's Globe and Mail stated:
|
There is nothing materially useful to add. It's time for Parliament to vote on the bill, and for all parties to let the Commons have its say. |
The government agrees with that and I think it is important that parliamentarians deal with this issue. Canadians elected members to the House to work in the interest of Canadians. It is not time to adjourn. It is time to look at how we can better serve the interests of Canadians. We should continue to sit until we pass Bill C-48 and work toward passing Bill C-38, which is why the government put forward the motion to extend the sitting.
I have indicated publicly that I am giving the opposition the opportunity to show that Parliament can work. If the members obstruct the motion, I certainly think that closure is always a possibility, as provided under the Standing Orders, but I certainly hope that will not be necessary and that all members would take the opportunity to support the motion so that we can continue the work in the House and continue to serve the interests of Canadians.
(1535)
Mr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions for the House leader. He indicated to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a matter of great national interest and great urgency.
The fact of the matter is that Bill C-48 and the provisions thereof contain, to my knowledge, nothing that will be done within the next year. All of these expenditures are subject to there being a surplus of at least $2 billion at the end of the fiscal year 2006. The urgency of this is just simply not there.
How can the House leader claim this urgency when clearly we will have more than enough time in the continuation of Parliament in the fall to debate this, to vote on it and hopefully to hear from more Canadians who are very interested in ensuring that the economy of the country stays strong and that the democratic process in this country is preserved, namely that budget speeches are not changed on the fly after they are made, destroying a long time tradition in the House?
With respect to Bill C-38, I venture again to say that this is an abuse of democracy and is one in which we ought not to be engaging. We have had literally thousands and I would suggest probably even close to a million names on petitions on this particular issue.
For the government to use an extension of a session to go in violation of what the clear majority of Canadians want in this matter and an issue which, in the words of the Deputy Prime Minister, can be solved without changing the definition of marriage, all of this can be done in a timely and normal fashion when we return in the fall session.
Calling this an emergency to extend the session is just so specious it is almost unbelievable. I would like the House leader to try to justify his move on this particular issue.
Hon. Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the hon. member's questions, I would only draw his attention to premiers and mayors across the country. They have all indicated the need to ensure that the legislation passes immediately to ensure their planning process is at play and to ensure they are able to plan effectively, knowing full well that the federal legislation has passed the House and they can continue.
I also would draw attention, for instance, to the Premier of Quebec who talked about the more than $1 billion of funding that would go to Quebec and how there is a need to pass the legislation.
While the hon. member might have disagreement with this legislation, he is perfectly able to put forward his argument. In fact, I would argue that the opposition has done that at report stage with numerous speakers. I do not know the actual number, but I think close to 70 or 80 of the members got up and spoke to report stage. I may be incorrect, but there were certainly a lot of members on the opposite side who put forward their positions, offered amendments and we dealt with report stage. Now at third reading, I am sure more speakers will get up.
The point is that the bill itself is in the public interest and that is a consideration we should all have with respect to what other levels of government are doing.
Bill C-48 needs to pass the House. It is one of the reasons for extending this sitting. If the hon. member, on reflection, would look at what is in Bill C-48 and look at the impact it has across the country, he would support the motion to extend the sitting.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to understand more clearly. In his presentation, the House leader is asking the House, in a motion, to extend the sittings past June 23. In other words, the House will resume on June 27.
When the House leader was reading his motion, I thought I understood that at any time during the extended sittings, on or after June 27, a minister can rise in the House and propose a motion to call an end to this prolongation by proposing adjournment for a maximum of 95 days.
I would like to know whether, on or after June 27, it is possible for a minister to propose a motion to adjourn for up to 95 days?
(1540)
[English]
Hon. Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, the motion is worded in such a way that if the House does sit an extended period of time, there would be an opportunity for the House to start back at a later date to compensate for the fact that we sat during this period of time. It is up to 95 days. It is the way the motion reads. It is quite fair to members of Parliament who might be in this place for an extended period of time during the summer, and that opportunity to do so is in the motion if the House passes it.
The purpose of the motion is to extend the sitting to deal with urgent matters with respect to the legislation before us. Once the House is adjourned, it allows for members of Parliament to go to their ridings to meet with constituents or go to different parts of the country to meet with Canadians.
I would think the opposition members would probably go around the country and talk about the fact that Bill C-48 itself should not have been supported. They are welcome to go to different cities to speak to different mayors and tell them how the money for transit should not go them, or the money for the new deal with respect to the gas tax should not flow to municipalities.
I am trying to provide ample opportunity for members opposite, once the House adjourns, to meet with their constituents and to travel the country so they can convey their message. I am sure they will find that the majority of the people whom they meet will disagree with their message.
Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC): Mr. Speaker, everyday I see the government stooping to new lows. Today we see threats against members of the House of time allocation and using closure to prevent appropriate debate. It goes on and on and it is getting worse, quite frankly.
The member is talking about Bill C-48, which was so unimportant to the government that none of it was put in the original Liberal budget bill. We are talking about the NDP-Liberal budget bill. Now the Liberals have to ram it through somehow. Besides that, the budget implementation bill for last year was only passed in the House a couple of weeks ago.
As my hon. colleague has already pointed out, none of the spending in the bill would take place immediately. It would be at least a year from now before the Liberals could calculate the level of surplus, overtaxation and increase in tax and spending that the government has gone through in the past few years which makes it difficult for my children and the children of people across the country to make their mortgage payments and pay off their students loans.
The Liberals keep taxing and spending more and more and now they want to spend this extra $4.5 billion that would be added on to their insane increases in spending in Bill C-43. The member should reconsider what he is trying to do. He should in fact back off on this. I am sure that is exactly what the House leader will do.
Hon. Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, I will respond directly to the hon. member's question. When he makes reference to a budget implementation bill that just passed the Senate, what he is referring to is a budget finance bill which contained housekeeping tax measures. The budget implementation bill from budget 2004 passed within months, not a year. In fact, it was presented in March and passed before the House recessed in June of last year.
I must correct the member. While he makes his argument, the argument is incorrect. I would also encourage him to look at the facts to see that the budget implementation bill itself was passed quite expeditiously, much along the same lines that Bill C-43 was passed. We hope to have Bill C-48 passed expeditiously.
With respect to disagreeing with Bill C-48, I accept the member's ability and right to disagree on legislation. I have no qualms with that at all. That is what this House is about. I think that debate is about changing minds. I do not think the debate should be about stalling the question so Parliament can decide, and the opposition members have done a very good job of trying to do exactly that.
Editorials across the country are asking why members continue to stall, why they do not allow the question and why they do not allow Parliament to decide. That is democracy in action. Members should be able to oppose, but I do not think they should be able to use debate just to delay.
(1545)
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it just gets more and more peculiar, the longer I have been here. It has been almost 12 years that I have been an elected member of Parliament. I always say to my constituents in Prince George--Peace River that it is 12 good years in the sense of having the privilege to have served them and to have been elected and then re-elected to come to this place and express what I believe to be in their best interest. However, it gets more and more peculiar when we look at what the government is setting out to do.
Today, we are debating a motion to have us sit beyond the normal day of adjournment for the summer break.
Right here I want to stop and represent not only myself but I think all members of Parliament. There is a misconception, and it is often repeated by the media, that somehow when the House rises members of Parliament go on holidays, they have this three-month summer break. I think I can speak for all members of Parliament from all four of the recognized parties, and even the independents, when I say that nothing could be further from the truth.
I say this in a non-partisan way that members of Parliament work extremely hard. I think I can speak with some experience on that. Before I got into politics I farmed and I worked in the oil and gas field. Very seldom in my life, except for I think for about a one-year period, did I have a nine to five job. I think it was more accurately 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. However, it was a job that had defined hours of employment. Other than that, I have worked at jobs where one worked until one got the job done. My experience has been with members of Parliament from all political persuasions that this is the way they work.
If there is work to be done they do it. It does not matter whether it is in Ottawa or in their constituencies, the job changes and the dynamics of the job change considerably. When the House rises, members of Parliament put on a slightly different hat. Instead of being legislators, they are constituency members of Parliament but they still work hard to interact with their constituents back in the ridings. If they get any break at all, usually it would be in the order that most Canadians get, a couple of weeks off in the summer.
I wanted to put that on the record because what we are debating today is having the House extend its sitting. There might be some people out there who will ask why members of Parliament should not work or what is wrong with extending the sitting? That is why I need to point out that members of Parliament work even when they are not in this place, in this chamber, even when they are not in their office in Ottawa and even when they are not meeting with lobbyists, that terrible word we have come to know all so well, who try to persuade us and educate us. Even when members are in their ridings, they are working and oftentimes all hours of the day and night.
An hon. member: How about those functions in the ridings that are planned?
Mr. Jay Hill: Exactly. One of my colleagues is prompting me a bit here about functions which they have committed to in their ridings. Many of those will be for next week.
Again I think I am not just speaking for the Conservative Party of Canada and our 98 members of Parliament. I think I could speak for all 308 members. I am sure they have events planned to which they have committed. Some might have been committed to some months ahead of time expecting, before this extremely abnormal request on the part of the government, that the House would rise on schedule tomorrow night at midnight. That is not going to happen.
I wanted to put that on the record just to clear any misconception there might be that we are talking about going on holiday on Friday. That is not the case. We are speaking to Motion No. 17 put forward by the hon. government House Leader, which states:
(1550)
|
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice,-- |
And I just talked about the usual practice.
|
--when the House adjourns on June 23, 2005, it shall stand adjourned until June 27, 2005; at any time on or after June 27, 2005, a Minister of the Crown may propose, without notice, a motion that, upon adjournment on the day on which the said motion is proposed, the House shall stand adjourned to a specified date not more than 95 days later; the said motion immediately shall be deemed to have been adopted, provided that, during the adjournment, for the purposes of any Standing Order, the House shall be deemed to stand adjourned pursuant to Standing Order 28; commencing June 27, 2005 and concluding on the day on which a motion that the House stand adjourned pursuant to this Order is adopted, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays shall be 12:00 midnight. |
That sounds extremely convoluted to anybody that is trying to follow it. I could not even follow it and I was the one reading it.
What does it basically say? This motion allows the House to begin sitting again next week. Then, once the government is satisfied that it got everything it wanted, a minister can deem the House adjourned to a date 95 days into the future.
We have a situation where a minister can wave his magic wand and deem that the House is adjourned. Why would we support that?
Obviously, depending on when the government gets what it wants, the House could be conceivably out until November or December or whenever. Once the government gets the bills that it wants, and we have seen this happen and certainly I have seen it happen in the almost 12 years that I have been here, the government could use prorogation. The government would prorogue the House until it deemed it most advantageous for it to have the House sit again.
I do not think it is a huge secret, that I am about to reveal, that this particular government is the most scandal plagued government in the history of our Parliament. Obviously, the Liberals would just love to have some method whereby they would not have to face the opposition daily for question period and have to answer questions in this place.
I do not think it is beyond a reasonable assessment that if the government were to be granted this and were it to pass all the legislation that the government House leader said was “urgent legislation”, there would be at least in theory no reason for the House to sit much longer.
In fact, one of the things our party has been saying, with the exception of the same sex marriage legislation, is that there has not been a heck of a lot on the government's agenda for a year now.
Something else I always want to point out to people is that the Conservative Party of Canada is not in the business of opposing just for the sake of opposition. We are called the official opposition.
We assess each and every piece of legislation that comes before this place. We weigh it on its own merits. We determine whether or not it is in the best interests of the majority of Canadians. Then we determine whether we are going to support it or oppose it, whether we can support it if it is amended or oppose it unless amended. We take these positions.
We believe that is a responsible way that a political party in this place should operate. It is not a position that just because we are opposition we oppose for the sake of opposing.
It might come as a bit of a surprise not only to yourself, Mr. Speaker, but to the viewing public, that in the almost 12 years I have been here the parties that I have represented have supported more government legislation than they have opposed, even though they have been opposition parties and that continues today.
Of the current bills that are before this place, leading up to the dying days of this session, there are about 15 that are not tied up in committee or have not gone on to the other place. We support two-thirds of them, 10 out of the 15. As far as I am concerned, that would certainly indicate that, unlike what the government House leader just said, we are neither obstructionist nor are we constantly opposing the government's initiatives. We believe in weighing the pros and cons of each piece of legislation, weighing its merits and then determining our position.
(1555)
The government gave its verbal commitment to the Bloc Québécois that it would only consider Bill C-48 and Bill C-38 if it got the extension into the summer. It said that if there were other issues, and I was there when we were discussing this, it would consider them on an ad hoc basis, only with agreement.
The government members failed to explain that when the House begins to vote on deferred divisions, for example, subamendments at third reading of Bill C-48 or Bill C-38, there will be times when the House will have nothing to do while it waits for the deferred division to come to a vote. It just cannot sit here idling in neutral. It is not like a government minister's limousine. The House will have to do something during that period of time. If the vote is deferred until the next day, we cannot just recess the House while we are waiting to have the vote.
The government promise to the Bloc Québécois members, to ensure they supported the extension so there could be more debate into July and the government assurance that only Bill C-38 would be discussed, is not entirely accurate.
I would also like to discuss why the government believes that it is so urgent that we get these two bills passed. A number of colleagues rose during questions and comments and asked the hon. government House leader exactly that question. They pointed out that, in the case of Bill C-48, the NDP budget companion bill, it will not come into effect until we know if there is a surplus.
I need to stop right here because one of the things that has frustrated me during my years as a member of Parliament is when governments start to talk about a surplus. Even the use of the word surplus is a misnomer in my books.
An hon. member: It is overtaxation.
Mr. Jay Hill: Exactly. My colleague from Edmonton says it is overtaxation and she is exactly right.
A fundamental philosophical difference between a Liberal or a New Democratic member and a Conservative is on this very issue because what is a surplus to a Liberal is overtaxation to a Conservative.
Let us look at the very premise of Bill C-48. It is a piece of legislation conceived in the dark of night in a hotel room in Toronto by a unionist, Buzz Hargrove, the leader of the New Democratic Party and the Prime Minister of the country to spend $4.6 billion.
I happen to have a copy of this piece of legislation that I would like to show Canadians. If they ever wanted to see what $4.6 billion looks like, there it is. It is two pages. It was conceived in a hurry.
(1600)
Hon. Karen Redman: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I realize that my hon. colleague is in midstream and I hate to interrupt his speech, but I would point out that being a veteran parliamentarian, he would know that it is unacceptable to use props. I would question why he would feel the obligation to use a tactic such as that, which is demeaning of a man who has been in the House for as long as he has. I would just like to point that out to the House.
The Speaker: I appreciate the diligence of the government whip. The thought occurred to me that it might have been in fact a prop, but when then the hon. member identified it as the bill that is currently before the House, I thought that perhaps it was not a prop because it is after all a bill that is under discussion. I think it is probably in order to wave the bill around when one is discussing it.
I realize that the bill is not the subject of the debate, but the motion that we are debating does relate to this bill, among other things. So I suspect it might not quite be a prop. The hon. member knows he will have to hold it respectfully, rather than waving it around and by doing so perhaps turning it from a bill into a prop. Other than that, he is fine.
Mr. Jay Hill: I am disappointed to see the hon. government whip rush into the Chamber and then exit again after she raised this issue.
As some of my colleagues who have been quick to point out, during her bogus point of order, this is indeed a prop in the sense that the government designed this, built it, and wrote it to prop up its government. In that sense, it is a prop. It is an NDP prop. It props up the corrupt government, as thin as it is.
In any event, before I was interrupted, I was about to explain to Canadians, who are watching these debates at home, one of the reasons why we have been so outspoken against Bill C-48. During the debate the Conservative Party of Canada and its members of Parliament carried on for a couple of days until the wee hours, up until midnight in a period of extended hours. If this motion were to pass, the debate would be extended hours again next week until midnight, which is part of the motion.
Unfortunately, and it might surprise you, Mr. Speaker, given the amount of hours that we have debated Bill C-48 at report stage, not all of my colleagues have had an opportunity to speak to the bill yet. I think there are still a few who did not get the opportunity because an interesting development took place last night.
When there was a decision by yourself, Mr. Speaker, to have the emergency debate on the Devils Lake diversion, which will dramatically affect the people of Manitoba, negotiations and discussions took place among the parties and we agreed to have the debate on report stage of Bill C-48 end at a certain time. Once that time was agreed to and was laid before the House in the form of a motion, instantly something happened.
All of a sudden we had Liberal and New Democrat members participating in the debate. Up to that time they had not been, other than the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. I seem to recall, to his credit, that he stayed here most evenings and participated in questions and comments. However, time after time we expected that members of the coalition of the two governing parties would stand up and participate in the debate, but they did not because they did not want to prolong the debate. However, as soon as there was an agreement to have an end time last night, what happened? All of a sudden they started to participate.
But I digress. The point that I am making is that the reason why Conservative members of Parliament felt so strongly and spoke so passionately about Bill C-48 and will continue to when they get the opportunity at third reading is because of that philosophical difference between Liberals and Conservatives. It is right at the very heart of why many of us, and I would suggest almost all of us here, left occupations that we loved, in which we had for all intents and purposes bright future careers.
We left those occupations and came to this place to represent our constituents. We did so because we believe in the trust between Canadian taxpayers and their government. We believe in that. We believe in a government that takes that trust seriously, not once in a while, but all the time.
(1605)
That is why we get so upset when we see something like this. I am trying to treat this with great respect, but it is extremely difficult. We get so upset with something like this because of the process by which it came into existence and because of the fact that the government takes for granted that it can spend taxpayers' money any way it wants.
This is a government that is already mired in scandal. This is a government that has been mired in scandal after scandal over the 12 years I have been here. I can give the House examples of those scandals, on which the government has blown billions of dollars.
There is the failed long gun registration scheme it came up with. There was the HRDC scandal, which occurred before probably half of my caucus colleagues even came here, but we remember it.
An hon. member: Shawinigate.
Mr. Jay Hill: Money was blown on Shawinigate. I thank my colleague for the reminder. The past prime minister, Jean Chrétien, interceded to secure a loan for a golf course and a hotel that he had an interest in.
There was also the spending on Challenger jets. My colleagues are feeding me information here to make sure that I do not forget, because so many scandals have rocked this government over the last 12 years that it is just unbelievable.
And this is the government that has the audacity to come to this place with a bill like this and expect all members of Parliament from all parties to approve it. Bill C-48 was illegitimately conceived. I would suggest that it is the illegitimate child of that union in the Toronto hotel room. The government has brought this bill before the House and expects all parties to fall all over themselves because of all the great and wonderful things it is going to address.
We are not saying that the issue of foreign aid does not need to be addressed. We are not saying that the issue of homelessness does not need to be addressed. We are not saying that there does not need to be greater emphasis on public transit. We have never said those things. Those things have always been part of our agenda, but they should not be dealt with like this.
Canadians understand that. My constituents understand that. This is no way to draft a budget. Canadians put more effort into drafting their household budget on a weekly basis than the government put into drafting this bill.
No one in Canada is fooled when told that this is somehow urgent business, that it needs to be addressed immediately and needs to be passed to the extent that we extend a sitting of Parliament to accomplish it. No one is fooled by that.
People know what Bill C-48 is: desperation in the extreme. This was conceived at a time when the Prime Minister knew that his minority government was in desperate shape and was about to fall if he did not do something. The only thing that kept his government alive in February and March was our party, because, as I said earlier, we assess each piece of government legislation and weigh it on its own merits.
We assessed Bill C-43, the original budget implementation act. We felt that there was enough good in it to support it. We took the unprecedented step, never before done in the 138 year history of Canada, of abstaining on the original budget vote. If we had voted as most opposition parties normally would have, the government would have fallen then. The NDP voted against it. The Bloc Québécois voted against it; to the Bloc's credit, at least it is consistent. The government would have fallen. We would have been in an election in March. We did not do it because we weigh legislation based on its merits and on whether we believe we can improve it.
(1610)
We believed that the flaws in Bill C-43, such as the CEPA amendments to implement parts of the Kyoto accord, could be taken out. We believed that the bill could be improved and amended, so we waited, on balance, and decided to take an unprecedented step.
At that time, the NDP criticized the Conservatives for this. The leader of the NDP went to the television cameras and dumped all over us and all over the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. He said it was unbelievable that the Conservative Party and its leader would abstain and allow the survival of Parliament.
Let us be clear on that point as well. The Conservatives did not support the budget that night. We did not support a corrupt government that night. We allowed Parliament to survive. We were very clear on that. We allowed to Parliament to survive because we believed that this particular piece of legislation, Bill C-43, could be amended and on balance could ultimately be supported. And we ultimately did. We supported it on May 19 and again on June 15.
It strikes me as more than a little odd that the government House leader moments ago said that this legislation, Bill C-48, the NDP budget, is of an urgent nature. Yet Bill C-43 has been passed to the other place. That is the budget, not this. Bill C-43, the original budget implementation act, was supported by the official opposition and the New Democratic Party and went to the other place on June 15. I have been informed that there it sits.
Conservative senators are ready to pass it because it contains things that all of us are under pressure to implement. It does not matter whether we are Conservative members of Parliament or Liberal, NDP or Bloc. We have all heard from our municipalities in our ridings, from our mayors, city councillors, regional district directors, reeves, et cetera. They are all of the opinion that they want Bill C-43, which contains the gas tax transfer of money to the municipalities, passed as quickly as possible into law so that money can start flowing.
An hon. member: And the Atlantic accord.
Mr. Jay Hill: And the Atlantic accord as well. I will get to that in a second. I know the member was worried that I had forgotten about that. I had not.
I want to point out that there are good things in the budget. On balance, that is why, when we assessed it, we supported it. It is important that people in the real world outside of this bubble that sits over Parliament Hill understand this.
Bill C-43 is sitting in the Senate. Why would that be? The government says it is of an urgent nature and is quick to try to condemn the Conservative Party even though, as I have just laid out, it abstained on the original budget vote and has supported it twice since and ensured its quick passage.
In fact, let us talk about the Atlantic accord. The Conservatives wanted to expedite its passage. Time and time again my colleague from Newfoundland raised the issue and pleaded with the government to expedite it, to carve off the Atlantic accord from Bill C-43 and get it through this place.
Mr. Loyola Hearn: As did the Bloc and NDP.
Mr. Jay Hill: As did the other two opposition parties. I should not say that. What I should say is that the one other opposition party and the coalition partner also supported the initiative to try to get that done, but the government refused. It said no, that it was all part of the package.
Time after time we heard in this place that we should pass Bill C-43 and get the budget through, that if we wanted the Atlantic accord we should get the budget through. How many times did we hear that? Now it is sitting in the Senate. It is going to be held for ransom until the government gets Bill C-48 through.
An hon. member: That's what they're doing. Shame.
Mr. Jay Hill: That is what it is about.
(1615)
The Liberals will hold it up until they pass this bill, which is two pages long and in which they are spending $4.6 billion. As has been said by my colleagues, let us not make any mistake about it, whether Bill C-48 passes today, tomorrow, next week or next month, it makes no difference.
Let us read from it. We do not have to read much more than the beginning of clause 1, which states, “Subject to subsection (3), the Minister of Finance may...”. We can just stop right there. It is “may”, not “will”. The finance minister “may, in respect of the fiscal year 2005-06, make payments out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund...”.
The bill is contingent upon there being what Liberals commonly refer to as a surplus. Even the New Democratic Party members have figured that out. They admit that. It is contingent upon there being a so-called surplus in order to pay for these things.
Hon. Bill Blaikie: So you like that. We did that for you.
Mr. Jay Hill: I do like it. I just do not see the urgency for any of it.
My hon. colleague from the NDP said that he thought I would like that. Of course I like it. Anything that would bring any degree of financial credibility to the government and to its spending habits would be a good thing. I think it is great that the Liberals cannot spend themselves into deficit, although I wonder whether that is exactly the route we are headed for now, despite their pleas to the contrary.
Here we sit today and Bill C-43 sits in the Senate while the government holds us to ransom and tries to blame it on the Conservatives. Conservative senators are ready to expeditiously pass the bill so the money can start flowing to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador for the Atlantic accord and to municipalities all across the country for badly needed improvements to infrastructure, but it just sits there because the government wants to, as I have said, hold us to ransom until it gets this piece of legislation through.
Why it wants to is completely beyond me, when the bill will not come into effect until we know what the financial situation of the country is almost a year from now. The fiscal or financial year end for our country is March 31. Until we get to next April fool's day, we will not know whether there is enough money to spend on these so-called priorities, so what is the urgency?
Why would Bill C-48 be the urgent legislation that the government House leader states it is? Here is what he has said about Motion No. 17. If it fails, if we vote it down, if there are sufficient members of Parliament in the chamber who say it is not urgent enough to extend the sitting into July, with the accompanying costs--and why would it be?--he has actually said that he will go to the Speaker and request that Parliament reconvene after its adjournment. Let us just think about that.
There is a mechanism in our democracy whereby, if it is necessary, a government can recall Parliament in times of great peril when the House is in a recess period. Every Canadian would support this, because we do not have a crystal ball with which to look into the future.
(1620)
We do not know what would happen if suddenly we were in a situation where some country declared war on us or if there were some horrendous natural disaster, like an earthquake or something, that required the urgent and timely intervention of Parliament. All sorts of crises might occur and they might not be so accommodating as to occur when the House is in session, so, of course, we need to have that mechanism in place. No one disputes that.
However to have a government demonstrate the arrogance that this legislation, along with Bill C-38, the same sex marriage legislation, are of such urgency that it would go to the Speaker and request that he recall Parliament to deal with it, is nothing short of unbelievable. I have never heard of such a thing.
If this unfolds, think about the precedent this sets. I would suggest that there is then no need to even worry about having a calendar whereby members of Parliament of all four parties can try to plan their lives, their commitments to their constituents and the events in their ridings.
As I said at the outset of my remarks, I know there are many members in all four parties who have important events planned in their ridings that allow their constituents personal access to their member of Parliament.
All too often we become so taken up with events in this place that it is all too easy to forget about how important that personal interaction with our constituents is. There are a few people who forget that at their peril and they will be reminded at the time of the next election. All of us have seen that happen.
I cannot and would not want to downplay how important this upcoming recess is for members of Parliament to be able to interact with their constituents.
While I am on the subject of this urgent nature, I just want to briefly refer to Bill C-38, the other piece of legislation that the government says is of such urgency that it has to get it through before we recess for the summer.
One of my colleagues makes a good point. Why did the Liberals not bring it through earlier if they wanted it? Why was it that in the entire month of May, the only day that we had for an opposition supply day was the last day of May. However in order to fulfill the requirement for the supply period, the government was forced to do exactly what I said it would be forced to do when it started down that road in late April, which was have all of the remaining six opposition supply days in early June. It took up a lot of time in the chamber but the government had to give those days to us finally, otherwise it could not have gotten its supply, which is its funding for the upcoming year. It had to complete that.
Now we are in a situation where the Liberals have determined that these two pieces of legislation are urgent: Bill C-48 and Bill C-38. I have already addressed the so-called budget companion bill, Bill C-48, so I will now turn to Bill C-38.
(1625)
The reality is that we on this side believe that Canadians have some very deep reservations about enacting into law for the entire country same sex marriage. We believe the majority of Canadians have some very serious reservations about a government that is proceeding down that road. Many of these reservations came out in the debate that took place in the special legislative committee that was struck to deal with the legislation following second reading in the House.
The committee, however, certainly did not do the job that my colleagues, led by the member for Provencher who I know tried to ensure that the committee would travel to give Canadians better access. I spoke earlier about access to members of Parliament. He wanted to ensure that Canadians had access to discuss that face to face with the committee.
The Prime Minister promised at one point that the committee would ensure that Canadians did have that access and yet they did not. For my colleagues, the four Conservative members of Parliament who sat on that special legislative committee, it was a huge fight for them to even get the reduced list of witnesses who would appear. The government just wanted to fast-track Bill C-38 through that process. I say shame because there are some reservations.
However, even in that short period of time, it belatedly became obvious to the government, at the 11th hour, that there were some real legitimate concerns about the protection of religious freedom in this country. Even then, the government missed the deadline for putting forward its amendments at committee. This is how inept the government is; it missed the deadline for putting forward its amendments.
It had to be through negotiations with the Conservative members on that committee that concessions were made. However we have very serious reservations about the strength of those amendments and whether they will really do the job of protecting religious freedom and freedom of religious expression in this country.
We heard again today, in his brief remarks to Motion No. 17, the government House leader reading an editorial from the Globe and Mail that said that there had been enough talk about this, that it should just go to a vote and get it over with. In other words, we should just rush it through and never mind that there may be people hauled before courts or tribunals and punished if they question homosexuality. We constantly hear that there is enough protection. We have heard those words before, as have Canadian.
Why is there this urgency? Gays and lesbians are getting married in Canada. What is going to change if Bill C-38 passes through the House? I would seriously doubt it will pass through the Senate before the Senate rises for the summer. What difference does it make to the government whether Bill C-38 sits in this place for the summer or sits in the other place for the summer?
Only one thing comes to mind and it is that Liberal members of Parliament, when they know that the majority of their constituents are opposed to same sex marriage, do not want to hear about it all summer as they are out in their ridings interacting with their constituents. They are hoping that if we can deal with it, pass it and get it shuffled over to the Senate, that somehow that will take it off Canadians' agenda.
(1630)
It might come off the agenda of the House of Commons but I can say that there is no hope in hell that it will come off the agenda for real Canadians in the real world. However supposedly this is of great urgency.
What is our position? We are not opposed to hearing an hour or two of report stage of Bill C-38. I conveyed that on behalf of my Conservative colleagues over a week ago to the House leader but the government wants the bill completed.
My position and the position of the Conservative Party of Canada was that given the very serious reservations that Canadians have about the protection of religious freedom of expression surrounding the bill, why would we not want to take those amendments, the ones which we and many others believe are too weak, out into the real world and ask Canadians what they think? What would be wrong in doing that for the summer if the bill is still here at report stage?
For those Canadians watching today, report stage is that stage of the legislative process where a bill can be amended. It can be improved and fixed. That was our position and it remains our position.
The majority of us do not believe that the bill is fixable but we do believe that at a minimum it could be improved before we send it on to the other place. We would like to get the opinion of Canadians over the summer as to whether they feel any cold comfort whatsoever with the amendments that have been put forward, both at committee and now put forward for report stage, if indeed those are not ruled out of order the way the vast majority were when it was at the special legislative committee.
The two pieces of legislation that the government says are so urgent that they require either the passage of Motion No. 17 or the extraordinary step that has only ever been taken in times of national emergency of going to the Speaker this weekend and telling him that we must reconvene Parliament next Monday, I would argue that I have just successfully disputed whether there is any urgency whatsoever.
In the lives of real Canadians outside of this place, nothing is going to change whether we pass Bill C-48 or Bill C-38.
An hon. member: Well, pass it if nothing is going to change.
Mr. Jay Hill: One of the Liberals woke up over there and said “Well, pass it if nothing is going to change”.
I already explained that we base our opposition or our support--
Mr. Merv Tweed: We will draw you a picture. We will send you a picture.
Mr. Rob Anders: He didn't hear you. Explain it again.
Mr. Jay Hill: I explained that we in the Conservative Party of Canada base our support or our opposition to legislation not on what is most expeditious or is most convenient for us, not because we might want to go home because we miss our families, our communities and our constituents.
We base our opposition or our support to legislation on the merits of that legislation.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Jay Hill: In addition, in anticipation--
Mr. Charlie Penson: And in conclusion.
Mr. Jay Hill: My hon. colleague from Peace River says “And in conclusion”.
(1635)
Members of Parliament from all parties just wait with great anticipation to be given the leader's position on legislation where one can speak for unlimited time. I hate to disappoint my colleague who I respect and a great friend of mine from Peace River, but it is not in conclusion, at least not yet.
In anticipation of this debate today, I did come up with a list of a few reasons. I think the list could be much more extensive and perhaps we can expand upon it as we go along. There are at least a few reasons why the House of Commons should not sit beyond the scheduled adjournment date of tomorrow midnight.
The first reason would be that if it were to sit longer, it would provide more opportunities for the Liberals to cook up more corrupt deals.
Second, we could have more NDP-Liberal coalition out of control spending budget bills. If they came up with one in one night in a Toronto hotel room, imagine if we expand and extend this sitting of the House of Commons for a week or two what they could do. If they had a weekend together, it is completely unimaginable what might happen.
Third, the House might pass the current NDP-Liberal coalition bill, Bill C-48, a bill which represents a ridiculous approach to budget policy, a plan cooked up, as I have said, in a hotel room among Buzz Hargrove, the Leader of the NDP and the Prime Minister and which proposes to spend some $4.6 billion of taxpayer money in the course of just two pages of legislation.
I will not hold the bill up again. I would not want the government whip to break a leg rushing back into the House to condemn me for using a prop.
Fourth, the House might pass Bill C-38 without properly ensuring that religious freedom is protected. I spoke at some length about that a moment ago.
Fifth, we might have to put up with the Prime Minister being mad as hell about the latest reasons the public should be mad as hell about him.
Sixth, we will have to pay to fly the Prime Minister and his cabinet back and forth in Challenger jets just to vote. Imagine that. If there is ever a reason not to extend the House any longer, that would have to be one, that they will use any excuse to jump in their Challenger jets and fly across the country.
Seventh, every time we vote, there is a potential that the government will try to buy votes, costing us even more money. Do I dare start to expand upon that one point? It was about a quarter of a billion dollars that it cost to secure each of the 19 NDP votes in the House of Commons; $4.6 billion divided by 19. That is unbelievable.
I always like to stop and ensure that Canadians clearly understand when we talk about billions of dollars. It is so easy as politicians to talk about a billion here, a billion there, $4.6 billion. A billion dollars is a thousand million dollars. I would dare say that there is a very small percentage of Canadians who would ever even have the net worth of a million dollars, although there are a few.
In any event, I digress once more. I will get back to the subject of buying votes.
(1640)
When the Liberals were successful in attracting one of my Conservative Party of Canada colleagues to cross the floor to instantly take a cabinet position, I was asked how I would describe that. I said this. We had known for quite some time that the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister in particular, was reaching out to opposition members in anticipation of a confidence vote that his government might lose. He was trying to attract one or more members to cross the floor. I do not think he really cared which one it was. Obviously he was successful in finding the weakest link.
That is what it is with a political party. A political party is bound by a chain of principles, ideas, trust, but it is only as strong, just as a family is, as its weakest link. That is why a lot of my colleagues took that very personally. It is a personal thing when one feels betrayed by a colleague.
At some point we have to address that situation. I have never been able to understand how someone can go to bed as a Conservative and wake up as a Liberal, or any other party affiliation for that matter. It amazes me how that can happen. The reality is it was done strictly to ensure the survival of the government, and it worked.
We will always remember the May 19 vote. A budget vote was held which resulted in a virtual tie in the chamber which was broken by the Speaker. This allowed the government to survive for another day. This happened only because of a deal concocted in a hotel room in the dead of night between the NDP and the Liberals to get 19 votes and a deal offered to a Conservative member to cross the floor to become a cabinet minister. That is the only reason the government survived, and those members know that.
That was not bad enough. To add insult to injury I was asked by the media what I thought of the new cabinet minister being given not only the responsibility for human resources development, but also being given responsibility for democratic renewal. It was so difficult for me to even be civil. It was unbelievable.
That type of action reinforces the cynicism that all of us experience not just as members of Parliament but any politician at any level who is involved in party politics. In most cases municipal politicians could be taken out of that because they run as individuals. Whether it is at the provincial level or the federal level, that type of action reinforces the cynicism which affects all politicians of all political stripes.
Voters do not understand then what they are voting for. There are a few people, and they are precious few, who actually run as independents either at the provincial or federal level of governments in our country and win as independents. We get elected to represent our people in this place for three reasons. One is because of our party affiliation. The second is because of the leader. The third is because of who we are.
(1645)
Again, those members, regardless of political stripe or what party they run for, become so puffed up with their own sense of self-importance that they start to believe they are elected just because of who they are. I have always challenged those people to run as independents. Then they will know why they got elected.
For the vast majority of us in our system of government, we are elected because we belong to a political party. Our political party has a certain platform on which we run in an election campaign. We have principles, some parties arguably more than others, and we have policies on which we run and people elect us on them.
Why is it that we can think for a moment that if suddenly we become a member of a different political party, that is acceptable to our constituents? I have a great problem with that.
How could the Prime Minister of the country, who has said repeatedly that he wants to address what he has referred to as a democratic deficit, take an individual like that over all his colleagues, his caucus, his members of Parliament, and elevate that person as the Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal when, by her very actions, she has just reinforced the cynicism, the distrust with which all Canadians struggle when asked about politics and politicians? I would argue it hurts the Liberals, the New Democrats and the Bloc. It hurts all of us when that cynicism, that distrust is reinforced.
All of us have spoken many times in this place and elsewhere about the need to address that distrust and to try to restore the link that must exist between members of Parliament and constituents, Canadians out in the real world. One of the reasons I left the farm to get involved in politics was my fundamental belief that taxpayer money should be treated like a sacred trust. That is why I am so vehemently opposed to not only Bill C-48, but the process that was used to bring it about and how it was a slap in the face to everybody, every organization, every corporation and every Canadian who participated in the prebudget consultations.
As many of my colleagues have said much more eloquently than I, if this were so urgent, if this were such a good idea, if all of these things that Bill C-48 is supposedly to address were so urgent, why was it not in the original budget? However, it was not. No one is fooled by the fact that it was not in the original budget because it was not time then to buy votes. It is about power for the sake of power. It is about staying in power when that trust is not deserved.
That is why I believe the New Democratic party and its members made a very bad choice to prop up a corrupt government. In the end, it will come back to haunt them. It is not about taking a principled stand on one piece of legislation, which is how the NDP members are trying to paint this. They say that Bill C-48 is their deal, their budget. They applaud every time we call it the NDP budget. It is not about securing the passage of one piece of legislation, it is about making a commitment to a corrupt government to ensure it stays in power. That is the reality of it.
(1650)
There were three reasons why I became involved in politics. I have spoken about the first one at some length. It was the financial situation, the fiscal importance of our country. At the time I first became involved in politics I had three young children. My children are now aged 22, 24 and 26. They are young adults who are struggling to pay their bills and make their way in the world. Two of them are trying to pay off student loans while struggling under a horrendous tax burden and soon the third will be. That is what my children are facing and that is what many families are facing.
I got involved because I believed we could do better. I believed that our country could do better. I still believe that. I still believe that Canada can be restored to its rightful place as the best country in the world. That is why I continue to struggle every day in this place and in my riding.
I said there were three reasons that primarily motivated me to get into politics. The second was the need for democratic reform. That is why I took it extremely personally, as did many of my colleagues, when we saw the government succeed in luring one of ours away in order to stay in power, just for the sake of staying in power for another day, a week, a year or however long it is.
I honestly do not know how some of the Liberal members of the caucus could witness that and remain in their caucus. I do not understand that. In the 12 years I have been here I have been fortunate enough to get to know many of them. Although we disagree vehemently and strongly on issues of policy and the positions we take on different issues that come before this place, I have a lot of respect for members from all parties.
I believe very strongly that for the vast majority of members of Parliament, regardless of party affiliation, regardless of whether they believe in separation or that government knows best, regardless of what they believe, the vast majority of Canadians who seek public office do it for the right reasons.
That is why I have a real problem trying to understand those Liberal backbenchers who have struggled and toiled for so many years and who have done a reasonably good job--and I will say reasonably because it depends on the individual--of representing their constituents. I would say that by and large their constituents must think so because many of them have been re-elected, just as I have. I have a real problem understanding how they could sit there and watch as the Prime Minister, like the prime minister before him, gets members of Parliament from another party to join the Liberal Party and elevates them to the cabinet. The public works minister is a good example.
They sit there and they applaud that effort. How can they not ask themselves why they put in all the years of public service to be overlooked just like that because the Prime Minister suddenly decided he needed one more member in order to survive?
That brings me to the third reason, but before I finish with democratic reform I want to say a couple of things. One point is on the whole issue of free votes. As I said, one of the reasons I was attracted to politics was that I believed members of Parliament all too often did not represent their constituents on important fundamental issues.
(1655)
We have one of those issues before Parliament now. In fact, it is one of the two bills that the government says it wants to extend the sitting in order to get passed, Bill C-38. It is a fundamental issue that many Canadians feel very strongly about, on both sides, and we recognize that.
I do not understand how a Prime Minister who says he want to address the democratic deficit will not allow his cabinet members the freedom to represent their constituents on this issue. How can the government say it is going to have a free vote on something like this when it is free only for the backbenchers, not for the cabinet?
We are not talking here about a piece of government legislation such as Bill C-48. Everyone can understand a budget vote, even on such a pathetic budget that is two pages long and spends almost $5 billion of taxpayers' money. But we can understand why, if a government says it believes in this, it has to have its cabinet support it. We may not agree with that, but at least we can understand it. I think all cabinet ministers would understand that if they want to remain in cabinet they are required to vote for those types of things.
Bill C-38 is a different issue. It is an issue of moral conscience. It is an issue that many of us struggle with. It is an issue on which our party has said we will have a complete free vote for all our members. I am not even concerned about this in that sense, because fundamentally I am a democrat. I believe in democracy. It is why I became involved in politics.
I think there are three in our caucus who are going to vote for Bill C-38, but how my colleagues vote is not even an issue for me. How I vote on something like that is an issue for me. Even as my leader's House leader, I want to have him give me the freedom to represent my constituents or my own moral compass on a bill like that. I do not understand how it can be that the government will not give its cabinet that freedom--
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine): Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the member. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, Agriculture; the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest, Veterans Affairs.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River.
(1700)
Mr. Jay Hill: Madam Speaker, I was just getting to the point about free votes and what constitutes a free vote. I really do think it is extremely unfortunate that a Prime Minister who has stated on many occasions that he wants to restore the prominence of the individual members of Parliament lets that stop at the cabinet door.
An hon. member: They could resign.
Mr. Jay Hill: We have an ex-cabinet minister who makes the comment that they could resign. I suppose he would like them to resign so he could get back into cabinet.
In all seriousness--and I am trying to be serious about this issue, believe it or not--I would think that cabinet ministers' constituents would be upset by that. I cannot understand why they would not be upset. First and foremost, cabinet ministers are members of Parliament and are sent here to represent constituents. They are sent here to represent the Canadians in their riding.
It is not for me to judge any individual member's riding, except my own obviously, but if those members are not given the freedom by the Prime Minister to represent their constituents' views on such a fundamental issue, and where they may know in some instances that the vast majority of their constituents are opposed to same sex marriage and yet are bound by cabinet solidarity to vote for this legislation, I cannot imagine that it would not be deeply troubling when they lay their head on the pillow at night.
That was the one of the reasons I wanted to get involved in politics. I wanted to see real democratic renewal and democratic reform. I wanted to see things improved in this chamber, just as the Prime Minister has said that he wants to see things improved, yet examples of that have been scarce. In fact, I have seen quite the opposite.
Certainly I have had a sort of insider's view over the past few months, for the lack of a better term, as has my colleague from Niagara Falls as the whip. He and I have interacted with the whips and the House leaders of the three other parties as we have tried our best to make Parliament work over the last number of months. Evidence is scarce of any desire on the part of the Liberal government to restore a greater degree of democratic freedom to this chamber.
It is quite the opposite. Time after time when the opposition put forward a motion to be debated on a supply day or opposition day, we saw it ignored by this government if it passed. In many cases, these opposition day motions, whether put forward by the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Québécois or the Conservative Party of Canada, got sufficient support to pass, sometimes overwhelmingly, yet the government continues to ignore those motions as if they did not happen.
Yet Canadians are supposed to believe that the Prime Minister is committed to democratic reform, to democratic renewal, to restoring the power of individual members of Parliament. That is what we are expected to believe. Everything that this Prime Minister has done demonstrates the opposite, even to ignoring the throne speech. Let us talk about the throne speech.
(1705)
I was the whip for the official opposition at the time. I was involved at some level in the discussions and negotiations that took place last October to ensure that the throne speech ended up being acceptable to all four parties. It was a unique situation where that actually happened. The throne speech was amended.
I do not have the amendments in front of me today, but as I recall, there were about five different amendments to the throne speech. One of them was a commitment on the part of the government to place before Parliament a debate and a vote on whether Canada would join our neighbour to the south, the United States of America, in a missile defence shield. Before any decision was taken, we would have a debate and a vote in this House. It was a commitment the government made in the throne speech. It was agreed to.
I was the first member of Parliament to take those few steps to shake the Prime Minister's hand that night, because I felt that we had done something pretty amazing. There had been agreement of all the parties on the throne speech. To use an old adage, everybody put a little bit of water in their wine, and we came up with an amended throne speech that we all felt we could live with.
What happened to that particular commitment? There is a reason the Prime Minister has been dubbed Mr. Dithers. Belatedly he made the decision not to participate. Was there a debate and a vote? No. I was involved in debates the year before but there was no debate. There was no information. My colleague from Ontario who is our national defence critic certainly was looking for additional information about what was expected of us, what was being offered, what we were saying no to. Promises made, promises broken.
The Prime Minister did not follow through on that commitment. We asked him repeatedly in question period and in debate what we were saying no to, what the deal was that his government said no to without having a discussion in this place, the people's house, but we never found out. We still have not found out to this day what it was, whether we should indeed have said no or not. I suspect we would have had a disparity of opinions in the four corners of the House and a good lively debate about it. The Prime Minister says that he is committed to democratic reform. It would have been nice to see him actually follow through on that commitment and have a debate and a vote, but it was not to be.
Then we got into a situation, if we look at the list, where we passed a motion on private land use around the Mirabel airport outside of Montreal. It was a Bloc Québécois motion, if I remember correctly. It passed in this House. What has happened? To my understanding, nothing has happened to put that into practice.
We passed a motion in this House to forgo the requirement for a deposit on the part of the producers to get into the agricultural support program known as CAIS. To my knowledge, there has been nothing, no movement on the part of the government to honour its commitment on that when that motion was passed. It is studying exactly what that means.
We could go down the list. Time and time again in the short life of this Parliament, the Prime Minister, who wants us and Canadians to believe that he is committed to restoring democracy, has flouted democracy. He has thumbed his nose at democracy, whether it is at committee, whether it is in this chamber with opposition motions, or whether it is a commitment to appointments. One of my colleagues just mentioned appointments and brought up the whole issue of the Glen Murray appointment. Another broken promise.
(1710)
Where is the commitment on the part of the Prime Minister to live up to those commitments? It is not there.
As part of my commitment to democratic renewal and my desire to see democracy restored, one of the things that I have always been extremely outspoken on is another issue that is very near and dear to my heart and indeed many hearts in western Canada in particular. It is the issue of Senate reform.
Madam Speaker, one of my colleagues across the way is wondering when this is going to draw to a close. The reality is, as I said earlier, there is unlimited time to debate this. I think even though we did not believe that it should be necessary, the government and its coalition partners supported extending the hours until midnight. It is only 10 after 5. We have lots of time. I do not know what the rush would be.
It surprises me that my Liberal colleague across the way would be opposed to my going on. It is his government's motion that we are debating, to extend the sitting into July. We are going to be here a long time, I suspect. Everyone is going to get lots of chance to talk before we are done this summer the way it is going.
Hon. Tony Ianno: Say something meaningful.
Mr. Jay Hill: Madam Speaker, the member said to say something meaningful. Obviously democratic reform is not something meaningful to a Liberal. If it were meaningful, the Liberals probably would have done something about it long before now, which brings me to the point that I was about to make. My colleague, I am sure, will be very interested in it.
We have a province in this country that actually accepted the cost and took the time and energy required to elect senators. There is a province in this country that did that. It elected its own senators. It was the great province of Alberta.
What was the reaction from the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister said he was not going to have Senate reform piecemeal. What does that mean? How is that not a slap in the face to every Albertan who cast a ballot? Even if they did not, every Albertan who contributed tax dollars to ensure that there was an election for their senators in that province has to take that personally. There is no other way to take that. This was from a Prime Minister who said he was going to judge the success of his administration, the success of his government, on how well he addressed western alienation. It is unbelievable.
The Prime Minister is going to judge his government on that basis, but he appoints senators from Alberta over the ones the people of Alberta selected. It is patronage of the worst kind. There is patronage where one can argue about the merits of the individual and whether he or she should or should not have a certain position or job. But the Prime Minister selected people over the heads of those who were democratically selected by the people of the province because the Prime Minister said he would not enact Senate reform piecemeal. There is no justifiable reason that the Prime Minister cannot put in place a system of appointing elected senators.
(1715)
Hon. Roy Cullen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I am wondering what the rules are.
I thought we were debating a motion with respect to extending the sitting hours of the House. I am at a loss to figure out how Senate reform in any way relates to that.
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine): The hon. parliamentary secretary knows this could be a point of debate, but I also want to bring to everyone's attention that we want to keep relevancy in the debate.
Mr. Jay Hill: Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's concern. I appreciate your ruling about relevancy. I would say that I cannot imagine what would be more relevant to a debate about extending the sitting of the House than talking about democracy. How could that not be relevant to extending this sitting? It has to be relevant, I would think. Even a Liberal should be able to make that connection, although maybe not.
We have the situation where the government and the Prime Minister do not want to appoint senators who are democratically selected by the people of Alberta. Yet when we look at history and we look around the world to other countries, senate reform has come about because of, to use the Prime Minister's term, piecemeal progress. The United States is a classic example. In many cases it has not come about because a bunch of people got behind closed doors to come up with a grand plan on how to redraft the country's constitution. That is not how it happens.
It happens because there is support from the people to bring about meaningful change. That is why it happens. That is what Albertans have been trying to do. Albertans have been trying to lead the nation with Senate reform.
Albertans are willing to commit their own dollars to try and bring about meaningful Senate reform, and yet to no avail. I am not an Albertan, although I certainly have a fondness for Alberta. Two of my children have migrated to Calgary, as so many have. I have the opportunity to stop in Calgary and visit with them on occasion, but I am not an Albertan.
The reality is that if the Prime Minister was actually committed to democratic renewal, democratic change, democratic improvement, there is no logical reason, none, except for his wish to do so, to appoint to the Senate, his own people, the people that he chooses, rather than the people that Albertans choose. It puts paid, certainly to Albertans, to all his arguments about wanting to restore and reform democracy in this Parliament and the other place.
There is a third issue that attracted me to politics, other than the need for democratic reform and the nation's finances.
Hon. Tony Ianno: I hope you go into prime time so Canadians can watch what you are saying.
Mr. Jay Hill: I hope so too. I hope that Canadians are watching.
The third reason that attracted me to politics is one that is very near and dear to the hearts of many Canadians. It is the whole issue of justice. It is the issue of the need for reform of the criminal system. I am much more inclined, and I have not changed on this since I got into politics back in the 1980s, to call it a legal system and not a justice system that we have in this country.
I hear this all the time from people in Prince George—Peace River. I know my colleagues hear it from their constituents all the time, that in the eyes of many Canadians there is scarcely little justice left in this system. The reality is that criminals all too often get away with their crimes in this country. They are not punished. That is the reality out there.
(1720)
I talked about a philosophical fundamental difference between how Conservatives and Liberals view a so-called surplus. What is a surplus to a Liberal is overtaxation to a Conservative. I pointed out some of the fundamental differences of how we look at the need for democratic reform. We believe in an elected Senate and the Liberals clearly do not. I would point to the need for the reform of our justice system and say the fundamental difference is that Conservatives believe that people should be held accountable for their actions. Conservatives believe that people who break the law should be held responsible. That is the reality. That is the difference.
I could go on at great length on the misplaced priorities of the government. It decided to spend upwards of $2 billion on the failed long gun registry to go after the registration of hunters, target shooters and duck hunters rather than coming down hard on the criminal misuse and abuse of firearms. That is just one example of misplaced priorities.
I could sum up my political career as fighting and struggling against misplaced priorities. That is what fundamentally separates Conservatives from Liberals. These arguments need to take place in the House of Commons where we fundamentally disagree with what the government is doing. Whether it is Bill C-48, the budgetary process, the justice field, or not appointing elected senators, there are fundamental flaws with the priorities of the government. There always have been and there always will be until the Liberal government is replaced with a new Conservative government.
I used the example of the long gun registry. Another example that is of great concern to me personally is the use of conditional sentencing. I was here in 1996, which I do not take any pride in, when the Liberal government brought in conditional sentencing. I was part of a party then that raised some very deep reservations about how that would be used in the courts across this land.
We were told at the time, by the justice minister of the day and Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, not to worry, that it would not be abused. We were told that it was only there to prevent some youngster who might go astray and put a little graffiti on a wall or be caught shoplifting or something stupid that kids do. All of us recognize that and certainly people who are parents recognize that kids do crazy things sometimes. However, we were told not to worry because that was what conditional sentencing was all about.
We asked, “Why don't you say that in the bill? Why don't you say that crimes of violence will be excluded from having a judge award conditional sentencing?”
What is conditional sentencing? Conditional sentencing is when someone is found guilty. We are not talking about persons who are just presumed guilty or we think they are guilty. These are people who have had their day in court and are found guilty of a crime. Conditional sentencing is when a judge poses certain conditions on individuals instead of sending them to jail or to prison in some cases.
We said that we were very concerned about that legislation because it could be open to abuse where people who are eventually convicted of sexual assault, common assault and even manslaughter would not do time in jail. The government said we were fearmongering and it would never happen. We were told not to worry about it. In the last 12 years in this place, if I had a dollar every time Liberals told me not to worry, I might be a shipping magnate. But we should have worried and we did worry about it, and it all came to pass.
(1725)
I talked earlier about the need for true democratic reform rather than fueling voter cynicism because voters do not see democracy. We do not want to fuel the cynicism that Canadians have about our justice system either. When they see people not being held accountable for their crimes, when they see people going home with an ankle bracelet or something rather than going to jail, it fuels their cynicism that people can get away with this in Canada. It is not right.
What is another fundamental difference? Another fundamental difference is that we believe in the concept of punishment. People who commit wrong need to be punished to deter them from doing it again. The government does not believe in punishment anymore. The Liberals seem to believe that there are no evil people in the world. There is always an excuse for why people do something. There is always a reason. Maybe they were spanked when they were a child. Maybe they did not get everything they should have had as a child. There is always an excuse. There is always a reason why people do what they do. Yes there is, but they should be held accountable.
We have far too many cases in Canada of recidivism. People who are convicted of criminal acts, sometimes horrendous acts, are confined to prison, get paroled, and sometimes even when they are on day parole, they commit more horrendous acts of violence against innocent Canadians. There are fundamental differences in our approach to the need for criminal justice reform.
Let me speak about relevance. Let us talk for a minute about why we would consider extending this sitting. Why would we as a Parliament consider taking the extraordinary step to extend this sitting of Parliament for another few days, few weeks, whatever?
Mr. Speaker, if I only have one minute, I move:
|
That Government Motion No. 17 be amended, by replacing all the words after the words “June 23, 2005” with the words “, it shall stand adjourned until September 12, 2005”. |
Private Members' Business
[Private Members' Business]
* * *
(1730)
[English]
Canada Elections Act
The House resumed from June 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-312, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (appointment of returning officers), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine): It being 5:30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-312 under private members' business.
Call in the members.
* * *
(1805)
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
|
(Division No. 135)
|
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Alcock
Allison
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson (Victoria)
Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands)
André
Angus
Asselin
Augustine
Bachand
Bagnell
Bains
Bakopanos
Barnes
Batters
Bélanger
Bell
Bellavance
Bennett
Benoit
Bergeron
Bezan
Bigras
Blaikie
Blais
Blondin-Andrew
Boire
Boivin
Bonsant
Boshcoff
Bouchard
Boulianne
Bourgeois
Bradshaw
Breitkreuz
Brison
Broadbent
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brunelle
Cardin
Carr
Carrie
Carrier
Carroll
Casey
Casson
Chan
Chong
Christopherson
Clavet
Cleary
Comartin
Comuzzi
Côté
Cotler
Crête
Crowder
Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley)
Cuzner
D'Amours
Davies
Day
Demers
Deschamps
Desjarlais
Desrochers
Devolin
Dhalla
Dion
Dosanjh
Doyle
Drouin
Dryden
Duncan
Easter
Efford
Emerson
Epp
Eyking
Faille
Finley
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Folco
Fontana
Forseth
Frulla
Fry
Gagnon (Québec)
Gagnon (Saint-Maurice—Champlain)
Gagnon (Jonquière—Alma)
Gallant
Gaudet
Gauthier
Godbout
Godfrey
Godin
Goldring
Goodale
Goodyear
Gouk
Graham
Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells)
Guarnieri
Guay
Guergis
Guimond
Hanger
Harrison
Hearn
Hiebert
Hill
Hinton
Holland
Ianno
Jaffer
Jean
Johnston
Julian
Kadis
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Karetak-Lindell
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Khan
Kilgour
Komarnicki
Kotto
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Laframboise
Lalonde
Lapierre (Outremont)
Lapierre (Lévis—Bellechasse)
Lastewka
Lauzon
Lavallée
Lemay
Lessard
Lévesque
Longfield
Loubier
Lukiwski
Lunn
Lunney
MacAulay
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Macklin
Maloney
Marceau
Mark
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Martin (Sault Ste. Marie)
Masse
McCallum
McDonough
McGuinty
McGuire
McLellan
Ménard (Hochelaga)
Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin)
Menzies
Merrifield
Miller
Mills
Minna
Mitchell
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Murphy
Myers
Neville
Nicholson
O'Connor
Obhrai
Oda
Owen
Pallister
Paquette
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Penson
Perron
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Poilievre
Poirier-Rivard
Powers
Prentice
Preston
Proulx
Rajotte
Ratansi
Redman
Regan
Reid
Richardson
Ritz
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rota
Roy
Russell
Saada
Sauvageau
Savage
Savoy
Scarpaleggia
Scheer
Schellenberger
Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country)
Siksay
Silva
Simard (Beauport—Limoilou)
Simard (Saint Boniface)
Simms
Skelton
Smith (Pontiac)
Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul)
Solberg
Sorenson
St-Hilaire
St. Amand
St. Denis
Stoffer
Stronach
Szabo
Telegdi
Temelkovski
Thibault (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques)
Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest)
Tilson
Toews
Tonks
Trost
Tweed
Valeri
Valley
Van Loan
Vellacott
Vincent
Volpe
Warawa
Wasylycia-Leis
Watson
White
Wilfert
Williams
Wrzesnewskyj
Yelich
Zed
Total: -- 258
|
|
NAYS
Members
Beaumier
Bevilacqua
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville)
Bulte
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Coderre
DeVillers
Gallaway
Harris
Hubbard
Jennings
Karygiannis
Lee
Malhi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca)
Matthews
McTeague
Pacetti
Pickard (Chatham-Kent—Essex)
Sgro
Steckle
Thibault (West Nova)
Torsney
Ur
Total: -- 29
|
|
PAIRED
Members
Duceppe
Scott
Total: -- 2
|
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, this bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)
* * *
[English]
Criminal Code
The House resumed from June 16 consideration of the motion that Bill C-275, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (failure to stop at scene of accident), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-275 under private members' business.
* * *
(1815)
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)
|
(Division No. 136)
|
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Allison
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands)
Batters
Bell
Benoit
Bezan
Breitkreuz
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Carrie
Casey
Casson
Chong
Day
Devolin
Doyle
Duncan
Epp
Finley
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Forseth
Gallant
Goldring
Goodyear
Gouk
Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells)
Guergis
Hanger
Harris
Harrison
Hearn
Hiebert
Hill
Hinton
Jaffer
Jean
Johnston
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lauzon
Lukiwski
Lunn
Lunney
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Mark
McTeague
Menzies
Merrifield
Miller
Mills
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
Stoffer
Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest)
Tilson
Toews
Trost
Tweed
Van Loan
Vellacott
Warawa
Watson
White
Wilfert
Williams
Yelich
Total: -- 94
|
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson (Victoria)
André
Angus
Asselin
Augustine
Bachand
Bagnell
Bains
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bellavance
Bennett
Bergeron
Bevilacqua
Bigras
Blaikie
Blais
Blondin-Andrew
Boire
Boivin
Bonin
Bonsant
Boshcoff
Bouchard
Boudria
Boulianne
Bourgeois
Bradshaw
Brison
Brown (Oakville)
Brunelle
Bulte
Byrne
Cannis
Cardin
Carr
Carrier
Carroll
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Christopherson
Clavet
Cleary
Coderre
Comartin
Comuzzi
Côté
Cotler
Crête
Crowder
Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley)
Cullen (Etobicoke North)
Cuzner
D'Amours
Davies
Demers
Deschamps
Desjarlais
Desrochers
DeVillers
Dhalla
Dion
Dosanjh
Drouin
Dryden
Easter
Efford
Emerson
Eyking
Faille
Folco
Fontana
Frulla
Fry
Gagnon (Québec)
Gagnon (Saint-Maurice—Champlain)
Gagnon (Jonquière—Alma)
Gaudet
Gauthier
Godbout
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
Guimond
Holland
Hubbard
Ianno
Jennings
Julian
Kadis
Karetak-Lindell
Karygiannis
Khan
Kotto
Laframboise
Lalonde
Lapierre (Outremont)
Lapierre (Lévis—Bellechasse)
Lastewka
Lavallée
LeBlanc
Lee
Lemay
Lessard
Lévesque
Longfield
Loubier
MacAulay
Macklin
Malhi
Maloney
Marceau
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca)
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Martin (Sault Ste. Marie)
Masse
Matthews
McCallum
McDonough
McGuinty
McGuire
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
McLellan
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
Stronach
Szabo
Telegdi
Temelkovski
Thibault (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques)
Thibault (West Nova)
Tonks
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Valley
Vincent
Volpe
Wasylycia-Leis
Wrzesnewskyj
Zed
Total: -- 194
|
|
PAIRED
Members
Duceppe
Scott
Total: -- 2
|
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
* * *
Kyoto Protocol
The House resumed from June 17 consideration of the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 162 under private members' business.
* * *
(1825)
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)
|
(Division No. 137)
|
YEAS
Members
André
Asselin
Bachand
Bellavance
Bergeron
Bigras
Blais
Boire
Bonsant
Bouchard
Boulianne
Bourgeois
Brunelle
Cardin
Carrier
Clavet
Cleary
Côté
Crête
Demers
Deschamps
Desrochers
Faille
Gagnon (Québec)
Gagnon (Saint-Maurice—Champlain)
Gagnon (Jonquière—Alma)
Gaudet
Gauthier
Guimond
Kotto
Laframboise
Lalonde
Lapierre (Lévis—Bellechasse)
Lavallée
Lemay
Lessard
Lévesque
Loubier
Marceau
Ménard (Hochelaga)
Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin)
Paquette
Perron
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Poirier-Rivard
Roy
Sauvageau
Simard (Beauport—Limoilou)
St-Hilaire
Thibault (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques)
Vincent
Total: -- 52
|
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allison
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson (Victoria)
Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands)
Angus
Augustine
Bagnell
Bains
Bakopanos
Barnes
Batters
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bell
Bennett
Benoit
Bevilacqua
Bezan
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Boivin
Bonin
Boshcoff
Boudria
Bradshaw
Breitkreuz
Brison
Brown (Oakville)
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Bulte
Byrne
Cannis
Carr
Carrie
Carroll
Casey
Casson
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chong
Christopherson
Coderre
Comartin
Comuzzi
Cotler
Crowder
Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley)
Cullen (Etobicoke North)
Cuzner
D'Amours
Davies
Day
Desjarlais
DeVillers
Devolin
Dhalla
Dion
Dosanjh
Doyle
Drouin
Dryden
Duncan
Easter
Efford
Emerson
Epp
Eyking
Finley
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Folco
Fontana
Forseth
Frulla
Fry
Gallant
Gallaway
Godbout
Godfrey
Godin
Goldring
Goodale
Goodyear
Gouk
Graham
Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells)
Guarnieri
Guergis
Hanger
Harris
Harrison
Hearn
Hiebert
Hill
Holland
Hubbard
Ianno
Jaffer
Jean
Jennings
Johnston
Julian
Kadis
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Karetak-Lindell
Karygiannis
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Khan
Kilgour
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lapierre (Outremont)
Lastewka
Lauzon
LeBlanc
Lee
Longfield
Lukiwski
Lunn
Lunney
MacAulay
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Macklin
Malhi
Maloney
Mark
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca)
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Martin (Sault Ste. Marie)
Masse
Matthews
McCallum
McDonough
McGuinty
McGuire
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
McLellan
McTeague
Menzies
Merrifield
Miller
Mills
Minna
Mitchell
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Murphy
Myers
Neville
Nicholson
O'Connor
Obhrai
Oda
Owen
Pacetti
Pallister
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Penson
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Chatham-Kent—Essex)
Poilievre
Powers
Prentice
Preston
Proulx
Rajotte
Ratansi
Redman
Regan
Reid
Richardson
Ritz
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rota
Russell
Saada
Savage
Savoy
Scarpaleggia
Scheer
Schellenberger
Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country)
Sgro
Siksay
Silva
Simard (Saint Boniface)
Simms
Skelton
Smith (Pontiac)
Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul)
Solberg
Sorenson
St. Amand
St. Denis
Steckle
Stoffer
Stronach
Szabo
Telegdi
Temelkovski
Thibault (West Nova)
Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest)
Tilson
Toews
Tonks
Torsney
Trost
Tweed
Ur
Valeri
Valley
Van Loan
Vellacott
Volpe
Warawa
Wasylycia-Leis
Watson
White
Wilfert
Williams
Wrzesnewskyj
Yelich
Zed
Total: -- 237
|
|
PAIRED
Members
Duceppe
Scott
Total: -- 2
|
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
* * *
[English]
Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act
The House resumed from June 20 consideration of the motion that Bill S-14, an act to protect heritage lighthouses, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill S-14 under private members' business.
* * *
(1840)
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
|
(Division No. 138)
|
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allison
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson (Victoria)
Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands)
Angus
Augustine
Bagnell
Bains
Bakopanos
Barnes
Batters
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bell
Bennett
Benoit
Bevilacqua
Bezan
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Boivin
Bonin
Boshcoff
Boudria
Bradshaw
Breitkreuz
Brison
Brown (Oakville)
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Bulte
Byrne
Cannis
Carr
Carrie
Carroll
Casey
Casson
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chong
Christopherson
Coderre
Comartin
Comuzzi
Cotler
Crowder
Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley)
Cuzner
D'Amours
Davies
Day
Desjarlais
DeVillers
Devolin
Dhalla
Dion
Dosanjh
Doyle
Drouin
Dryden
Duncan
Easter
Efford
Emerson
Epp
Eyking
Finley
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Folco
Fontana
Forseth
Frulla
Fry
Gallant
Gallaway
Godbout
Godfrey
Godin
Goldring
Goodyear
Gouk
Graham
Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells)
Guarnieri
Guergis
Hanger
Harris
Harrison
Hearn
Hiebert
Hill
Holland
Hubbard
Ianno
Jaffer
Jean
Jennings
Johnston
Julian
Kadis
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Karetak-Lindell
Karygiannis
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Khan
Kilgour
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lapierre (Outremont)
Lastewka
Lauzon
LeBlanc
Lee
Longfield
Lukiwski
Lunn
Lunney
MacAulay
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Macklin
Malhi
Maloney
Mark
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca)
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Martin (Sault Ste. Marie)
Masse
Matthews
McCallum
McDonough
McGuinty
McGuire
McLellan
McTeague
Menzies
Merrifield
Miller
Mills
Minna
Mitchell
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Murphy
Myers
Neville
Nicholson
O'Connor
Obhrai
Oda
Owen
Pacetti
Pallister
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Penson
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Chatham-Kent—Essex)
Poilievre
Powers
Prentice
Preston
Proulx
Rajotte
Ratansi
Redman
Regan
Reid
Richardson
Ritz
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rota
Russell
Saada
Savage
Savoy
Scarpaleggia
Scheer
Schellenberger
Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country)
Siksay
Silva
Simard (Saint Boniface)
Simms
Skelton
Smith (Pontiac)
Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul)
Solberg
Sorenson
St. Amand
St. Denis
Steckle
Stoffer
Stronach
Szabo
Telegdi
Temelkovski
Thibault (West Nova)
Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest)
Tilson
Toews
Tonks
Torsney
Trost
Tweed
Ur
Valeri
Valley
Van Loan
Vellacott
Volpe
Warawa
Wasylycia-Leis
Watson
White
Wilfert
Williams
Wrzesnewskyj
Yelich
Zed
Total: -- 233
|
|
NAYS
Members
André
Asselin
Bachand
Bellavance
Bergeron
Bigras
Blais
Boire
Bonsant
Bouchard
Boulianne
Bourgeois
Brunelle
Cardin
Carrier
Clavet
Cleary
Côté
Crête
Demers
Deschamps
Desrochers
Faille
Gagnon (Québec)
Gagnon (Saint-Maurice—Champlain)
Gagnon (Jonquière—Alma)
Gaudet
Gauthier
Guimond
Kotto
Laframboise
Lalonde
Lapierre (Lévis—Bellechasse)
Lavallée
Lemay
Lessard
Lévesque
Loubier
Marceau
Ménard (Hochelaga)
Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin)
Paquette
Perron
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Poirier-Rivard
Roy
Sauvageau
Simard (Beauport—Limoilou)
St-Hilaire
Thibault (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques)
Vincent
Total: -- 52
|
|
PAIRED
Members
Duceppe
Scott
Total: -- 2
|
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
* * *
Symbol for the House of Commons
The House resumed from June 21 consideration of the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 228 under private members' business.
* * *
(The House divided on the motion:)
|
(Division No. 139)
|
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson (Victoria)
Augustine
Bagnell
Bains
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bell
Bennett
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Boivin
Bonin
Boshcoff
Bradshaw
Brison
Brown (Oakville)
Bulte
Byrne
Cannis
Carr
Carroll
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Christopherson
Coderre
Comartin
Comuzzi
Cotler
Cullen (Etobicoke North)
Cuzner
D'Amours
Davies
DeVillers
Dhalla
Dion
Dosanjh
Drouin
Dryden
Easter
Efford
Emerson
Epp
Eyking
Folco
Fontana
Frulla
Fry
Gallaway
Godbout
Godfrey
Godin
Graham
Guarnieri
Holland
Hubbard
Ianno
Jennings
Kadis
Karetak-Lindell
Karygiannis
Khan
Kilgour
Lapierre (Outremont)
Lastewka
LeBlanc
Lee
Longfield
Lunn
MacAulay
Macklin
Malhi
Maloney
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca)
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Masse
Matthews
McCallum
McDonough
McGuinty
McGuire
McLellan
McTeague
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Myers
Neville
Owen
Pacetti
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Chatham-Kent—Essex)
Powers
Proulx
Ratansi
Redman
Regan
Reid
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rota
Russell
Saada
Savage
Savoy
Scarpaleggia
Scheer
Sgro
Silva
Simard (Saint Boniface)
Simms
Smith (Pontiac)
St. Amand
St. Denis
Steckle
Stoffer
Stronach
Szabo
Telegdi
Temelkovski
Thibault (West Nova)
Tilson
Tonks
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Valley
Volpe
Wasylycia-Leis
Wilfert
Wrzesnewskyj
Zed
Total: -- 143
|
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Allison
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands)
André
Angus
Asselin
Bachand
Batters
Bellavance
Benoit
Bergeron
Bezan
Bigras
Blais
Boire
Bonsant
Bouchard
Boulianne
Bourgeois
Breitkreuz
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brunelle
Cardin
Carrie
Carrier
Casey
Casson
Chong
Clavet
Cleary
Côté
Crête
Crowder
Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley)
Day
Demers
Deschamps
Desjarlais
Desrochers
Devolin
Doyle
Duncan
Faille
Finley
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Forseth
Gagnon (Québec)
Gagnon (Saint-Maurice—Champlain)
Gagnon (Jonquière—Alma)
Gallant
Gaudet
Gauthier
Goldring
Goodyear
Gouk
Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells)
Guergis
Guimond
Hanger
Harris
Harrison
Hearn
Hiebert
Hill
Jaffer
Jean
Johnston
Julian
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Komarnicki
Kotto
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Laframboise
Lalonde
Lapierre (Lévis—Bellechasse)
Lauzon
Lavallée
Lemay
Lessard
Lévesque
Loubier
Lukiwski
Lunney
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Marceau
Mark
Martin (Sault Ste. Marie)
Ménard (Hochelaga)
Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin)
Menzies
Merrifield
Miller
Mills
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Nicholson
O'Connor
Obhrai
Oda
Pallister
Paquette
Penson
Perron
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Poilievre
Poirier-Rivard
Prentice
Preston
Rajotte
Richardson
Ritz
Roy
Sauvageau
Schellenberger
Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country)
Siksay
Simard (Beauport—Limoilou)
Skelton
Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul)
Solberg
Sorenson
St-Hilaire
Thibault (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques)
Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest)
Toews
Trost
Tweed
Van Loan
Vellacott
Vincent
Warawa
Watson
White
Williams
Yelich
Total: -- 143
|
|
PAIRED
Members
Duceppe
Scott
Total: -- 2
|
|
* * *
(1850)
And the result of the vote having been announced: (Yeas: 143; Nays: 143)
The Deputy Speaker: The vote being tied, the Speaker has to cast the deciding vote. Following in the tradition of the Speaker's chair, I should maintain the status quo. I will vote against the motion. Accordingly I declare the motion lost.
* * *
(1855)
Extension of sitting period
Notice of Closure Motion
[S. O. 57]
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to give notice that with respect to the consideration of Government Business No. 17, at the next sitting I shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that the debate be not further adjourned.
* * *
Request for Emergency Debate
Speaker's Ruling
[Speaker's Ruling]
The Speaker: Order, please. I am ready to rule on the request of the hon. member for Lethbridge for an emergency debate. I have considered the matter and have decided not to proceed with the debate this day.
* * *
[Translation]
Criminal Code
[Private Members' Business]
The House resumed from May 17 consideration of the motion that C-293, an act to amend the Criminal Code (theft of a motor vehicle), be now read the second time and referred to a committee.
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak today on Bill C-293, an act to amend the Criminal Code (theft of a motor vehicle).
I would like to begin by responding to some comments made in this House during the first hour of debate on Bill C-293.
I agree with the member for Langley that theft of a motor vehicle is a serious offence. I also agree with the comments by some members about motor vehicles being stolen for a variety of reasons. They can, for instance, be stolen to maintain a drug habit, to facilitate the activities of criminal organizations, or merely for the thrill of it.
If I understand correctly the position of the member who spoke during the first hour of the debate on second reading, one of the reasons given as justification for mandatory minimum sentencing as set out in Bill C-293 is its deterrent value. I am not convinced that the sentencing structure he proposed will achieve that important objective.
If this bill does try to send out a deterrent message about motor vehicle theft, it is a muted message, since it would, if implemented, cut the maximum sentence for motor vehicle theft in half, that is down to five years imprisonment.
Currently, anyone who commits theft of a motor vehicle is liable to 10 years' imprisonment if prosecuted by way of indictment. A maximum 10 year sentence tells offenders that this crime will not be tolerated by society in general or by the criminal justice system in particular.
An important sentencing principle in Canada is the consideration by the courts of any mitigating or aggravating factors during sentencing. For example, when theft of a motor vehicle is accompanied by an act of violence, that act is considered to be an aggravating factor in the determination of the sentence. Similarly, a mitigating factor would be if an offender pleads guilty or has no criminal record. The aim of this compensatory process is to ensure that like criminals receive equivalent sentences for similar crimes.
In other words, the judge has a great deal of discretion in handing down an appropriate sentence that takes into consideration the various directives set out in the Criminal Code provisions on sentencing, especially when it comes to crimes committed for a wide variety of reasons, as is the case with motor vehicle theft in this country.
Up to now, I have talked mostly about using criminal law to fight this type of crime.
(1900)
During the first hour of debate on this issue, my colleague mentioned two other factors contributing to the reduction in thefts of motor vehicles in Canada, namely education and technology.
As regards technology, the current government made significant progress in March 2005, when it amended the regulations on vehicle demobilizers.
The amendment requires that, by September 1, 2007, all new vehicles with a gross weight rating of less than 4,536 kg be equipped with vehicle demobilizers. These systems, which make it difficult to start a motor without the device that deactivates them, will help reduce vehicle theft in Canada.
While no panacea, this new requirement will make it more difficult to steal a car and will no doubt be an effective deterrent in the case of crimes of opportunity or crimes committed by those looking for a thrill.
As regards the need for community and educational programs, recent initiatives enforcing the legislation have met with success. The recent HEAT program in Saskatchewan and the bait car program in British Columbia are examples of innovative methods used by the police to prevent this sort of crime in their community.
In conclusion, while I believe Bill C-293 is based on good intentions, I cannot support it, because it does not take into account the fact that car thefts are committed by all sorts of offenders for various reasons and with varying degrees of violence. In addition, it would essentially halve the current maximum sentence for this type of crime provided in the Criminal Code and would disproportionately increase the maximum mandatory sentence provided when the offence is punishable on summary conviction to two years, which is considerably more than sentences for crimes such as sexual assault.
(1905)
[English]
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak to private member's Bill C-293, brought forward by my hon. colleague from Langley. My colleague has brought forward an issue that affects Canadians in every riding in Canada, the issue of auto theft.
The bill is designed to send direction to the courts when dealing with this matter. It is intended to send a message to criminals that the days of stealing cars with little or no consequences are coming to an end. The purpose of the bill is to provide direction to the courts regarding sentencing for the offence of theft of a motor vehicle.
Bill C-293 would amend the Criminal Code to provide for minimum sentencing with fines and/or imprisonment for every person who is convicted of theft of a motor vehicle a first, second or subsequent time. The bill would provide for minimum sentencing whether the offence is prosecuted by indictment or punishable on summary conviction.
On first conviction it would be three months incarceration or $1,000 fine, or both. On second conviction it would be incarceration or $5,000 fine, or both. All subsequent convictions, should there be any, would be a year in jail or $10,000, or both.
Each year 160,000 vehicles are stolen in Canada. Over the past decade, vehicle theft rates have doubled in London and Hamilton, tripled in Regina and more than quadrupled in Winnipeg. Canada ranked fifth highest of 17 countries for car theft in the 1999 international crime victimization survey. Canada's vehicle theft rate has been higher than the United States since 1996.
The major motive for theft continues to be joyriding. The remainder is mainly accounted for by organized crime.
While many associate vehicle theft with big cities and bad neighbourhoods, this is not often the case. In fact, the rate of vehicle theft is highest in the western provinces. Luckily, these provinces also have high recovery rates because cars are usually stolen for joyriding and the ones stolen for export markets are harder to accept from non-seaport cities.
Most thefts by organized crime are for vehicles exported overseas or to other provinces. However, many are still chopped for parts as in the past. In fact, a chop shop was discovered about 15 kilometres from our farm this year. I asked a friend on the weekend if his stolen truck was recovered. He said they had found one part, so the whole vehicle must have been chopped. What a waste.
The drastic rise in the cost of auto parts has made this an extremely profitable and lucrative venture for organized crime. Export markets are the reason Halifax, Quebec City, Montreal and large Ontario urban centres suffer from the lowest recovery rate.
Montreal has the largest problem of organized vehicle theft in Canada. Its non-recovery rate is twice that of Halifax, the next city on the list. A staggering 44% of vehicles vanish without a trace.
Last year my husband and I were victims of auto theft. Not only was our family a victim, but more important, so was our business. While my husband worked on the swather, swathing rapeseed, a wanted criminal jumped into our farm half-ton truck on that very same field and headed off down the highway. Luckily I was looking for my husband in the field and noticed our truck speeding down the highway. I managed to call the police.
We were among the fortunate few. We got our vehicle back in one piece, but it was two days later. The RCMP recovered our truck that night on a tip from a suspicious citizen. Unfortunately, this is not the case much of the time because 34% of cars stolen from homes are not recovered. Comparatively, parking lots and streets have much better recovery rates of 15% and 10% respectively. An amazing 41% of cars stolen from car dealerships are never found.
(1910)
These statistics show that thieves are selective in the cars they take. Even new cars with their new anti-theft systems are not safe. All of this comes at a great cost.
Every day about 440 cars are stolen in Canada. This comes at a staggering cost of $1 billion per year. This only gets more expensive as cars get more expensive. Our insurance rates skyrocket. Low income families who cannot afford to live downtown find they cannot afford to drive from the suburbs either.
However, it is not the financial cost that concerns me the most. It is the human cost. Those who steal cars are often reckless in their use and even more reckless when fleeing the law.
From 1999 to 2001, just three years, 81 Canadians lost their lives as a result of vehicle theft. Half of them, 54%, were the offenders themselves. The other half were innocent people in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The justice system has failed to keep repeat offenders off the roads, but the Liberal government and its go soft approach to youth crime is also to blame. Young offenders, those aged 12 to 17, account for 42% of all those charged. That is unbelievable. Forty-two per cent of those charged with stealing cars are not even old enough to be licensed.
Although these youths are charged, the consequences under the Liberal youth justice system fails to provide enough of a deterrent. Organized crime knows this. Organized crime, just as it does with young drug runners, targets youth to do its dirty work because there are no consequences. The Liberal government has turned our youth into targets for organized crime as a result, and this is unacceptable.
The costs are not simply criminal records. The real cost is lives. Seventy-one per cent of those killed in stolen vehicles were under the age of 25. While some like to blame high speed police chases, this is not the case. In fact, over half, 54%, of deaths occurred outside of the active police pursuit. Our law enforcement officers are trained professionals and should not be blamed for collisions involving stolen vehicles.
As I mentioned earlier this year, our family truck was stolen. We were not alone. Hundreds of small business owners can go out of business with a relatively simple vehicle theft. Many have all their tools and equipment in their vehicles. A stolen vehicle puts them out of business and their families suffer as a result. It can take months to re-accumulate the specialized tools and equipment. Whether it is a plumber, a carpet cleaner, a courier, or a cab driver, all face financial ruin with the theft of their vehicle, their business and their livelihood.
I applaud my colleague from Langley for bringing forward this legislation. By doing so he has taken the first steps to better protect small business owners. More important, he has taken a giant step toward saving the lives of innocent victims, especially our youth and our children.
By supporting the legislation, the House sends a message that there is a serious problem and we want consequences for all those involved in it. I encourage all my hon. colleagues to think of the innocent victims in their ridings and support this legislation.
At this time I want to honour those men and women in our police forces across our country who are in the stolen vehicle units and who work so hard to enforce the laws and to stop people from stealing our vehicles.
(1915)
Mr. Wajid Khan (Mississauga—Streetsville, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-293, an act to amend the Criminal Code, theft of a motor vehicle.
I would like to begin by addressing some of the comments made in the first hour of debate on Bill C-293 in the House.
I would agree with the hon. member for Langley that motor vehicle theft is a serious issue. I would also agree with the comments made by some hon. members that cars are stolen for a variety of reasons. As examples, they are stolen to feed drug addiction, to facilitate the activities of criminal organizations or simply as a matter of thrill.
As I understand the position advanced by the hon. member for Langley during the first hour of second reading debate, one of the rationales for mandatory minimum sentences in Bill C-293 is deterrence. I cannot agree that the sentencing structure as he has provided will meet this important objective.
To the extent that the bill attempts to deter vehicle theft, it is sending a mixed message, given the fact that if implemented, Bill C-293 will reduce the maximum punishment available for theft by one-half, down to five years imprisonment.
Currently, a person who steals a motor vehicle is liable to a 10 year jail term when the matter is prosecuted by indictment. A 10 year maximum term sends an important message to offenders that this criminal activity will not be tolerated, not by society and especially not by the Canadian criminal justice system. It makes a long term of imprisonment available to judges imposing sentences when circumstances so require.
It is an important element of sentencing in Canada that a court undertakes an assessment of any mitigating and aggravating factors during the sentencing process. For instance, where motor vehicle theft is accompanied by an incident of violence, this has been found to be an aggravating factor in sentencing. Alternatively, when an offender pleads guilty or is without a criminal record, these have been found to be mitigating factors. This balancing process aims to ensure that like criminals receive similar sentences for similar crimes.
My point is, this judicial discretion, which is very important, is contributing to the imposition of suitable punishment, one that takes into account various statutory directions set out in the sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code, especially when dealing with a wide range of offenders committing auto theft in the country.
I have focused much of my discussion thus far on the use of criminal law as a means to combatting this form of crime. During the first hour of debate on this matter my colleague highlighted two other factors which would contribute to the reduction of motor vehicle thefts in Canada. These two components include education and engineering.
With regard to engineering, a significant advancement was made by the government in March with the regulatory amendment regarding the vehicle immobilization system. The amendment requires that by September 1, 2007 all new vehicles having a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 4,536 kilograms, except emergency vehicles, must be equipped with an immobilization system. These immobilization systems, which make it difficult for the car engine to be started without the proper disabling device, will be effective in reducing theft in the country.
(1920)
Although not a panacea, this new requirement for cars in Canada will make it more difficult to commit motor vehicle theft and will certainly prove to be an effective deterrent, especially for those committing auto theft as a crime of opportunity or thrill.
With regard to the need for community programming and education, recent law enforcement initiatives have shown evidence of success. For example, project heat in Saskatchewan and the bait car program in British Columbia are evidence of innovative ways law enforcement are directing efforts at preventing this form of crime in these communities.
In conclusion, although I believe the intentions behind the bill are good, I cannot support Bill C-293 as it fails to take into account that the crime of auto theft is committed by an array of offenders with divergent motivations and associated levels of violence. Further, the bill would essentially cut in half the maximum punishment available for this crime currently under the Criminal Code and it would also disproportionately increase the maximum punishment available under summary conviction to two years, well beyond crimes such as sexual assault.
Mr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC): Madam Speaker, it is an honour to address Bill C-293, an act to amend the Criminal Code, amending sentencing with regard to the theft of an automobile.
I want to thank my hon. colleague from the riding of Langley for his important contribution to Canadian justice in introducing this legislation.
Auto theft is a major problem in the lower mainland of British Columbia. The bill is a step in the right direction toward changing that.
I had a look at the statistics for auto theft in my own riding of South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale. In 2004, nearly 200 cars were stolen in White Rock. However that pales in comparison to Surrey. In recent years, Surrey has seen over 7,000 cars stolen a year. The problem in Surrey is so bad the city has even gained the infamous of “auto theft capital of North America”.
I say in recent years because in the last year the RCMP in the lower mainland have launched a somewhat successful project to combat this problem. The RCMP have tasked officers to focus solely on auto theft and have begun using bait cars to capture thieves. Surrey saw car theft drop 23% in the month that the program was introduced, with a 13% drop overall across the greater Vancouver area.
However bait cars, more policing and all the efforts of law enforcement are not going to eliminate most auto theft because even when criminals are convicted, they are back on the streets again quickly. Even auto thieves with long records for repeat offences are routinely given slaps on the wrist.
The situation is not unlike that of marijuana grow houses, also a major problem in Surrey. Despite the best efforts of police to catch and convict growers, they cannot keep up with the problem. Even when convictions are obtained, growers, like car thieves, get light sentences. That is in part because the Criminal Code does not recognize auto theft as anything more than a property crime.
According to Statistics Canada, 171,000 cars were stolen in Canada in 2003. The direct costs to insurers, police and courts of car theft is over $1 billion a year. There is an added cost to the victims of such thieves, in terms of paying deductibles, lost possessions and loss of mobility.
All Canadians pay for auto theft through the taxes they pay for policing and justice. The Insurance Bureau of Canada estimates that the component that covers theft of an average annual auto insurance premium is $48 per car.
Likewise, the cost of grow ops to landlords for damaged rental property and the utilities for stolen electricity is also in the range of hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
<