38th PARLIAMENT,
1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 122
CONTENTS
Thursday, June 23, 2005
|
 |
Routine Proceedings
|
|
|
Order in council Appointments |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the 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.) |
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Transport |
|
|
Hon. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC) |
|
|
Natural Health Products |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC) |
|
|
Autism |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC) |
|
|
Canada Post |
|
|
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC) |
|
|
Immigration |
|
|
Mrs. Carole Lavallée (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ) |
|
|
Correctional Service of Canada |
|
|
Mr. Robert Vincent (Shefford, BQ) |
|
|
Questions on the Order Paper |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Williams |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Public Accounts |
|
|
Mr. John Williams (Edmonton—St. Albert, CPC) |
|
|
Extension of Sitting Period |
|
|
Motion that debate be not further adjourned |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri |
|
|
Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri |
|
|
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri |
|
|
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri |
|
|
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri |
|
|
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri |
|
|
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri |
|
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri |
|
|
Hon. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri |
|
|
Mr. Barry Devolin (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri |
|
|
Mr. Barry Devolin |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Ind.) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri |
|
|
Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 140) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Private Members' Business |
|
|
Symbol for the House of Commons--Speaker's Ruling |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier |
|
|
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les Patriotes, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Points of Order |
|
|
Remarks by Member for Nepean--Carleton--Speaker's Ruling |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC) |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Extension of Sitting Period |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier |
|
|
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Extension of Sitting Period |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Keith Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC) |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
|
Hon. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Roger Gallaway |
|
|
Mr. Barry Devolin (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Roger Gallaway |
|
|
Mr. David Anderson |
|
|
Hon. Roger Gallaway |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Roger Gallaway |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
|
|
Statements by Members
|
|
|
National Child Benefit |
|
|
Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, Lib.) |
|
|
Summer Barbecue Tour |
|
|
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC) |
|
|
Veterans |
|
|
Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.) |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ) |
|
|
Air-India |
|
|
Hon. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Lib.) |
|
|
Historica National Fair |
|
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC) |
|
|
Blainville Lions Club |
|
|
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ) |
|
|
Air-India |
|
|
Mr. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.) |
|
|
Ontario Pork Congress |
|
|
Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Wellington, CPC) |
|
|
Air-India |
|
|
Hon. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.) |
|
|
Zonolite Insulation |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
St. Jean Baptiste Day |
|
|
Mr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC) |
|
|
Quebeckers' National Day |
|
|
Ms. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ) |
|
|
Multiculturalism |
|
|
Ms. Ruby Dhalla (Brampton—Springdale, Lib.) |
|
|
Air-India |
|
|
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC) |
|
|
Air-India |
|
|
Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
The Budget |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Broadcasting |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Maka Kotto (Saint-Lambert, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Maka Kotto (Saint-Lambert, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Citizenship and Immigration |
|
|
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Veterans Affairs |
|
|
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, 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.) |
|
|
Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Textile Industry |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Jacques Saada (Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister responsible for the Francophonie, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Jacques Saada (Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister responsible for the Francophonie, Lib.) |
|
|
Citizenship and Immigration |
|
|
Mrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Belinda Stronach (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal, Lib.) |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
Transport |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Minister of Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Minister of Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Veterans Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Technology Partnerships Canada |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
The Economy |
|
|
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.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Justice |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mr. Wajid Khan (Mississauga—Streetsville, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Air-India Flight 182 |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Serge Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
|
|
Extension of Sitting Period |
|
|
Hon. Raymond Simard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for Official Languages and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Williams |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Raymond Simard |
|
|
Mr. John Williams |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Raymond Simard |
|
|
Mr. John Williams (Edmonton—St. Albert, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Raymond Simard |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Raymond Simard |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Scheer |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Raymond Simard |
|
|
Mr. Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jim Prentice |
|
|
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Jim Prentice |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Scheer |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Mario Silva |
|
|
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Mario Silva |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Mario Silva |
|
|
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Mario Silva |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Mario Silva |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP) |
|
|
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. David Anderson |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Mr. David Christopherson |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. David Christopherson |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. David Christopherson |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Royal Assent
|
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Extension of Sitting Period |
|
|
Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Private Members' Business
|
|
|
Treaties Act |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Extension of Sitting Period |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. David Anderson |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj |
|
|
Mr. Ed Komarnicki |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Mr. Ed Komarnicki |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell |
|
|
Mr. John Williams (Edmonton—St. Albert, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell |
|
|
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell |
|
|
Mr. John Williams (Edmonton—St. Albert, CPC) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
Mr. John Williams |
|
|
Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Williams |
|
|
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. John Williams |
|
|
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Williams |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
(Division 141) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 142) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Routine Proceedings
|
|
|
Devils Lake Diversion Project |
|
|
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to make Certain Payments |
|
|
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 143) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Third Reading |
|
|
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Jim Abbott |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Peter Julian |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Julian |
|
|
Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Julian |
|
|
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit |
|
|
Hon. Jack Layton |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Jack Layton |
|
|
Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
|
Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours |
|
|
Hon. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
(Division 144) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 145) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 146) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Bill read the third time and passed)
|
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
The Speaker |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
Routine Proceedings
[Routine proceedings]
* * *
(1000)
[Translation]
Order in council Appointments
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a number of orders in council made recently by the government.
* * *
(1005)
[English]
Government Response to Petitions
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 20 petitions.
* * *
Committees of the House
Transport
Hon. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Transport.
* * *
Health
Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among all parties and I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following. I move that Report No. 13 of the Standing Committee on Health, presented in the House on Wednesday, June 1, 2005 requesting an extension of 30 sitting days to consider Bill C-420, be concurred in.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member for Oshawa have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
Petitions
Marriage
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have a series of petitions dealing with different subjects. The first three deal with the subject of marriage, a matter that is of great concern to constituents in my riding. The petitions come from Nanaimo and other areas in British Columbia, such as Lantzville, Parksville and Qualicum.
The petitioners are calling on Parliament to recognize that marriage is the best foundation for families and the raising of children, that the institution of marriage as between a man and a woman is being challenged, and that the House passed a motion in June 1999 that called for marriage to continue to be recognized as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
They are calling on Parliament to ensure that marriage remains an institution between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
* * *
(1010)
Natural Health Products
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the second series of petitions contain 2,500 signatures from people across the country who are concerned about Bill C-420. Most of the petitions are from British Columbia but there are others from Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Quebec on the subject of Bill C-420, the motion by the hon. member for Oshawa that was just denied.
Bill C-420 refers to natural health products and the way in which we regulate them. The petitioners call on the government to ensure that natural health products are regulated as food and not drugs and remain available as low cost and low risk options for Canadians to protect their own health.
* * *
Autism
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have another petition containing about 30 signatures of petitioners who are concerned with helping people with autism spectrum disorder.
The petitioners are calling for support for applied behaviour analysis and for intensive behavioural intervention to help parents dealing with children with the very severe disability of autism.
* * *
Marriage
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to present two petitions. The first petition deals with an issue that has been brought many times before the House and that is the issue of marriage.
The petitioners are calling on Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage as being the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
* * *
Canada Post
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have another series of petitions on an issue that is very important to many of the people in small towns in my riding and that is the issue of post offices and their desire to keep their local post office open.
The petitioners want to point out that Canada Post has closed a number of rural post offices already where it does not consider a community with less than 700 points of call to be a viable location, and whereas the closure of those post offices would hurt the communities, they are calling on Parliament to keep the post offices open and to retain a moratorium on post office closures.
* * *
[Translation]
Immigration
Mrs. Carole Lavallée (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present a petition signed by dozens of individuals, in addition to the hundreds of other signatories of the petition I presented last week.
This petition is asking the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to use his discretionary power to give permanent resident status to Mr. Sergio Orestes Loreto Garcia on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
This would allow Mr. Loreto to leave his sanctuary in Toronto and return to his family in Saint-Hubert.
* * *
Correctional Service of Canada
Mr. Robert Vincent (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition on behalf of Canadian corrections officers. It has been signed by over 2,000 individuals.
* * *
Questions on the Order Paper
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you will find there is unanimous consent to return to presenting reports from committees.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Committees of the House
Public Accounts
Mr. John Williams (Edmonton—St. Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts concerning Chapter 2, National Security in Canada, The 2001 Anti-terrorism Initiative: Air Transportation Security, Marine Security, and Emergency Preparedness, of the April 2005 report of the Auditor General of Canada. In accordance with Standing Order 109, your committee requests a government response within 120 days.
* * *
(1015)
Extension of Sitting Period
Motion that debate be not further adjourned
[S. O. 57]
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to Government Business No. 17, I move:
|
That the debate be not further adjourned. |
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30 minute question period. Perhaps those hon. members who wish to ask questions could rise in their places so the Chair has some idea of how many there will be.
I think we will limit questions to about a minute or a minute and a half and then get an answer and go back to the next question. The answers of course will be about a minute long as well, so I think that will ensure as equitable a distribution as I can get in 30 minutes.
We will start the 30 minutes with the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my question will not take a minute. It is pretty straightforward. I would ask the government House leader how he defends using closure to ram through his agenda in the dying days of this session, to extend the session for two pieces of legislation that ultimately will not come into effect for quite some time.
Bill C-48, as I explained at length yesterday, will not effectively be in force for at least a year until we see what level of so-called Liberal surplus we have, which, as I explained, Conservatives believe to be overtaxation.
Bill C-38 will ultimately be sitting in the Senate all summer. Why would the government force closure to ram through these two pieces of legislation when it is not going to make any consequential difference?
Hon. Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that what I am doing is ensuring that Parliament has an opportunity to entertain questions and to make a decision on two pieces of legislation.
The second point I would make is that it would be ultimately up to this Parliament to decide whether to accept this motion. We are in a minority Parliament. It is not the government that will alone be able to see the success of this motion, so it will be up to parliamentarians in the House to decide whether the extension of this sitting in order to deal with both the budget bill and Bill C-38 is in fact required and whether parliamentarians are willing to do that.
I would say to the hon. member that he should respect as I do, and I am sure he does, the outcome of any vote in this Parliament and that he will adhere to what Parliament decides, because ultimately we are here for debate. Debate is intended to try to change or assert at the end of the day where people's minds actually are on a particular issue and to decide on a question. That is the point of this: to decide on the question.
Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this is what I would call a travesty of democracy. This has been my first term and we are coming to something so significant as to whether or not there is a basis to extend this Parliament. To limit debate on whether that motion should come to the floor on a basis like that is very fundamental, and to try to stop debate on that issue is remarkable, to say the least.
Mr. Speaker, you could only have a further sitting of this House if it were a matter of public interest. Public interest would demand something fairly significant and it would not be Bill C-38, because certainly the nation does not want that bill to pass. The government, under the pretense of trying to make it of public interest, has linked it to Bill C-48, when it had every opportunity to deal with that in this session. There is nothing in Bill C-48 that requires it to be dealt with at this time or requires this sitting of the House to be extended. There is absolutely nothing.
It is the arrogance of this government to try to ram through this House what the public does not want, what is not in the national interest and which has no public interest to it. I ask why the House leader, under these circumstances, would try to limit debate in a democracy that is free, in a democracy where opinion--
(1020)
The Speaker: The hon. government House leader.
Hon. Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member takes on the same attitude when we have the outcome of the vote on whether this motion should pass or fail. If we are going to have a test of democracy then in fact what should happen is that our parliamentarians in this House should be able to deal with the question and should be able to vote, and Parliament should ultimately be able to decide.
With respect to whether there has been debate or not, with respect to Bill C-38 there have been 28 hours and 20 minutes of debate. With respect to Bill C-48, I think we have seen over the last number of days that the only the party that has been putting up speakers has been the official opposition.
An hon. member: Wrong.
Hon. Tony Valeri: It has been putting up the majority of the speakers not because it wants to in fact add to the debate but because it wants to delay the question.
At the end of the day, I think what Parliament needs to do is not only debate issues but also have the opportunity to decide on a question. That in fact is what we have done. We have given the House the opportunity to decide on a question. Parliament will decide.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we know what is happening over there. Canadians know what is happening over there. The government wants this extension brought in just because it does not want to extend Bill C-38 into the fall. The government knows that will be getting close to elections and the government does not represent the views of the majority of Canadians on Bill C-38.
The government wants to keep that distance from the time it discusses Bill C-38. It wants to ram it through this Parliament as far away from the elections as possible. That is the real reason the government wants Bill C-38 to come here: so that Canadians will forget about it during the summer. Is that not the real reason the government wants to extend this Parliament?
Hon. Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, on extending this Parliament, we are in fact asking this House to consider a motion to extend the sitting of this Parliament. Ultimately, as I said, it will be up to this House to do exactly that.
With respect to why we are doing that, it would be clear that Bill C-48 is of importance to many different parts of the country. There are premiers and mayors who are involved in budget making who want to know that this legislation will in fact move forward.
If the hon. members across the way want to voice their concern and their opposition to Bill C-48, they have certainly done so and we can hear from the comments that they will continue to do so. It does authorize $4.5 billion in spending this year and next. It does advocate and provide dollars for the homeless, for students, for cities and for the environment. They are perfectly within their right to stand in their place to debate against it, as they have, and to ultimately decide on the question. What we are doing is providing the House with an opportunity to do exactly that.
With respect to Bill C-38, I could go on in terms of the amount of debate that has taken place, but I will not because I think it is very public and I do know that members have decided how they will vote in any one way.
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to highlight the record of this government over 12 years. Over 80 times it has shut down debate in this House. Whether it was a majority or a minority Parliament, it did not matter. The government did not want to hear the voices of Canadians through duly elected opposition members of Parliament.
There are millions of Canadians out there who voted for Conservative members of Parliament like me and who expect us to fight bills like Bill C-38 right to the bitter end, yet the government wants to limit the voice of Canadians through us as duly elected members of Parliament. Why? Why does it want to shut down the voices of Canadians who voted for members of Parliament on this side of the House who oppose their legislation?
Hon. Tony Valeri: Again, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can stand in his place and lay out his position. He has done so numerous times.
We can look at various editorials that are popping up across the country wondering why the Conservatives continue to take this approach to Parliament. In fact, once there has been opportunity--
An hon. member: It's our right and it's their right to do it.
Hon. Tony Valeri: We have seen it on Bill C-38. We can ask the opposition House leader. When we were at second reading debate on Bill C-38, I made it very clear that every member who wanted to speak to Bill C-38 would have an opportunity to do so. I believe they did. It went through committee. We have report stage and third reading. There will be a further opportunity further speak to Bill C-38. What the official opposition looks to do is not to have debate for the sake of debate in terms of an exchange of ideas, but to use debate to ultimately delay a vote in the House.
Parliament has an opportunity today to decide whether we should have extended sittings. If we do have extended sittings it will be because this Parliament voted for it, not because the government has just done it through a majority. It is a minority Parliament and ultimately parliamentarians will decide whether or not we sit next week. That question should be put and ultimately decided on later today.
(1025)
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-43 has passed through this House and is in the Senate right now at the finance committee. The Conservative senators want to expedite the bill and get it through so the government can carry on with business. However, the Liberal senators have stalled the clause by clause on it. They are holding up the Bill C-43 royal assent passage, I suspect at the direction of the House leader or the Prime Minister.
I would ask the government House leader why he and his government are using Bill C-43 as a ransom to get Bill C-48 and Bill C-38 through. The Liberal senators have said that they will deal with Bill C-43 next week when Bills C-38 and C-48 have been passed. Why this sneaky, sleazy manoeuvring in the Senate, using their Liberal senators to hold up the 2005-06 Liberal budget just so they can get the others, and holding up the Atlantic accord as well? I would like the hon. government House leader to explain that.
Hon. Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I can say is that I would hope the Conservative senators along the way would show the same cooperation with respect to Bill C-48 and Bill C-38 as they seem to be showing with respect to Bill C-43.
I am under no illusions. I would expect that once Bill C-48 and Bill C-38 leave this place, with Bill C-43 already in the Senate, the Senate will do everything possible to pass all of the legislation that has gone to the Senate in order to give Canadians what they are hoping for, what this Parliament deserves, and that is additional funding for transit, additional funding for the Atlantic provinces, more money for the environment and more money for post-secondary education.
I can only say this. I hope that while the hon. member is here with catcalls he would take the time to leave this place, pick up the phone and ask his Conservative senators to cooperate on Bill C-48 and Bill C-38 as he has indicated they are prepared to cooperate on Bill C-43.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government House leader. It may not have directly to do with the present debate. I have seen the legislative calendar for the next couple of weeks, which he has issued. There is one bill on that legislative calendar, Bill C-38.
My office is getting calls from people whose homes have been damaged by flood waters. I am getting calls from farmers whose crops are under water, from truck drivers who are losing their businesses and from feedlot operators who cannot get by. I have grain farmers who are starving to death and businesses that are closing, yet the only agenda this government has is Bill C-38.
If the government is seriously worried about doing the business of the country, then it should damn well deal with the business that is bothering this country and get to it.
Hon. Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what calendar the hon. member saw, but it also contained Bill C-48, which is the budget bill.
The second point I would make, as I have told House leaders, is that if there is legislation and if there are initiatives on which this Parliament can decide, I am certainly prepared to bring them forward at all stages and expedite them.
I believe that members of Parliament are working on a number of pieces of legislation on which they have found common cause and consensus, and they want to move them through the House. I am perfectly prepared to do that. I think we are here to reflect the interests of Canadians.
With respect to the issues of the hon. member, which I think are very important, frankly, and I have a lot of respect for him because he speaks very passionately about the issues that are important to him, if the hon. member can find consensus in the House in order to move forward on the initiatives that he has just described, I will certainly not be the obstacle to that.
(1030)
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, what is happening in this Parliament is amazing. Bill C-38 is a very important bill but the fact is that the majority of Canadians across the nation have said that they do not want it and the government is trying to jam it through. The Liberals are making sure this happens.
The mandate of all members of Parliament is to listen to the people of Canada. What is happening this morning is abysmal. People in my riding of Kildonan—St. Paul do not want Bill C-38 passed. The members opposite should be listening to all people in Canada, as well as those in their own ridings.
Hon. Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across the way should acknowledge that there was extensive debate on Bill C-38 in the House at second reading. Hearings have been conducted on Bill C-38. The justice committee held hearings back in 2002-03, although I understand a lot of members would not agree that had anything to do with Bill C-38.
I think the committee heard some 75 witnesses on Bill C-38. The Order Paper contains a number of report stage amendments that should be debated and decided upon. A number of amendments were proposed and debated in committee and some were accepted and passed.
The hon. member has indicated that a number of people in the country are opposed to Bill C-38, which is true, but it is also true that a number of people are for it. However when we have a debate, part of that debate is deciding on a question and I think people in the House have decided how they will vote. The opportunity is now to decide on the question and that is what is being asked.
If the motion passes we will go to extended sittings in order to deal with the budget bill and Bill C-38.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it was not very long ago that I came to the House and almost on a daily basis the government was introducing concurrence motions to use up time and filibuster their own agenda, which was very thin soup, to say the least. There really was nothing on the agenda and there was no Bill C-38. The NDP amendment bill was not here and the government was using up time on concurrence motions.
As we approach the summer recess, when MPs should be back in their ridings with their constituents, the government says that it is very important that we extend the sitting so we can deal with issues that it could have dealt with back then but refused to do. Now it is an urgent matter and it wants an extension. I find that to be sucking and blowing at the same time.
Would the House leader explain or justify why the government was wasting so much time on concurrence motions not very long ago and now it needs more time?
Hon. Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone in the country believes the Conservatives were doing anything but filibustering both on Bill C-48 and Bill C-38 in order to avoid getting to the question. It is certainly well within their rights to use every procedural tactic available to them in the Standing Orders to prevent something from happening.
However, ultimately I think Canadians look to a resolution to a question. While Canadians look for debate, and while the hon. members may argue that there has not been enough debate, I would submit that there has been debate in the House on Bill C-38 and Bill C-48.
What I am putting in front of the House this morning is an opportunity for Parliament to decide whether Parliament itself should have extended sittings. If that happens, I am saying that we would deal with Bill C-48 and Bill C-38 and ultimately Parliament will decide the outcome of those bills.
The members opposite may disagree with what I am looking to do but ultimately Parliament will decide whether what I am doing is acceptable to Parliament.
(1035)
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the level of debate and discussion that is going on here amazes me. The other day I was talking with my daughter who was looking after a young girl of about five or six years old. All she could say to the Conservatives was “na, na, na, na, na, na”.
It is almost as if they have not realized that they have not lost the election yet. I hear them stand up and say that the majority of Canadians are against Bill C-38 and yet poll after poll shows different statistics all the time.
If the Conservatives believe they are right, when the vote on Bill C-38 comes up they can vote against it, if that is their choosing, and then, when an election is called, they can run on that platform. If they oppose Bill C-38 and if it passes through this House, they can tell Canadians that they would use the notwithstanding clause to eliminate a minority right. They have every right to say that to the Canadian people. The Conservatives do not have the courage to say that they would use the notwithstanding clause against Bill C-38.
Those are the same bunch of Conservatives whose leader says that it is okay to make a bribe but that it is not okay do accept one. No wonder they are dropping in the polls like a lead sinker.
Could the hon. House leader tell me what the Conservatives are afraid of?
Hon. Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not speak for the Conservative Party but I would suggest that the Conservatives are afraid of having these questions come to the House in order to have the House resolve the question.
The Conservatives constantly stand in this House and use debate in order to delay, which is perfectly within their right, but they should also have the courage to stand in this House to vote and to show Canadians where they stand on these particular issues. The rest of Parliament seems to be prepared to do so.
If the Conservatives feel so strongly about their position, they should vote in this House and then spend the summer telling Canadians why they have the correct position. I would suggest that Canadians would disagree with the position that they have taken.
Mr. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I can understand why my NDP colleague is so upset with the comments about bribes because that party gave in to the bribe that the Liberals gave it.
The House leader is trying to do a very undemocratic thing by wrapping it up in the notion of democracy and the fact that we will have a vote on something that is undemocratic. The Liberal logic is that by voting democratically on something that is undemocratic makes it all democratic. That is bogus logic.
The Liberals spent months filibustering their own legislative agenda. Do Canadians remember the sled dog debate? The government introduced it and then right away voted to adjourn the debate. The Liberal member who introduced the bill said that she only ever speaks a few times, and that every time she does speak it is on something of great importance. Minutes after she said that, the Liberal government voted to adjourn its own debate.
I have one simple question for the government House leader. If we win the vote tonight not to extend sittings, will his government commit not to request a special call back from the Speaker after the House rises?
Hon. Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the preamble to the hon. member's question, every time a member across the way gets up and says something, with some exception, we hear nothing but hypocrisy.
The hon. member talks about wasting the time of this House moving concurrence motions and using all kinds of procedural dilatory tactics but that is what hon. members from his party have done for most of this session.
What is before the House is a motion that provides an opportunity to decide on a question. When the member talks about particular pieces of legislation, which it seems are of no importance to the Conservative Party, he is talking about investments in the environment, in affordable housing and in cities.
The hon. members are disagreeing with those types of investments and it is perfectly correct for them to do so.
However everything we are proposing are within the Standing Orders and within the rules of this House. Parliament can ultimately decide whether this motion should be accepted or not. I would only hope that the Conservatives will respect the outcome of the vote today.
(1040)
Hon. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take all members back to election night. We had similar and different experiences in each of our ridings. I remember people congratulating me on being elected. I won fairly comfortably and I was pleased and relieved to be re-elected.
They then went on to say that they were glad it was a minority government because they needed some change of attitude. In my riding they said that they were glad that it was a Liberal minority government.
In the succeeding days, the people kept coming to me and saying how difficult it would be for the Liberals in a minority Parliament to form the government because we would not have the votes we would need in committee or in the House. They told me that we would need to negotiate and work with the other parties but in a different way.
I underestimated that until I came back and realized that it was a very difficult management situation. I also realized it would not be a normal year. I think the people elected us to make this thing work. They elected us to at least get a budget through. I did not expect it to be a normal year and I do not expect a normal vacation at the end of that year.
Hon. Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague does reflect what Canadians said on election night, which is that they were looking for this Parliament to work. We have had successful discussions in different areas with various parties at different times, and that is what a minority Parliament is all about.
At times, some parties are not happy with the outcome of what may be a negotiation or a discussion, and that is perfectly acceptable, that is the way minority Parliaments work.
The hon. member across the way talked about respecting the vote. I would only say that if we have a successful vote today on this motion and we do come back next week, I would hope that we would have constructive debate and ultimately decide on the question.
I would just go back to what is coming up in some of the editorials. In yesterday's Globe and Mail, in reference to Bill C-38, it 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. |
Ultimately, we are here to ensure that the Commons has its say.
Mr. Barry Devolin (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I do not think the government House leader answered the question from my colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle. It is very simple. The government House leader suggested that we all ought to respect the wishes and the votes of this Parliament and yet it has been widely reported this morning that if the government loses this vote today, the government House leader will go back to the Speaker and ask for the same thing, by different means, effectively ignoring what Parliament has asked for today, and ask that we be recalled next week.
I put the question back the same way. If the government House leader is challenging us to live by the results of today's vote, does he have any intention of doing the same thing?
Hon. Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, I would respond by saying that whatever I do, whether in this House or out of this House, I would do in the public interest.
Mr. Barry Devolin: I take that as a no.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the government House leader tell us that there has been a very full and democratic debate on Bill C-38 but clearly the game here is to try to fast-track Bill C-38.
Does my colleague consider giving less than 24 hours' notice to witnesses to appear at a committee to be democratic and fair? I speak as a three time chair of the committee on national defence and veterans affairs. Does he consider having four witnesses at a time, meeting after meeting, to be sitting at a committee, which is unusual, to be a normal, democratic practice in this House?
Does he consider the imposition of an artificial June 14 deadline to report to this House normal and fair? I want him to answer that because if he does the Canadian people do not.
(1045)
Hon. Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, it was a committee decision when to report and all parties agreed to the decision to report back on that day. The Conservative member who sat on that committee and who spoke very aggressively against this legislation agreed to report back on a certain day. It was the committee that decided when to report back the question.
With respect to the witnesses themselves, 75 witnesses have appeared with respect to Bill C-38, and there was 28 hours and 20 minutes of debate on Bill C-38.
I grant that not all members are happy with the process, and not all members are going to be happy at the end of the day with respect to the outcome. To suggest that there has not been enough debate on this issue is certainly a personal perspective and one that members are perfectly entitled to and should express on their own.
At the end of the day, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that you have a question here and a vote will be taken on whether we extend the sitting of the House. Parliament will decide that. If Parliament decides to extend the sitting, then we will deal with both Bill C-48 and Bill C-38.
Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government has admitted now that Bill C-38 is its single issue. This is a single issue government. It wants to socially engineer Canada to bring it farther left than any other country in the world. We heard that in committee.
I sat on that committee and it was a sham. The committee was structured in a way that Canadians would not have an opportunity to give input. The number of witnesses who could appear was limited. The committee was stacked with only members who supported the government and they brought closure on that by manipulation. We heard from witnesses that religious freedoms in Canada would not be protected. We had amendments from all parties that the government refused. It called them out of order.
Will the government House leader not admit that there were special promises made to special interest groups? The government funded these special interest groups to come and support same sex marriage. What promises were made to these special interest groups?
Hon. Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, no promises were made to any special interest groups. That is a direct response to the hon. member.
When he talks about what the government has essentially done, I can point to the early learning initiative, the new deal for cities, the investments in affordable housing and post-secondary education, the reduction in income tax for lower income Canadians and investments in the auto sector. I can point to a number of different areas, all of which the official opposition disagrees with, and it is certainly within its right to do so. It is the opposition's right to disagree with what the government is doing.
I would just go back to the point that when and if the House is able to decide on whether the motion should pass or not, we will then deal with both the budget bill, Bill C-48, and ultimately Bill C-38.
The Speaker: It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.
[Translation]
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
* * *
(1135)
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
|
(Division No. 140)
|
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson (Victoria)
Angus
Asselin
Augustine
Bachand
Bagnell
Bains
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bell
Bellavance
Bennett
Bergeron
Bevilacqua
Bigras
Blaikie
Blais
Blondin-Andrew
Boire
Boivin
Bonin
Bonsant
Boshcoff
Bouchard
Boudria
Boulianne
Bourgeois
Bradshaw
Brison
Broadbent
Brown (Oakville)
Brunelle
Bulte
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
Guay
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
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
Scott
Sgro
Siksay
Silva
Simard (Beauport—Limoilou)
Simard (Saint Boniface)
Simms
Smith (Pontiac)
St-Hilaire
St. Amand
St. Denis
Stoffer
Stronach
Szabo
Telegdi
Temelkovski
Thibault (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques)
Thibault (West Nova)
Tonks
Torsney
Valeri
Valley
Vincent
Volpe
Wasylycia-Leis
Wilfert
Wrzesnewskyj
Zed
Total: -- 195
|
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Allison
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands)
Batters
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)
Kilgour
Komarnicki
Lauzon
Lukiwski
Lunn
Lunney
MacAulay
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Mark
McTeague
Menzies
Merrifield
Miller
Mills
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Nicholson
O'Brien
O'Connor
Obhrai
Oda
Pallister
Penson
Poilievre
Prentice
Preston
Rajotte
Reid
Reynolds
Richardson
Ritz
Scheer
Schellenberger
Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country)
Skelton
Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul)
Solberg
Sorenson
Steckle
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest)
Tilson
Toews
Trost
Tweed
Ur
Van Loan
Vellacott
Warawa
Watson
Williams
Yelich
Total: -- 97
|
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
[English]
Private Members' Business
Symbol for the House of Commons--Speaker's Ruling
[Speaker's Ruling]
The Speaker: I have an important statement to make to the House about the result of the vote taken yesterday evening on Motion No. 228, which was moved by the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River.
As hon. members know, the announced result was a tie, with 143 members recorded as having voted in favour and 143 members recorded as having voted against.
[Translation]
On hearing that the votes were equally divided on the motion, the Deputy Speaker correctly gave the casting vote in the negative on the procedural grounds that, since no further discussion on the motion was possible and the House could not reach a decision, it was not for the Chair to decide that the proposal would go forward.
Some minutes after the Deputy Speaker had cast the deciding vote, and after the House had moved on to other business, it was brought to the attention of the Table that a member had been erroneously counted as having voted nay. Further verifications were made to confirm that an error had in fact been made and it was discovered that at one point during the vote several members stood out of sequence and then sat down in quick succession when voting on the motion. In amongst that group of members was one member who had remained seated throughout and had not in fact voted, namely the member for Verchères—Les Patriotes. However, in the confusion, his name had been called and his vote counted with the nays.
[English]
Shortly afterward I was informed by the table officers that this had occurred. As hon. members will realize, if this nay vote had not been counted in error, events would have unfolded differently. No tie vote would have occurred, no casting vote would have been required and most significantly Motion No. 228 would have been agreed to by a vote of 143 to 142.
As your Speaker, I always strive to observe the highest ethical standards in the exercise of my duties. Thus, in the present circumstances I have concluded that the decision on Motion No. 228 recorded in yesterday's Journals cannot stand, given our knowledge that it rests on a single incorrectly recorded vote.
Accordingly, I am informing the House that Motion No. 228 has been agreed to by a vote of 143 yeas to 142 nays and I have directed the Table to correct the Journals of June 22, 2005 so that the true decision of the House may be properly reflected in our official records.
I thank hon. members for their attention during this rather unusual announcement.
[Translation]
The hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean on a point of order.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have considerable respect for the extraordinary manner with which you carry out your weighty responsibilities. It is to your credit that you investigated this. However, you yourself said in your ruling that the vote was taken at a time of disorder so that at least one error occurred, perhaps more, because the members rose in an irregular fashion.
Under the circumstances, I think there is sufficient doubt and question about yesterday's vote to have it retaken in proper form by the House, rather than be changed 24 hours later.
I know that a vote in the House must be beyond all doubt—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Michel Gauthier: I wish the Liberal side would settle down. I am making a point of order. I am doing it properly and according to the rules. If some on the other side care to not play by the rules, two can play the game. The tone of things can change right now. I suggest my Liberal friends settle down. It would be much better. They could let me finish my question.
For a vote of the House of Commons to be respected, it must be beyond all doubt. In my opinion, despite my respect for you, we cannot, 24 hours later, reconsider a vote, state that at least one error has been discovered, perhaps more, and say the vote will be changed. I ask you to review your ruling and allow the vote to be taken again.
If this is the intention of the House of Commons, we will respect it. If the intention of the House of Commons is to reject the motion, you will respect it.
(1140)
[English]
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is private members' business and I understand the intervention by my hon. colleague. I would leave it strictly to you. The government is not opposed to having the vote again, if another vote is required. Given that it is private members' business, if another vote is required, we will leave it to your judgment to call it.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, first, with the utmost respect for the Chair and for your decision, I am not challenging the decision in that light. However, I want to support the comments made by the House leader of the Bloc Québécois insofar as whether members voted in the affirmative or the negative on this private member's legislation.
As the hon. House leader for the Bloc Québécois has suggested, it is important that the House very clearly state its opinion on any piece of legislation. Any vote should be above any debate as to whether it was an accurate reflection of the will of the House or not.
Therefore, I would suggest that we retake the vote at the earliest opportunity, even right now.
The Speaker: I do not think I need to hear more on the matter. With respect, I know the other House leader is rising on this matter.
[Translation]
The matter was raised by a member. The member indicated that he had not voted. We looked at the tapes and determined this to be the case.
[English]
Therefore, there is no question here of there being irregularities alleged throughout the voting process. There was one alleged irregularity. It was drawn to the attention of the table officers, an investigation was made and it was discovered that the member had indeed not voted based on the tapes. It was on that basis that I made the ruling I made a few minutes ago.
However, if the House wishes to have another vote on the matter and there is consent to do so, we can have it immediately. Everyone is here and there is no reason not to proceed with the vote if members wish.
It seems to me that it is not for the Speaker to order this. It is for the members to agree. If there is agreement, we will do it.
(1145)
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this is private members' business and our caucus was divided on the issue. Obviously the House is divided on the issue. We believe we should just get on with business. A vote was taken. You have made your ruling, Mr. Speaker. Let it stand.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, what I was suggesting earlier was to ensure that the House of Commons take votes that are always above reproach.
You even said in your decision—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Michel Gauthier: They will ask us to support the closure motions. They can wait for the next one.
Mr. Speaker—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: I have no problem hearing the hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean. Maybe there is too much noise in that corner of the House, but I can hear him just fine from here.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, as long as you can hear me that is all that matters since I am speaking to you. Earlier, in your explanation, you told us you watched the video tapes.
I know that you are aware—and I am sure that you recall—that it is absolutely unacceptable and impossible to use the video tapes to quote what a member said, to discuss someone's attitude or to review any confrontation in this House. The video tapes are not considered official documents and cannot be used.
We cannot do so as MPs and, as the Speaker—you have the same rights as we do—you cannot do so either. Therefore, the only real solution is to retake the vote and we will accept the verdict.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since this is a question of my vote or non-vote, and since you have very clearly cited the confusion that reigned on this side of the House at the time of the vote, I think the only thing to do under the circumstances is indeed to retake the vote so that my vote can be expressed clearly this time without any confusion whatsoever.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there is only one point I want to want. A member went to see the table officers in order to tell them that he had not voted. That is clear.
The member may now address the House, if he so chooses. However, it could set a precedent if a second vote were to be held as the result of some confusion in the House. The next time the House is divided 149 to 148, I could advise the Chair that there had been some confusion in the House and call for another vote.
Mr. Speaker, you have made your decision, and it should be upheld.
[English]
The Speaker: I think I have heard enough. There is clearly no agreement on having another vote at the moment. I would suggest that the House leaders have a little discussion about this and if they decide that another vote is in the best interests of the House, we are having votes this evening at 8 o'clock and it can all happen again then.
Therefore, I would suggest that in the meantime we let the House leaders have a discussion, perhaps with the whips, and see if the matter cannot be resolved. However, continuing debate on the matter here is unnecessary.
* * *
(1150)
Points of Order
Remarks by Member for Nepean--Carleton--Speaker's Ruling
[Speaker's Ruling]
The Speaker: Yesterday in question period the hon. member for Nepean--Carleton in a question to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services referred to a “Liberal lawbreaker”.
In a previous ruling involving the hon. member for Nepean--Carleton on a point of order raised by the hon. member for Mississauga South concerning remarks made in question periods on Friday, June 3 and Monday, June 6 by the same hon. member, I gave a ruling which indicated that certain matters should be respected by all hon. members in the House. I quote once again from Marleau and Montpetit the same passage I cited in my ruling on June 14 on this matter, which is about a week ago. The quote is as follows:
|
References to Senate debates and proceedings are discouraged and it is out of order to question a Senator's integrity, honesty or character. This “prevents fruitless arguments between Members of two distinct bodies who are unable to reply to each other, and guards against recrimination and offensive language in the absence of the other party.” |
I thought and hoped that the hon. member for Nepean--Carleton would read my ruling if he had not heard it all at the time that I delivered it, and abide by it. I am concerned that his continued use of intemperate language in respect of members of the other place is in breach of our practices and principles of behaviour in this House as set out in Marleau and Montpetit and as observed for some time in the House of Commons.
It does not behoove us to speak disrespectfully of the other place, as it does not behoove them to speak disrespectfully of this place. I therefore ask the hon. member for Nepean--Carleton to withdraw the words “Liberal lawbreaker” that he used in his question. I urge him to refrain from such conduct in future, or he will face more difficult penalties from the Chair.
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, exclusively out of respect for the Speaker and for the rules of this place, I withdraw any language that may have referred to a member of the other place in a negative way.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
(1155)
[English]
Extension of Sitting Period
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I gave notice to both the Deputy Speaker and to the Table yesterday that I intended to rise on a point of order regarding the amendment to the motion that was put yesterday by the hon. House leader of the official opposition.
The amendment that was moved yesterday by the hon. member was to amend the government motion in a way that would have the House come back only in September, albeit on a slightly different date than the one on which we would normally return. On the other hand, Motion No. 17 would have the House continue to sit, arguably after today and continuously until the particular program was adopted.
The point I am making to Your Honour is that the purpose of the amendment is the opposite of what the main motion does. Mr. Speaker, I draw to your attention citation 578(2) of Beauchesne at page 176, which states:
|
An amendment which would produce the same result as if the original motion were simply negatived is out of order. |
That has been the rule since June 23, 1990 and it can be found at page 435 of the Journals for that day.
There is a further reference in citation 575 which says that a six month hoist or a reasoned amendment may only be applied against the reading of a bill, not against a motion. In other words, we cannot, by way of amending a motion, give an effect which is similar or identical to what we would have by producing a reasoned amendment. My argument is that this is exactly what the amendment does.
I now draw to your attention page 453 of Marleau and Montpetit where it says:
|
An amendment should be framed so that, if agreed to, it will leave the main motion intelligible and consistent with itself. An amendment is out of order if:..it would produce the same result as the defeat of the main motion. |
In intent, we have a motion before the House to sit now and presumably have a summer recess later. The amendment would produce a recess now and Parliament would come back in September. That is the exact opposite one of the other.
The argument of the House leader for the official opposition will be that it is marginally different in the sense that in coming back in September, we would come back on the 12th instead of on the 19th. That is still inconsequential to the main proposition.
The fact is that the motion moved by the hon. government House leader is to have us sit now to deal with legislation. The amendment produced is to delay that until the fall, which is the opposite of the main motion.
I would argue that should be examined before the vote is taken tonight to determine whether or not my allegation is correct; in other words, that the motion as amended would be out of order because it does the reverse of the main motion. By voting against the main motion, we would achieve almost 100% of the same result as voting for the amendment, which is another proposition raised in Marleau and Montpetit and in Erskine May in that regard.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would obviously argue that the hon. member is in error. In reality, the amendment does not do the opposite as he said.
I would refer the Speaker to page 453 of Marleau and Montpetit. I believe that an amendment must be relevant to the main motion. Clearly it states:
|
It must not stray from the main motion but aim to further refine its meaning and intent. |
Page 175 of Beauchesne's states:
|
The object of an amendment may be either to modify a question in such a way as to increase its acceptability or to present to the House a different proposition as an alternative to the original question. |
The main purpose of the main motion is to fix the date for the resumption of the House of Commons after its adjournment on June 23, today. That is what the motion is doing. It is to have Parliament and the House of Commons resume Monday, June 27. It says that right in the motion.
I would argue that it is not the opposite to suggest that it should resume on September 12. We are dealing with a difference in dates. The motion says that the House upon its adjournment tonight at midnight will resume on Monday, June 27. My amendment says that it should resume on September 12. That is hardly the opposite. It is just a difference in dates.
I contend that the amendment offers an alternative proposition. It offers the date of September 12 without conditions. It does not enlarge upon the main motion or introduce any foreign matter. Therefore, the amendment is in order.
An hon. member: It is the opposite.
Mr. Jay Hill: It is not the opposite. Look up the definition of “opposite”.
(1200)
The Speaker: I appreciate the argument raised by the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell and the response of the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River. It is a very technical argument.
I look at Marleau and Montpetit at page 453, cited by both hon. members, where it says:
| An amendment is out of order procedurally, if:-- |
--and I will quote one of the paragraphs--
| --it is the direct negative of the main motion and would produce the same result as the defeat of the main motion;-- |
Were the main motion defeated, the House would adjourn today until September 19. The amendment would change the adjournment date to September 12 if we adjourn today. In my view it is a difference. It is not the same as defeat. It changes the return date of the House. Accordingly, I find the amendment in order.
When the House last debated this matter, the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River had made a lengthy speech and he now has 10 minutes available for those members who wish to ask questions or make comments on his address.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate our hon. House leader of the opposition who did a magnificent job yesterday in addressing the motion to extend the hours of the House. He touched on an incredible vast amount of points that were pertinent to what is happening in the House and what has been happening over the course of the last few months, especially leading up to the fact that we have to deal with such emotion in the dying hours of Parliament. I think that was his language, as well.
We could have been dealing with these bills earlier if the government had its vision together, if it knew what it was doing. I think the House leader clarified that during his brilliant address yesterday in the House.
The government argues that we have to pass the budget, we have to pass this legislation. In the end, the calendar was not as full, it could have been dealt with a few weeks earlier, but now we are extending Parliament and are costing Canadians a lot more in the end. If in fact we were following the normal schedule, we could have been back in our ridings doing the work that my colleague so adequately pointed out we should be doing under normal operations while functioning as members of Parliament. We could be spending time in our ridings serving our constituents and being at their events. Instead, we are dealing with a motion to take us even further away from our responsibilities in our constituencies when we all know full well in this House that it is a very important part of our jobs.
I would ask my colleague, the opposition House leader, where exactly are we going in the next while? Could he elaborate on the fact that if we had the opportunity to serve our constituents in our riding, would that not be of more value to Canadians?
He touched on that yesterday. I would like to hear a little bit more and maybe he could address the fact that we have already passed Bill C-43 and we are learning today that the Liberal majority in the Senate is holding up that particular bill. The government has argued so strongly that the bill had to pass. It wants to pass Bill C-48 and that is why there is an attempt to extend this sitting. Why is there this hypocrisy now in the Senate where the Liberals are holding it up? Does it not make this whole process irrelevant? I would like to hear his opinion on that.
(1205)
Mr. Jay Hill: Madam Speaker, it is a bit humbling to hear such praise for my remarks yesterday, but I do appreciate it.
The member raises the relevant point, the central point of the debate yesterday and the debate that is being continued here today, about the extension of the sitting. He is quite right and I laid out yesterday, in defence of not only the members of Parliament from the Conservative Party of Canada but indeed the members of Parliament from the other three political parties, the importance of them returning to their ridings to meet their commitments.
I would suggest that probably all of us have made a commitment to our constituents to be accessible, to be present, to interact with them, and to participate in events in our constituencies. It is important in the whole democratic process that MPs make themselves accessible in their constituencies rather than always being confined here to this place.
One of the things that MPs from all parties struggle with is the constant conflict between constituency work and the work as a legislator in the House of Commons. That is compounded in the case of the whips of the political parties because it is incumbent upon them, indeed it is a big part of their job description, to ensure that members of Parliament in their particular parties are here when they are needed. They have to listen all the time when MPs are caught in that conflict between a commitment to their constituents and a commitment to their party, and their roles as legislators here in the House of Commons.
When we look at Motion No. 17, the government has now taken the extraordinary step of invoking closure today, it is shutting down debate. It is saying that this is paramount, that it is urgent. As I said yesterday, the reality is quite the opposite. There is no great urgency for the House of Commons to incur the costs associated with sitting next week, when our regular adjournment would be tonight at midnight. There is no logical reason why that has to happen, why members of Parliament from all parties have to cancel commitments they have made to their constituents for next week, fully anticipating that the House would be in recess.
As my colleague has indicated, the budget implementation act, Bill C-43, has been passed. The Conservative Party of Canada supported it on June 15. We supported it on May 19. We abstained on the original vote on a budget when the budget was introduced back in March. We took those extraordinary steps because, as I explained yesterday, this party deals with legislation based upon principle. We assess each piece of legislation on its own merits and determine our position.
Bill C-43 is now hung up at committee hearings in the Senate because the Liberals in the Senate will not allow it to proceed until they get Bill C-48 in order to live up to a political commitment between the Prime Minister of the country and the leader of the New Democratic Party. That is why it is held up there.
That is why Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia are still waiting for their money to start flowing from the Atlantic accord agreement. That is why municipalities all across this country are still waiting for the money they desperately need to improve and repair their infrastructure. The bill is held up in the Senate, not because of the Conservative senators but because Liberal senators are holding it up for ransom until they get the NDP budget and the same-sex marriage legislation forced through this chamber.
(1210)
I think that is despicable and dishonest. I think that the government should rightfully be condemned and held to account by Canadians for not only doing such a thing, but for trying to blame the official opposition for what is essentially its doing in holding up this important budget legislation on the erroneous charge that somehow we need to extend the sitting in order to force through Bill C-48 and Bill C-38.
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is a bit disingenuous for the Conservatives to suggest that they want to get back to their ridings and be with their constituents. In fact, I agree. I would like to get back to mine. I am going to have to cancel some very important events I would love to attend.
However, it was also the Conservatives who, during the debate on Bill C-43, used member after member to give the same speech. It was recorded in the Debates that they were using the exact same words on a number of occasions. I have no problem with having enough democratic time to debate any motion, but there has to be something added to the debate, some value added for the people of Canada and for the House, for the great expense that is being incurred.
The member suggested that the members opposite make their decisions based on principle, which is good. I appreciate and applaud that. However, in the debate on Bill C-43, the vast majority of Conservative members actually said that the elements covered in Bill C-43, urban transit, foreign aid, affordable housing and reducing money for student tuition, were admirable and in fact thought they were ultimately good objectives.
So, if the Conservatives make their decisions based on principle, why are they not voting for those good objectives that most of the Conservatives agree with?
Mr. Jay Hill: Madam Speaker, the New Democratic Party is trying to call Bill C-48, not Bill C-43, a better balanced budget, but it is really a blowing billions budget as one of my colleagues has said.
One of the reasons why, on principle, we are opposed to this bill, as I laid out very clearly yesterday in my two hour speech, is that not only are there no details, no plans as to how the Liberals are going to spend $4.6 billion of taxpayer money but the process is a slap in the face to everybody who participated in the budget consultation process prior to the budget when this can be cooked up in a hotel room in Toronto overnight.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Madam Speaker, I will start by indicating to those listening that the Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of this motion to extend this sitting of the Parliament, provided of course that all stages of Bill C-38 are on the parliamentary agenda before the House adjourns.
We are engaged today in voting on an motion to extend the sitting of the House because this parliamentary session we have just been through has given rise to the worst possible abuses. In recent months there has been an incredible amount of time wasted here in this House.
For the first time in my parliamentary experience, I have seen a government boycotting its own parliamentary agenda. That happened on five separate occasions. For five days of this last session, the government itself has made use of stalling tactics to prevent this House from addressing legislative items submitted by itself. What a curious situation!
The session about to end has been improvised by the government. We would have had the time to pass many more legislative measures if there had been just a minimum of planning. We could have adopted all the legislative measures we wanted, but this very government, whether to save its own skin or out of fear that it was not in line with the thinking of the majority of members of this House, has attempted to distract us from the agenda, and that has created a precedent.
In short, despite our full cooperation, particularly in the final weeks of this session, we are obliged to extend the sitting. We will do so, because I want people to know that we were firmly resolved to support the government and to ensure that the legislative record is not too thin. We are going to accept an extension because of a major bill which the Bloc Québécois members wholeheartedly support. This is a bill to regularize the situation for parties to same sex marriage.
It is a matter of rights. I must say that we have respect for everyone who thinks differently. We understand that some people have difficulty with this reality because of their religious beliefs or certain social situations. But in this House of Commons, we have a responsibility not to let problems in society drag on but to deal with them. Even in difficult situations, we have a duty to say our piece, study the situation, analyze the arguments for and against, weigh everything, and finally draw our own conclusions.
There is a free vote on this bill and people can vote as their conscience dictates. I would remind the House, though, that refusing to pass Bill C-38 means refusing to recognize the decisions handed down by seven courts of law. They have ruled that, by virtue of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is in effect here in Canada, all citizens regardless of their sexual orientation have a right to choose and cannot be discriminated against on this basis. Seven courts have ruled in this way. Today, the House of Commons must make the Civil Marriage Act consistent with these decisions.
A refusal to pass Bill C-38 would mean that the rights and freedoms of a large number of people here in Canada would have to be suspended.
(1215)
Rights and freedoms would be suspended. These people would be told, “We know the Charter gives you the right to marry but you cannot do so because we are taking away your freedoms”. Most of my colleagues in the Bloc and I do not want to be numbered among those who would suspend the rights and freedoms of a group of people in our society. There is no chance that we would do that.
That is why we not only hope but are eager to ensure that Bill C-38 passes by the end of the extended session. To this end, I asked for written guarantees from the government House leader. Not that our word is not enough, but in this case, in view of the importance of this matter, I simply had to obtain these guarantees in order to be absolutely certain that we would do our work to the end, that we were going to assume our responsibilities right to the end.
This is worth extending the session of Parliament a few days to do justice to our fellow citizens and end this debate that is pitting people in our society against one other. This debate is a matter of conscience for everyone.
I am saying it again: we respect the values, conscience and religious beliefs of all individuals. We have to draw the line somewhere. My colleagues and I will not be able, when the time comes, to suspend rights and freedoms and prevent people having access to a union to which they are currently entitled in most Canadian provinces.
That said, our requirements have been clear. This is our duty, and we will extend this sitting of the House.
There is also Bill C-48, which has a much worse image than Bill C-38. The government wants the House to consider and adopt Bill C-48 during the extended sitting. This bill is an addendum to the government's budget. There is $4.5 billion in what is being called the NDP budget. However, I think that $4.5 billion should be called the NDP's price for abandoning Canada's unemployed.
We were in the midst of negotiations. With the NDP, the Bloc and the Conservative Party combined, we were in a position to obtain a major concession for a major overhaul of EI from the Prime Minister—if he wanted to remain Prime Minister. In the Bloc's view, it was a sine qua non, an essential condition. Some $47 billion has been stolen from the unemployed in Canada over the past seven or eight years. The raiding of the fund continues more slowly, but just as blatantly, to the tune of several billion dollars per year.
These billions of dollars should be going to people who lose their jobs, people with families and who go three, four, sometimes even seven months without working. Today, as a result of successive cuts to EI, these people have been left high and dry and therefore unable to feed their families or survive as individuals.
We had the requisite condition, the sine qua non. With the NDP we had the necessary strength to force the government to yield on employment insurance. Unfortunately, the NDP members chose to attach an addendum to the budget, on housing and public transportation. Those are good things. We are not saying that this is not money well spent. However, we understand today that it cost the Prime Minister $4.5 billion to tell the unemployed in Canada that they would not get their EI reform, they would not get their due, they would not get the $47 billion and they would have to continue living in poverty, because the deal had been made with the NDP. That, the Bloc Québécois cannot accept. For these reasons we will vote against Bill C-48.
(1220)
We owe this to the unemployed. The Bloc will never trade its demands on behalf of the unemployed for a mess of pottage.
We had in fact insisted on one point. We wanted at least some indication from the government that it intended to resolve the fiscal imbalance. It is costing the governments of the provinces and Quebec very dearly.
All the premiers, the ministers of finance, the political parties in the legislatures and the National Assembly in Quebec, all the parties in this House, except the Liberals, admit it. The experts, Liberal firms and academics admit it: there is a huge fiscal imbalance in Canada.
This imbalance means that the federal government occupies a tax field it does not need. When we tax more than we need, we create surpluses. When we free up a tax field, there are no more surpluses. The provinces, the Government of Quebec and the provincial governments can occupy this field and finally provide their people with the services they deserve.
We are in a difficult situation. As citizens of Quebec and Canada—this is true as well for the other provinces—we are forced to give more than half of our taxes to the federal government and a little less than half to the Government of Quebec. We require services from the Government of Quebec and some as well from the federal government, but fewer direct services such as health and education, which are two major budgetary items.
We want services from the Government of Quebec. It tells us that it cannot tax us any more because we are already taxed enough. However, we are already paying a lot of taxes because we send them to Ottawa. In the meanwhile, Ottawa accumulates surpluses, spending and injecting money into this and that. All is well. Life is beautiful. They announce a $2 billion surplus but end up with $10 billion at the end of the year, as if billions just grew on trees. They collect a billion dollars. Well, a billion dollars, those are the taxes of thousands of Canadian families. There are people who are killing themselves with work every day. They earn $7 or $8 an hour and pay a dollar a litre for gasoline. They pay a dollar for their gas to be able to drive their car to work because they are giving so much in taxes to the federal government.
A billion dollars represents the taxes, the sweat and sacrifices of thousands of people in Canada. Here, in the federal government, they think that a billion dollars is good thing. They took in eight more than they forecast. So the government says, “Well, we will put it into the debt” or, “Maybe we will use a few to buy the NDP; maybe we will invest a little bit to help with public transit; maybe we will invest in housing”.
When they are spending money that comes from the sweat of working people, who struggle day after day to support governments, they should have the decency to say, “If I am collecting too much, I will quickly withdraw from the tax field. In so doing, I will only take from people what I need for the services I provide them”.
If another government that provides health or education services needs to go after the product of the sweat and the labour of all these working people, let it. If it does not need to do so, the people will benefit from lower taxes. That is the fiscal imbalance--when the government that needs the least taxes the most, and the government that needs the most does not have enough. This is what we have under this federal system.
We are sovereignists. Our solution is totally the opposite of the one being discussed here, but for the moment it strikes us as appropriate for the government to correct this fiscal imbalance.
When people are expressing their pleasure with the few billion dollars included in Bill C-48, they need to realize that what the federal government owes them is tens of billions, not just a few billion.
(1225)
It is far more than the few hundred million they would get for public transit. If fiscal imbalance were remedied for good, this would simultaneously solve the problems of the governments that have to deliver services.
Bill C-48 is rather like the biblical story of trading away one's birthright for a mess of pottage. People are lulled into security with gifts, with a bit of money here, a little subsidy there, and then nothing is done about the real problems of the unemployed. Money is handed out left and right, but nothing is done about the real problem of the fiscal imbalance, despite the fact that every politician in Canada, with the exception of the Liberal Party of Canada, acknowledges its existence.
That is the reason we will be voting against Bill C-48. We will be voting against a bill that ought to have included a complete reform of employment insurance, in order to do justice to the poorest members of our society, those who have to bear the burden of job loss.
There should have also been some steps toward beginning to resolve the fiscal imbalance, which penalizes our friends and constituents who send money to government out of their own pockets every day; thousands of dollars more than the government needs to cover the services it must offer. This is what guarantees the government such huge surpluses and allows it then to blackmail the governments of Quebec and the provinces by imposing conditions, holding discussions and giving itself more powers than its own constitution allows. And we are supposed to like this system. We should get down on our knees and thank the federal government for giving back a small portion of the taxes we paid in excess. The government is too greedy because it did not want to cut taxes and did not want to limit itself to the only tax field it needs. Such is the reality.
We will support the motion to extend the sitting, but we will fight against Bill C-48 until the end. However, we will fight in favour of Bill C-38 to settle, once and for all, the terrible debate on same sex marriage that is tearing our society apart.
We will vote in favour of extending the sitting of the House. Since we do not want to waste the time of the House or the taxpayers' money, we hope to resolve these two matters in the next few days, possibly by Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday. Then we can take a well-deserved vacation.
(1230)
Hon. Robert Thibault (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the House leader of the Bloc Québécois. I am very happy to know that he will support this motion to extend the sitting period.
However, I want to ask him a question about Bill C-48. During the debate on this bill, he raised the issue of the fiscal imbalance. The argument could be made that it does in fact exist, since various provinces are experiencing major difficulties. Under Bill C-43, we reached agreements with two provinces. As for equalization, we have been able to help all the provinces and fix a number of problems.
There are two problems with the hon. member's suggestion. I would invite his comments.
First, not all the provinces are experiencing difficulties. There are two problems if tax fields are transferred from the federal government in order to balance budgets and eliminate surpluses. I will get to the third problem later.
The first problem is that the Government of Canada must pay down the debt. The tax burden and debt servicing costs are taking money away from hard-working Canadians. That is what happens when we increase services to the public instead of sending more money abroad to service the debt.
The other problem is that some provinces, such as Alberta, are recording huge surpluses. Should we transfer tax fields to these provinces? They should be the ones transferring tax room to the federal government, which is paying down a huge national debt, unlike these provinces. This is a major issue. Albertans should not pay higher taxes or give up what they have earned. That is the problem.
Also, the opposition is not, unfortunately, on this side; it is not the governing party. Perhaps, someday, another party will be in power and it will be recording deficits instead of surpluses due to economic and international issues. Would we then take back these tax fields from the provinces in order to eliminate a federal deficit? This creates a serious problem. The federal government, under Mr. Chrétien, already transferred tax points to the provinces.
That is my question for the member.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the member must know that the history of federal income tax goes back to a world war, the first world war, when the federal government needed resources for the war effort. That was done pursuant to an agreement. Previously, the federal government had no access to personal income tax fields. At the time, the provinces agreed to free up tax room to enable the federal government to carry on what was called the “war effort” and coordinate everything to meet the expenses of the times.
The federal government never returned one cent to the provinces. And that was that. It interfered in services. Then gradually over time, bit by bit, having the resources it had obtained for the war effort and never returned, the federal government found itself with a lot of money and started expanding its sphere of activity. It interfered in this and it interfered in that. Gradually, it kept the taxes and expanded its field of jurisdiction. That is what it is still doing today.
Nowadays, with its surpluses, it is not true that the federal government is just reducing Canada's debt. It is increasing its initiatives in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, particularly day care and health. It is interfering more and more, when the money should be given back to the provincial governments or the federal government should simply withdraw so that the provinces can collect these taxes for their own needs.
The federal government is allocating money to health as if it came from Mars, when it is actually our own money that is being given back to us. Claiming that it is putting money into health, it tells us that it has to have some say in the matter; that it cannot just give the money to the provincial governments to spend as they please because it does the taxing. But that is the point, we do not want it to. We want it to withdraw from this tax field, recognize that we have problems with health and free up some tax room.
In regard to the wealth of Alberta and the richer provinces, there is an equalization system in Canada that does not have anything to do with the fiscal imbalance. It is a system that makes it possible to provide a certain amount of money. All the federal government has to do is work with the provinces to set up a decent equalization system, rather than fiddling with the system left and right, as it is doing. The government is destroying the equalization system in Canada now by dealing with issues on a piecemeal basis.
(1235)
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure for me and for all members of Parliament to listen to the points of view of the Bloc Québécois House leader. He is a very passionate speaker and he has made a very passionate case for further reform of the employment insurance program in particular.
My concern is he expressed he could never support suspending the rights of some Canadian citizens. He referred to the whole issue of Bill C-38 and the fact that in his opinion we had to extend the sitting of this Parliament to ensure that Bill C-38, the same sex marriage legislation, was passed because somehow that might affect their rights.
I would point out to the hon. Bloc Québécois House leader that first, same sex marriage is allowed already in his province of Quebec. I am sure he is aware of that. Therefore, Bill C-38 will not affect the rights of gays and lesbians in the province of Quebec. Furthermore, in all likelihood Bill C-38 will sit in the Senate for the entire summer, regardless of whether we extend the sitting of this place. What about the rights of all those Canadians who are very concerned about the religious freedom of expression in our country? Is he not concerned about suspending their rights?
One of the reasons why we want to ensure that Bill C-38 does not progress any further than report stage is because we would still have the opportunity for Canadians to express their opinion on whether the amendments to Bill C-38 would have enough protection for the freedom of religious expression in our country. They could let their opinion be known to members of Parliament over the summer. If the bill were still at report stage come fall, there would be an opportunity for all parties to express their opinion and perhaps improve or further protect religious expression. What about those rights?
Finally, I am very concerned about the precedent we have seen set here today. I would think that the Bloc Québécois House leader would be concerned about the precedent his party has set by supporting closure. What about the rights of members of Parliament to speak in the House of Commons? I think it is the first time, and he can correct me if I am wrong, that the Bloc Québécois members supported the government to bring in closure and shut off debate. What about that awful precedent of suppressing rights?
(1240)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the questions my colleague has raised are interesting ones.
As far as the rights of homosexuals and of those whose religious convictions oppose gay marriage are concerned, I will say that one person's religion must not become another person's law. Everyone agrees on that. We have the deepest respect for those whose religious convictions cause them to oppose same sex marriage. Nevertheless, it has never been our intention in any way to oblige any religion or religious belief to perform religious marriages. This is about civil marriage. No religious denomination must be pressured into having to perform same sex marriages. This decision is up to them, it is their right, and I agree with that.
Moreover, a motion on this has already been presented and supported by us. We would be open at any time to the addition to the bill of provisions stating that no religious denomination shall be pressured or in any way obliged to celebrate or authorize marriages between two persons of the same sex.
This is a civil matter. We respect all religious denominations and their members and we want their rights to be respected. We just do not want their religion to become the law for others. It is as simple at that.
As far as our support for the closure motion is concerned, it is simple. It is our firm conviction that those who are watching us now, or have followed our actions throughout the year, are a bit impatient to see us pass the pieces of legislation we will be called upon to vote on. No one wants to see Parliament drag on needlessly until August at the cost of $35,000 an hour. I think people want to see us settle these matters once and for all.
That is why we believe that, as an exception, it is acceptable for us to be able to vote on the bills after a regular debate. This is unusual, I know, but the intention is not to take away anyone's right to speak, only to limit the time of the debates that we are going to be engaged in here. Extension until the end of June seems to us reasonable and sufficient. That is all.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
[English]
Committees of the House
Health
Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among all parties and believe you would find consent for the following. I move that the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Health, presented in the House on Wednesday, June 1, requesting an extension of 30 sitting days to consider Bill C-420, be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Extension of Sitting Period
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise in the House today to speak to the motion by the government House leader about extending the sitting of the House into next week.
I have been listening to the debate since it began yesterday. It strikes me that most Canadians are very used to the idea that when there is a piece of work to be done and it is urgent they are willing to put the time in to do it.
Certainly the issue before us today in terms of the process unfolding is unusual in that this motion clearly says that rather than adjourn the House tonight at midnight we will come back here and do more work. I think we have to examine that as to whether or not this is a legitimate question and whether or not it is a reasonable thing for us to do.
Clearly now we have three parties that are in agreement with this, because the NDP will be supporting this motion, and we have one party that is adamant it will not support coming back here next week to continue working on the two bills that are before us. Yesterday I heard the Conservative House leader talk about ramming it through. I really had to think about that. What does it mean that somehow we are ramming through this legislation?
The fact is that we now have been debating this legislation, both Bill C-48 and Bill C-38, for a period of time. What we are doing here today and what we will do tonight when we vote on this motion is agree that we will continue, in our usual process, to work on these two issues.
What is this question of ramming it through? It seems to me that Canadians understand that we are elected to do a job here and that our primary responsibility is to be in this Parliament, to make it work and to get things done. I think Canadians understand that this is where we should be, in this place.
I also heard the Conservative House leader say there is a misconception that when we leave this place we all go home and go on holiday. He was sort of bemoaning the fact that this is what is being said out there. I would agree with that. I would agree with the comment he made that members of Parliament work very hard in session and when we go back to our ridings we work very hard as well.
The reality is that the Conservative Party members have had a choice. They have had a choice all along. If they are so eager to get back to their ridings, then they have had the choice to deal with this legislation before the ending of the session tonight notwithstanding this motion before us. Clearly that was their choice. They decided not to do that. They decided for their own political agenda to keep dragging this out simply because they are opposed.
I would suggest that the constituents in our local ridings understand why we are here and what we are here to do in terms of passing critical legislation. What they do not understand are the tactics, the manoeuvring and the tactical war games by the Conservative Party members, who are doing anything to stop legislation from going through.
I would agree with others in this place who have said that at some point it becomes an absurd exercise. We know where each party stands on this issue. We know that within a party there are some members who are opposed to same sex marriage, to Bill C-38. We certainly know what the position of the Conservative Party is. The public knows the position of the Conservative Party.
Surely at the end of the day we have a responsibility to be here, to do our work and to make a decision. It is not just about debating something. It is about actually making a decision based on the public interest and based on the feedback we get.
I will respect the decision of Conservative members who want to vote against Bill C-48 and of the same members who want to vote against Bill C-38. I have total respect for the fact that they have a different point of view and they want to vote against those bills. So be it. That of course is their prerogative and it is what they have decided to do. Where I take issue with that fact is that they are apparently wanting to deny the ability of Parliament to keep working to ensure that we can make a decision on these two bills.
(1245)
What are these two bills about? I believe that both of these bills have to do with the quality of life. I am very proud that we are debating Bill C-48 and that we will have a decision made on Bill C-48, because Bill C-48 produces a more progressive balanced budget. It is a better budget than we saw in the beginning from the Liberal government.
I am very proud of the fact that our leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth, and members of our caucus are supporting this bill. I am proud that we have an agreement with the Liberals to enhance and strengthen that budget and to deliver concrete things to Canadians that have to do with the quality of life.
What are we talking about? We are talking about the fundamentals of affordable housing. In my riding of Vancouver East, an inner city community, and in many other ridings across this country there are more than 1.7 million households struggling to be in affordable housing. They are struggling to pay the rent. They are struggling against eviction notices. Bill C-48 will actually deliver money into affordable housing so that those units can be built. I cannot think of anything more basic and fundamental than that in terms of the ability of all Canadians to have equality and access to quality of life. It is about affordable housing. I am very proud of the fact that Bill C-48 has that element.
Then we get on to the environment and $900 million. As we have heard many times in this House, every mayor across this country is waiting for funds that will help to deal with the needs of public transit and with other infrastructure needs. This bill will deliver those funds for that priority to municipalities.
On access to education, there is $1.5 billion. This is not something that we talk a lot about in this House. We can talk to any student across this country who is struggling under a debt load of $25,000 on average, but sometimes of up to $50,000 or $60,000 in debts and loans. We can talk to any student or to a family trying to support that student and they will say this money is not enough, I will be the first one to say that, but this money is essential to ensuring that we provide accessibility to post-secondary education, that we deliver that money, work with the provinces and make sure it is there to reduce the debt load or reduce tuition for students.
Another element of Bill C-48 is our commitment as a wealthy nation to people who are living in poverty in poor nations. Even though we have poverty in this country and even though we have people who are homeless, overall we are a wealthy nation in the international community. Another element of this bill is to ensure that we deliver on our commitment as a wealthy nation to people who are living in poverty in poor nations.
Getting us closer to that goal of 0.7% for international aid and development is a very important step. We have heard criticism from the likes of Bob Geldof and others of the fact that the government has been dragging its feet on that commitment.
Here is a way to ensure that we move forward and that we actually increase Canada's capacity to provide a commitment to the goal of 0.7%. Those are all fundamental things dealing with the quality of life.
As for Bill C-38, there has been a lot of debate in this House about Bill C-38. Our caucus and I do consider it a matter of urgency, along with Bill C-48, to continue to work on that bill.
The justice committee in 2002 and 2003 held extensive hearings across this country on same sex marriage. We have had a legislative committee here in Parliament studying the bill. I understand that there are concerns about Bill C-38, but I think at a certain point there has to be a recognition and a validation that those concerns have been responded to. Bill C-38 for equal marriage does not in any way impinge upon religious freedom. We have had many characterizations of that, yet nowhere has there been real evidence that this bill will somehow destroy that freedom of expression or religious freedom.
In fact, I think the committee has gone to great lengths to ensure that there is protection for religious freedom. I know that there is an amendment likely to come back at report stage which will ensure that organizations having a charitable tax status will be guaranteed that it will continue and they will not somehow be vulnerable to it being taken away. I think the legislative committee and this House have gone to great lengths to respond to the concerns that have been put forward by the Conservative Party in its opposition to Bill C-38.
(1250)
But at the end of the day I think we have to recognize that no matter what is said and no matter what is done they are unilaterally opposed to the bill. They are unilaterally opposed to extending equal marriage to gays and lesbians. I find that shameful and a completely contradictory policy or platform to hold, one that is contrary to our charter of rights in this country.
In fact, I would argue that one can be opposed to same sex marriage as an individual member of Parliament and still support the bill, because it is about providing equality. It is about providing people with choices. As I have said before, no one is forcing the leader of the Conservative Party to marry a man if he does not want to. The bill is about choice. It is about a choice that two individuals make, whether it is two men, two women or a man or a woman. If they choose to celebrate their love in a civil marriage, or in a religious marriage if they can find a religious institution to do that, that is their choice.
I do not believe that I have the right as an elected member of Parliament to deny the rights of other Canadians to make that choice. I happen to agree with the bill and with same sex marriage, but even if I did not, whether or not I agree with it personally, I do not believe that I have the right to withhold that choice from two consenting adults who want to celebrate their commitment to each other through a marriage or maybe through common law. Who am I and who is any other member here to make that decision?
I think that when we get to that fundamental premise of the bill, this is where we really part company. I can understand the concerns that have been laid out. I can understand how we have to go through that debate, how we actually have to examine what those concerns are about in terms of religious freedom and how we have to respond to those concerns, and I believe that has been done. We are now ready in this House to move on with that debate, to take it into report stage and hopefully into third reading and finally make a decision.
I find it reprehensible that the Conservative Party, for a very narrow partisan agenda, would do everything it can with all of the procedural manoeuvres and all of the concurrence motions to hold up that bill, because I think we are denying people equality.
Let me say that at the end of the day I was elected, like other members of our caucus and other members of the House, to make some tough decisions. We were elected to make some tough decisions. We were elected to work hard. We get paid well for what we do. I do respect the fact that members of Parliament work hard at what they do, but I think it is incumbent upon us and we have a responsibility to deal with the legislation, to not let it drag on and to recognize that the passage of Bill C-48 as a companion bill to Bill C-43 is a critical component of the budget.
The Conservatives can criticize it all they want. They can say that somehow the bill is on a different footing from other bills and that it talks about how the government “may” spend the money instead of “shall”. We have gone through all of that. If we want to check the record of the finance committee or what the comptroller of Canada has said about the bill, we will see that he is saying that Bill C-48 is put forward on the same basis as any other appropriations bill. It contains the same kind of language. It is basically a permissive piece of legislation that allows the various departments and ministers to go ahead and make those expenditures in the areas that are detailed.
All of that bluster, argumentation and propaganda about how the bill somehow does not mean anything, or how it is not real, is completely hollow. These are completely politicized arguments to give people the illusion that somehow this is not real. It is real. The bill exists. It is based on a financial basis within the budget bill. It is based on a balanced budget.
I am very confident that the bill will pass and that those expenditures will be made by the various departments. Thank goodness that more Canadians will be better off and have an improved quality of life because they will have better access to education and better access to affordable housing units, and we will have a sense that we are meeting our obligations in the international community.
(1255)
I have no qualms whatsoever, nor does anyone in the NDP, about voting for this motion tonight for us to be here next week. Yes, I would like to go home. I have a lot of work piled up in my riding, as does, I am sure, everyone else, but our party has a commitment to Bill C-48. We have a commitment for equality for Canadians to see passage of the bill. We are prepared to be here and to work. I also think a majority of the members of the House are willing to do that, even though we know the Bloc Québécois oppose Bill C-48.
We will be supporting the motion and we will be here next week. We will do our work. I hope it does not take too long but we are prepared to be here to do that work and to move forward on both of those bills.
(1300)
Hon. Keith Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's comments. I have not mentioned the bills that are before us right now, particularly Bill C-38. It might be interesting to address some of the misinformation that is out there.
I spoke the other day with a couple of individuals who are strong opponents of Bill C-38. I asked them a simple question. I asked them what would happen the day after if everyone in the House of Commons were to vote against Bill C-38. They said that same sex marriage would then be illegal in Canada. I told them that same sex marriage would be legal in seven provinces and one territory.
The point is that the bill would not change the country. The bill would merely bring into line the small part of the country that has not adopted what has become the status quo in most of Canada geographically. Some people may like it and some people may not, but for those who oppose the bill, the only rational debate, quite frankly, would be whether or not to use the notwithstanding clause. If those who oppose same sex marriage want to do something about it they would need to consider invoking the notwithstanding clause to override the courts.
The reality is that not a single party in the House has offered that solution. What that means is that a lot of what is going on now in the House is political posturing.
I think it is time for the people who oppose same sex marriage to acknowledge that Canadian society has moved on. The reality is that the horse left the barn a long time ago. Unless those who oppose it are willing to invoke the notwithstanding clause, I would submit that they should simply pass Bill C-38.
My question to the member is actually on international aid. Her party is a strong opponent of point seven. Canada puts a lot more money into aid that is not considered, including humanitarian and peacekeeping operations through our military, which amounted to $950 million last year alone.
Would the member not agree that the military's humanitarian and peacekeeping operations, on which Canada spends money, should be considered as part of our official development assistance?
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, on the member's first point I would just say that there is no going back. Same sex couples are getting married every day. This is about passing legislation that would make it absolutely clear that same sex marriage is legal and it can be done right across the country. We have had eight court decisions in provinces and territories, as well as the Supreme Court ruling. This is about people's equality and saying to people that we understand the importance of this and we understand that legislation needs to brought forward to ensure that same sex couples have the same rights to civil marriage as any other couple. It is that straightforward and that simple.
In terms of the member's other question, he should ask his colleagues and the ministers in his government that question. My understanding has been that the money that is spent in a peacekeeping capacity is not considered part of point seven. We are talking about international aid and assistance. It is a well known fact that Canada has been criticized in the international community.
Bob Geldof has told the Prime Minister not to bother showing up in Toronto at the Live 8 concert because Canada is dragging its feet on its commitment. I believe that should be taken very seriously because Canada is very vulnerable and is at risk in terms of its credibility on this issue. Surely we should be leading the way.
I was very proud that our leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth, insisted that $500 million for international assistance and aid be included as part of the agreement for Bill C-48, because it means we are moving forward on that file.
The hon. member should go talk to his own ministers, but the Canadian government has not met that commitment. The $500 million will at least get us part of the way.
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there is certainly no shortage of posturing on these issues and, as the member said, it is on their side in abundance.
The member says that Bill C-48 is important legislation. I call it the cobbled together NDP sell out bill as it came on board to prop up Liberal corruption. When the public had an opportunity to hold the Liberals to account, the NDP decided it had an opportunity to advance some of its political ideology that would give it a chance to survive but it basically made the NDP members accomplices.
The members of the NDP keep saying that the money in Bill C-48 will flow, as soon as it passes, to students, to the environment and to other areas of concern, but they seem to forget that the money is contingent on a surplus of some $2 billion. What confidence do the NDP members have that the Liberals will deliver any of that money considering that they are holding up the main budget bill, Bill C-43, in an agreement to pass the main budget? Again, it is political posturing.
The second question comes from the member saying that we have had a lot of debate on Bill C-38. She talked about the justice committee and about the consultations it had with Canadians. Where is the report from that justice committee? The member knows that the committee was shut down before a report on what it had actually heard from Canadians could be tabled in this House.
The members opposite know that Canadians are not in agreement with the change in the definition of traditional marriage. By and large, a majority of Canadians support the traditional definition of marriage, with other accommodations for same sex couples, whether we call it a civil union or some other arrangement that is recognized.
She says that there is no evidence of a religious infringement. She says that it is not just about celebrating a marriage. I want to challenge the member. She is from British Columbia. Surely she has heard of the case of Chris Kempling, a school counsellor in Quesnel, B.C., who was suspended from his job without pay simply because he wrote a letter to the editor expressing his view based on a Christian world view. What about his section 2 charter rights of freedom of conscience and religion?
If members opposite want to wrap themselves in the charter and defend the charter then maybe they should be defending the rights of people like Chris Kempling to express their views on this issue. If they did that maybe we could have some confidence in expanding and understanding the charter. However when they do not respect clearly written charter rights, how can Canadians have confidence that this agenda will stop with this motion?
(1305)
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, since when did affordable housing and access to post-secondary education and help for students become a suspect political ideology? We are talking about very basic issues here.
An hon. member: It will be 18 months before you deliver a penny of that.
Ms. Libby Davies: I am just picking up on what the member said. He said that it was political ideology.
If we strip that away, what are we talking about? We are talking about housing. We are talking about education. We are talking about foreign aid. We are talking about public transit. All of a sudden those things are suspect?
I would say that the member has to answer to his own local community as to why he would be opposed to additional funds going into those elements that people are really crying out for.
We should never mind the political ideology. What we are doing in this little corner is being very pragmatic. We want to make sure some things are accomplished in this minority Parliament. It is not about propping anybody up. It is not about condoning corruption. On the contrary, it is about getting something concrete done.
With regard to the gentleman in British Columbia, I totally support his right to freedom of expression and religious expression. How could one do otherwise? If that becomes the subject of some sort of challenge, that is what happens in a democratic society. When things get challenged they go through the courts, which is why we have the charter.
This is not about saying that one right is more important than another right but I think the hon. member is going down that road. We are saying that equality is a fundamental right for gays and lesbians and that freedom of religion is a fundamental right, and they are not mutually exclusive. I think it is a shame that the debate is so often presented in that way by the Conservative members.
Hon. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 17 under government business.
What we seem to be losing in all of this is that if this motion is passed it will suspend Standing Order 28(2) which lays out the parliamentary calendar. We have to remember that this was a process adopted in 1982 to give adequate time to allow for Commons business and to balance it off with members' ability to structure their constituency time and their personal lives. This Standing Order provides for certainty in the parliamentary calendar and was adopted by the House after two committees studied it and recommended such a rule.
Members will know that Standing Orders can be changed or suspended by a simple majority vote but before doing so we should ensure that the change is not imposed in a capricious or arbitrary fashion.
This proposed change to the Standing Orders, as put forward in this government motion, was last undertaken on June 13, 1988. At that time the then president of the Treasury Board, speaking for the then Conservative government, stated, at page 16379 of the House of Commons Debates dated June 13, 1988:
|
I think it fair to say that we especially appreciate that in following this course of action the Government must pay heed to the parliamentary calendar and not change same without having a very reasoned argument for doing so. |
That was said in the course of the free trade debate and legislation in 1988 and it was very time sensitive that the House deal with it.
In this motion the government House leader recognizes that the motion before us is in no way a routine or simple motion. In fact, the first line of the motion itself states, “That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice...”. This is clear evidence that this is not some limited, ordinary or trivial procedural device. This motion calls into question the general principles of the transaction of public business in an orderly and controlled fashion.
What is being proposed in this motion, in the words of the then member for Windsor West, now the right hon. Herb Gray, is an attempt “to legislate by exhaustion”. Mr. Gray spoke out as a Liberal on June 9, 1988, at great length, in opposition to an identical motion to what we have before us. He noted, quoting again from page 16294 of the House of Commons Debates dated June 9, 1988:
|
This is certainly the wrong way to have proper debate and consideration in the House and the wrong way to have public input. I think the government hopes its legislation, to use the words of Bourinot, will slip through “on sudden impulse”, and surely that is wrong. |
In that same debate on June 9, 1988, the comments of the then member for Winnipeg--Birds Hill, who, ironically, is still in the House as the member for Elmwood—Transcona, were reported on page 16502 of the House of Commons Debates as follows:
|
I feel obliged to get on my feet on behalf of the members of those two reform committees that I belonged to, on behalf of Members now, and on behalf of future Members of Parliament, to say that if we sacrifice this parliamentary calendar to the Government's political agenda-and that is all it is, it is not as if there is any great emergency.... |
Two lines later he stated:
|
--I want to make the larger claim that what is at stake is the health of the parliamentary institution itself. |
This is no emergency. There is no compelling reason to override Standing Order 28(2). What is contemplated, if this motion were to pass, using the same logic applied by Mr. Gray in 1988, is a dictatorship by the majority.
(1310)
Let me quote the member for Winnipeg--Birds Hill, now the member for Elmwood--Transcona, from page 16302 of the Commons Debates of June 9, 1988:
|
All of us here, and future Parliaments, will come to rue the day we throw out the parliamentary calendar. We had it there with a little window where we had some sanity in this place. Some members are trying to chuck that out of the window and everyone will pay as long as Parliament continues to exist for the fact that the government put its own political agenda before the health of this institution. |
The ultimate irony and tragedy of this motion is that it has as one of its objectives to force non-stop, sometimes 14 hours, daily debate on inter alia Bill C-38, a bill which purports to protect and uphold minority rights.
Is it not a tragedy that to protect minority rights, it calls upon the majority of this House to disrespect, to waive, and to do away with the rules which govern the orderly conduct of the business of this House and this country?
That which the government says it deplores, being the alleged suppression of minority rights, by this device, this motion, urges the majority to waive the rules of business and parliamentary law in order that it might likewise suppress what it hopes and trusts will be a minority opposed to its capricious and craven disregard for parliamentary order.
It is the duty of every member of this House to uphold and protect the traditions, the conventions and the rules of this place, as embodied in the Standing Orders. That code has evolved and has been adopted to ensure that the fundamental law of Parliament is upheld.
One can imagine the outcry from the righteous in this chamber if, for example, a majority changed the Standing Orders on quorum to decrease it to three members in the House, or simply change the Standing Orders and do away with question period. All of these things are possible. We could do it by a vote of a majority on a motion in this House, a vote to change the Standing Orders to reflect these types of objectives.
Finally, I want to comment on the wording of the motion itself, which was described to me by a journalist recently as incomprehensible. It contains the word “deemed” twice. It says “--the said motion immediately shall be deemed to have been adopted--”. Later on it says “--the House shall be deemed to stand adjourned--”.
In legislative drafting, the word deemed is to be avoided. Black's Law Dictionary, seventh edition, 1999, defines deem on page 425:
|
1. to treat (something) as if (1) it were really something else, or (2) it has qualities that it does not have, “although the document was not in fact signed until April 21, it explicitly states that it must be deemed to have been signed on April 14”. |
Black's Law Dictionary continues its definition, saying:
|
“Deem” has been traditionally considered to be a useful word when it is necessary to establish a legal fiction either positively by “deeming” something to be what it is not or negatively by “deeming” something not to be what it is...All other uses of the word should be avoided. |
Surely, having regard to the lack of urgency around all of these matters, and having regard to the abundance of legal drafters in this place, members should avoid setting such a dangerous precedent which, I would point out, was opposed and decried by the NDP and the Liberal Party in 1988.
(1315)
It is a precedent which attacks the foundations of the Standing Orders which were laid out and have evolved to give order to the business of this place and which were founded on the basic premises of the law of Parliament. We are doing all of this under the guise of a legal fiction. This I would submit would be adequate reason to vote against the motion.
(1320)
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's stand on this motion as well as his stand on some of the other issues. Liberal backbenchers do occasionally oppose motions like this. Some of them actually oppose Bill C-38 and we applaud that. However, one of the things that concerns me about them is the fact that it really just amounts to rhetoric. When we really need them to stand up and help us out, they disappear on us.
Whenever there has been a confidence vote, those members have supported the government. We have tried to take this issue back to the people because we think that is a good place for it. That would allow those members to say they oppose the legislation, which would help them out at home apparently, but would also allow them to support the government so they do not have to do anything about that.
Is the member not just posturing unless he actually supports us on a confidence motion to bring the government down in order to bring a stop to Bill C-38? When will he step forward and do that, so that he can represent the majority of his constituents who want him to oppose Bill C-38?
Hon. Roger Gallaway: Mr. Speaker, the question is interesting, but I would point out to my friend opposite that I have been elected four times.
There seems to be some confusion as to what Bill C-38 actually is. Bill C-38 is not a confidence vote, and that is very clear. In opposing a motion which attacks the fundamentals of the Standing Orders, I fail to draw a line to the fiscal policy of the government. My colleague is putting forward an interesting connect the dots idea, but I am afraid I cannot connect the dots.
Conversely, one could ask him about those in his caucus who support the government on Bill C-38. What is happening within that caucus to do anything about that?
Again, I would point out that Bill C-38 is a contentious matter in the country, of that there can be no doubt. Bill C-38 is a matter on which there is no consensus in the House, of that there can be no doubt. In the end, the question I believe the member has asked is a total non sequitur because what has Bill C-38 got to do with Bill C-43, or indeed Bill C-48?
Mr. Barry Devolin (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I think I heard the member opposite say that, on the basis of his argument, it would be sufficient grounds for voting against this motion which will come before us tonight. I am curious whether for him it will actually be sufficient grounds to vote against it?
Hon. Roger Gallaway: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to what the member said about not being able to connect the dots between Bill C-38, Bill C-43, and Bill C-48. There is a connection. The only way to stop Bill C-38 is to bring down the government.
Why does the member insist on speaking against some of these motions? He may vote against the one before us today. He knows it is going to pass. If he were to vote against Bill C-38, it would help him out at home. He knows, with the way the present situation sits, it is likely going to pass. Yet, when we actually need him to step forward and say it is important to stop the government with respect to Bill C-38 and Bill C-48, he does not appear.
He has that opportunity on Bill C-48. Tonight is not a confidence motion, but we certainly expect to see him. Hopefully, with him and enough of his other colleagues we could defeat that legislation and then we would not be faced with this foolishness that the government is trying to play on Canadians.
Hon. Roger Gallaway: Mr. Speaker, once again, my friend opposite is somehow tying Bill C-38, Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 together. This is a very simplistic view of the way this works. It is a very simplistic way and the notion of representation is more than just a notion, it is a constitutional obligation upon members of the House.
If one were to take the simplistic view of the member opposite that because someone is opposed to one thing, he or she is opposed to everything, I must ask him if that is indeed the case? How does he reconcile that there are a number of people in his caucus who are supporting the government on Bill C-38, but are opposing Bill C-43 and Bill C-48? How does he reconcile what he says is my inconsistency with the inconsistency which already exists in his caucus?
I find this a fascinating concept. He is saying that the position of his party is to oppose Bill C-38 and apparently that is true. But within their very own ranks, there are people who are supporting Bill C-38. Perhaps when the Conservatives resolve that issue within their own caucus, he could bring that question back again.
(1325)
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the Liberal member. He has many times, as he has today, spoken for his constituents and sometimes against the government.
I congratulate him for the great role he played as parliamentary secretary related to the democratic deficit. I refer all members to the first report on the action plan that was tabled yesterday in the House of Commons, and the tremendous progress the Prime Minister and that member and others have made on the democratic deficit.
The member opposite and the Conservatives now have far more democratic deficit problems than the Liberals. Quite often they have voted in a block against bills that would be good for Canadians, the member included.
The member will see in tonight's vote that the Conservatives will probably all vote against it, whereas the Liberals once again, with the new democracy that the Prime Minister has put in, will vote in different ways on the motion tonight.
The member was talking about saving the rights of the minority, which is great, but doing that in the wrong way by changing parliamentary procedures. Does the member not agree that it is totally within the rights and obligations of members of Parliament to set the rules of Parliament? We are continually amending and changing them. There are provisions, as there are for the vote tonight, to have special consideration. There is consideration for the Speaker to extend the hours. These are all rules of Parliament. They are set by Parliament and they are changed by Parliament, so I do not see that as undemocratic and I would like the member to comment.
Hon. Roger Gallaway: Mr. Speaker, I never in any way suggested it was undemocratic. In fact, it was Speaker Fraser who ruled on June 13, 1988, that this could be done. I would point out that when one starts waiving or changing the law, in what I regard as a capricious fashion, one has to be careful because the law of Parliament is embodied in the Standing Orders. This is not all of the law of Parliament but much of the law of Parliament.
Of course, this chamber has enormous powers. We could waive a day for impaired driving, so if someone is convicted on that, it is a free day. No one is going to suggest that is going to happen. When there are laws as embodied as the laws of Parliament called the Standing Orders and when we start playing with those or carving exceptions into those laws, where is it all ending?
I refer to the Debates of June 9, 1998, when it was the Conservatives who were doing that, but were in fact doing it in a way that in my view had a greater sense of urgency than what we are having now. There will always be a time, when we wrap up for the summer, that legislation will be left sitting until the fall that many or a few would regard as urgent. The case could then be made that we should just keep sitting.
The motion that is before the House which is to be voted on is an open-ended question for members here. Do members want to sit for 95 days or do they think it is right and proper to give to a House leader the right and authority to stretch proceedings out from Monday through Thursday midnight. That is why I referred to that quotation. That is legislating by exhaustion. That is not the right and proper way to debate, to deliberate, and for members to exercise their representative and deliberative powers. I must object to this way of doing business.
(1330)
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise and speak in this House, although the motion that we are debating today is not one that I am crazy about.
I have the pleasure to follow my colleague, the House leader for the opposition. We were all very thrilled with his performance yesterday in this House. He gave a very bountiful speech, if I may use that word. He was able to address a number of key topics pertaining to this motion that has been put forward by the government, but also a number of other strong issues that we have contention with, the bills that are leading to the extension of the sitting of the House. I speak of BIll C-48 and obviously Bill C-38.
I do not know that I can do as good a job as he did. He spent two hours talking about such pertinent issues and enlightening this place. I know we were all in awe with his ability. I will do my best to speak against Motion No. 17 that we are speaking to today.
My colleague from Sarnia—Lambton spoke in great detail of the precedent that this is setting and the precedents that have been set in the past.
I would not mind taking a moment just to read the motion into the record so that everyone who is following this debate is clear as to exactly what we are debating. The motion reads:
|
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;-- |
That sounds a little awkward. Obviously for those watching at home it is tough to follow that kind of a motion and really make sense of it. As we heard yesterday, my colleague the opposition House leader put forward an amendment to the motion. It says that according to normal practice, after tonight, the Standing Orders indicate that this House is to rise and be adjourned, and that we strike the rest of the motion that was a little bit confusing and just add that we will return to this place on September 12, which is closer to the current Standing Orders than obviously what the government is proposing.
As my colleague the member for Sarnia—Lambton said, this motion seems to be completely unnecessary, especially as it is changing the Standing Orders for political purposes.
The member for Sarnia--Lambton did indicate that we have seen this before. He rightfully pointed out it was the Conservatives who in fact did that in 1988. Unlike him, I was not in this place at that time, so I do not have the personal account that he was able to relay, but I do recall studying it. I was a student at that time here in Ottawa. I watched what was happening. I remember watching members such as the member for Sarnia--Lambton taking part in debate and being in awe as to what was happening.
I do recall that at that time there was a sense of urgency as to why the Standing Orders were being changed. The issue was free trade. There was some great concern about the timing of that particular bill going through the House and the effect it would have on our economy, and the effect it would have on millions of Canadians, and rightfully so. Clearly, there was a concern as to why the Standing Orders were changed.
We have to address the point that the member for Sarnia--Lambton made, that this attacks the fundamentals of our Standing Orders and the democracy of this particular chamber. The opposition House leader tried to address that point yesterday. Very clearly this is an attack in essence on the way this place functions.
It is frustrating to no end to see those sorts of changes being made by the government. My colleague from Sarnia--Lambton said how vehemently the Liberals opposed the changing of the Standing Orders in 1988 when the government of the day was trying to do it, even though the urgency was definitely there over the time that we have now.
(1335)
The other thing he was clear to point out which I think we have to be concerned about is that the government is trying to legislate by exhaustion. If one looks around the chamber there have been high emotions, especially with the issues we have been dealing with in the last few weeks. There have been a lot of different opinions. Many of our constituents are looking forward to the return of their MPs back home to do the business that they would be doing in their constituencies.
If we take a step back we see that we have passed Bill C-43. It is currently in the Senate but as we know, the Senate is holding that up and it is out of our control. There has been a sense of urgency with the budget. We supported it to get it through. There were some measures in it with which we could agree.
Now that it has passed this place, the urgency of passing the budget has been deflated. The fact is that with Bill C-48 and Bill C-38, there is no sense of urgency. We could follow the normal Standing Orders, return back home, hear from our constituents and deal with those two pieces of legislation when we returned as normal under the Standing Orders. Again, to use the language of the member for Sarnia—Lambton, changing the Standing Orders for political purposes is really unfortunate. The Liberals are undermining democracy in this place in doing that. The government says it is necessary.
This is to follow up on the reason we are dealing with this motion to extend the sitting. The government says it is necessary to pass the legislation to allow the budget to pass. As I just said, that in fact is false. It seems to me that the Liberal Party continues to play an absurd game with the very budget bill that the Liberals accused the Conservatives of blocking, Bill C-43.
The original budget implementation legislation which includes the Atlantic accord is now being held hostage by a Liberal dominated Senate, which is really beyond my belief. I do not understand what is going on. The government is obviously dominating the Senate. Why now after all that urgency is the Senate holding up Bill C-43? The Liberals I guess have never been really serious about passing the bill. If we could in fact get that bill through the Senate faster, and let us face it, the Conservative senators have said they would be willing to deal with it in one sitting, we could actually get the money for Atlantic Canada, and for the Canadian cities and municipalities that are waiting for it. It would be able to go through a lot faster and we could in fact have that money flowing before we returned in the fall.
It seems to me there is something going on. It seems the government is informing its senators to hold this legislation up. At the FCM convention which I attended recently with the Leader of the Opposition, I challenged the government. We could have dealt with the new deal for cities and municipalities and with the Atlantic accord if the Liberals were willing to remove that part out of the budget. I think they would have had consent from this House to move those pieces of the budget forward so quickly that the money could have been flowing today to those people who need it. But we are dealing with political games and we did not even hear why the Liberals would not remove that portion of the budget. They have added on this new NDP budget that they are saying is so urgent. Why could they not make that particular change to get the money to the people who need it the most?
It is not just my words or the words of my colleagues. We know how much the government House leader likes to quote from editorials. Let me quote from today's editorial in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald which deals with this very subject. It is very informative about the games that I think the Liberals are playing. It goes like this:
|
The Liberals delayed passing the Atlantic accord through the Senate on Wednesday, and the Tories say they're doing it in a cynical attempt to put pressure on Tory MPs. The Liberal House Leader in the Senate, Jack Austin, turned down an offer from Conservative Senate Leader Noel Kinsella to go to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill last night. If he had accepted the offer - a fairly common procedure - Bill C-43 would have passed today, the bill could have received royal assent this afternoon, and Nova Scotia and Newfoundland would have immediately received big cheques from offshore revenue deals reached with the Liberal government. The deals, reached after months of tough negotiations, are worth $830 million to Nova Scotia and more than $2 billion to Newfoundland, but the federal Finance Department can't cut the cheques until the budget bill is passed. The Liberals don't want the Senate to pass C-43 until the House passes C-48, the $4.5-billion NDP budget amendment, Mr. Kinsella said. |
(1340)
“It's pretty bad that the Liberals would not accept putting through to royal assent their own budget bill”.The Liberals added Bill C-48 to their budget to win NDP support, and the Tories are strongly opposed to the new social spending it contains. When it went to the House for second reading, the Speaker had to break the tie to get it passed and prevent the Liberal government from falling.
This is an editorial that was written today in the Halifax newspaper. It basically says what games the government is playing when in fact we could have this money flowing. It is still holding up the bill in the Senate. It does not make a lot of sense to us who are ready to get that money flowing, and we could actually get out of this place without changing the Standing Orders, the motion that we are debating today. It begs the question, what are the Liberals doing? They have a majority in the Senate. It is their budget. What are they afraid of?
It continues to be demonstrated to us and I think to Canadians that the only reason they keep playing these games is not because they are legitimately concerned about a lot of these issues that they say they are, but because they have a serious issue about hanging on to power. They want to cling to power. They are playing games to do that. They are cutting deals with people in order to save their own political skin.
We are dealing with this motion today, because they have actually neglected their responsibility over the last few weeks in getting this legislation through the House a lot faster.
Our party is strongly opposed to the two major bills, as mentioned by a number of our colleagues, what we call the dangerous and reckless spending in Bill C-48, but also the same sex marriage legislation.
As the official opposition we are not in the business of helping the government pass legislation that we do not think is in the best interests of the country. That is what our House leader said yesterday. We will vote against any extension of the agreed upon calendar so that the government can make up for its own mismanagement of the legislative schedule. We will have as many members as possible in the House to vote on these bills, including the confidence vote on Bill C-48.
I would like to talk for a few minutes on the spirit of Motion No. 17 and why this motion as it relates to Bill C-48 needs to be defeated.
Bill C-48 outlines a host of new spending. I mentioned that in the earlier part of my speech. Canada could have more and better paying jobs, a much higher standard of living, but Ottawa taxes too much and spends too much. We have seen that from the amount of the surpluses over the past number of years. Since 1999-2000, program spending has gone from $109.6 billion to $158.1 billion, an increase of over 44%, a compound annual growth of 7.6%, when the economy itself managed to grow by only 31.6%, a compound annual rate of growth of 5.6%.
We cannot support this motion because it is the curse of the Liberal government that once the Liberals have our money, they cannot resist spending it even faster than the economy is growing. It is not surprising that there is so much waste within the government.
I would like to identify a couple of examples of waste which point out even stronger to a party like ours, the opposition, why we should not give a blank cheque to the government in Bill C-48. I do not have to remind the House and Canadians that the firearms registry is a perfect example of that. The government said it was going after the criminal use of firearms. In the end, we had a piece of legislation that was supposed to cost Canadians $2 million. In fact there are estimates that it is reaching, if not exceeding, $2 billion.
How can there be that kind of exaggerated cost unless there is not a plan in place to deal with it, not to mention the annual cost of that particular program. What sort of value has come back to Canadians on that? Can we actually say we have prevented crimes with guns, that we have actually gone after the criminals and not the duck hunters? I do not think we would find even very many members on the government side who can claim that it has been a successful program. That again came from wasteful spending and without having a clear plan as to how the government should spend the money. The government is asking us to give it that trust again in Bill C-48.
We also saw an unfortunate situation. We know what the problem was in Davis Inlet where we saw children high on gasoline and a lot of other social problems. What was the answer? It was to throw money again at that problem without a real plan.
(1345)
Now the community has been moved not too far away from where it was originally located, at a cost of about $400,000 per person and the problems have continued to follow. Unfortunately, we have not seen the improvements that we would have liked to see from this kind of social spending. Again, it is the lack of a plan and a knee-jerk reaction to spending.
All of us know how close we came in 1995 to losing the country because of a lack of vision from the current government. What was the solution? Let us throw money at Quebec and try to buy votes through the sponsorship program. What did we get as a result? A complete waste of taxpayer dollars.
We have what we all know as the sponsorship scandal and the continuous fiasco surrounding that with inquiries. We have seen the continuous corruption on the other side. It just proves the point further that it is difficult for the opposition to give free rein to a government which has demonstrated time and time again its inability to manage taxpayer dollars.
I have given the House a few examples here today. I think we could even point to more because more seem to be coming up on a daily basis. We have seen what has happened in Technology Partnerships Canada. My colleague from Edmonton—Leduc has been pressing for an audit to be done on that department. We have seen other examples of that sort of waste. Therefore, it becomes very difficult for us to say we can endorse Bill C-48.
In the years 2003-04 and 2004-05, the Liberals could not help themselves. Program spending rocketed by almost 12%. Per capita program spending by the federal government has reached its highest point in over a decade and it is scheduled to go even higher in the future.
Before we pass the motion and allow more time for Bill C-48 to be debated, perhaps we should look at the record when it comes to budgeting practices of the Liberals. I have talked about the spending, but their budgeting is not that much better.
In 1996-97 real federal program spending per capita was just over $3,000. It will have risen to just over $4,000 in 2005-06. That is an increase of about $800 per capita in volume terms, or just over $3,000 for a family of four. Current Liberal-NDP spending plans will take that spending to almost $4,600 by 2009-10. That is a projected increase of almost $1,200 per person.
Increases in government spending do not necessarily point to solving problems or even getting better results for Canadians through their services. I think most Canadians today would agree. If we look at our health care system and other areas of our social fabric, they have all been damaged by the way the government has managed its budgets as have the services that Canadians continue to get back. Yet they are taxed higher than ever.
It is incredible that the finance minister continuously gets up in this place and says that the government has delivered tax relief to Canadians. If we ask Canadians if they have seen any real tax relief over the time the Liberals have been in power, they will answer quite overwhelmingly that they have not seen anything realistic or substantial handed back to them. Clearly this is something that needs to be addressed. It continues to prove the point why it makes it so difficult for us to support Bill C-48.
We have always believed on this side of the House, especially when it comes to the surpluses, which my House leader spoke to yesterday, that a surplus is the result of the government taxing too heavily. Some of that money should be returned to Canadians, especially when the value for the services is not coming back to them the way it should.
We feel that $1,000 more in the pocket of an average Canadian will go a lot further than in the hands of the government, which seems to misspend their tax dollars. A great example of that would be a $1,000 of savings put into an RRSP, which would initially be worth $1,160. After 30 years, at a rate of 5% return, $1,000 a year invested in an RRSP would be worth nearly $81,000. A $1,000 invested outside of an RRSP at a 5% rate of return would be worth even more in 30 years.
Clearly, we know the government has lost sight of this in its wild attempt to tax, spend and often give very little value back to Canadians, as we have seen. We maintain that we should look at an option of taking the surpluses and looking at effective and meaningful ways to give that money back to Canadians. They are struggling on a daily basis. Many of them cannot make ends meet. Why not give that money back to Canadians so we can have a more productive economy, better paying jobs and Canadians can take care of themselves. We believe hard work should be rewarded. Unfortunately, we are not seeing that.
(1350)
For the reasons I have identified, it is clear to us in the opposition that we cannot support the motion to extend the sitting of this session on the basis of the wild spending proposed in Bill C-48. It also is an attack of democracy in the House and on the Standing Orders, which we should all be respect and follow, as agreed to by all members in the House.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member covered a lot of ground. He mentioned game playing. I suspect we all have to admit that games have been played on all sides for some time now. It is probably reflective of what will go on as we move forward.
I would prefer to argue the matter of the calendar of the House. Back in 1984 Parliament decided to have a fixed calendar so real people, including MPs, could manage their lives and make plans because of the unique circumstances in which we found ourselves. In the cases where there were extended days, they were with regard to one item, not many items. Would the member care to comment on that?
Even though the motion says that we could have up to 95 extended days, we have many bills on which we could work. I guess the real question comes down to how we interpret public interest. I suggest to the member that public interest is applicable in everything that we do. That is public interest.
It has to be interpreted even further, to the extent that it makes a meaningful difference. It is not always to the benefit of all, but it may be the right thing to do. The law must be in place to take care of a situation.
Maybe it is time for a little penance. When we do our jobs here, the rules we apply should look to the history and intent of the changes made in the Standing Orders. I suggest that anything going on right now that is picked up after the resumption on September 19 would have no material impact on the ultimate effect or benefit of any of the legislation still pending.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, we heard the intervention from the member for Sarnia—Lambton. He identified clearly in his speech, and I tend to agree with him, that there was a normal schedule under the Standing Orders for this place to sit. If there were an actual urgency with these bills, which is why the government has proposed the extend sitting, then maybe there would be a different reaction from a number of members in the House.
If we look back at the precedent that was set in 1998, and I talked briefly about it in my speech, we would have been able to say that if it were an issue that was threatening our nation and something needed to be determined at a particular point in time, then we should extend the hours. We have a responsibility in the interests of Canadians to deal with urgent legislation.
That is not to say that what we are dealing with is not important. What the government is proposing still needs to be discussed, but do not attack democracy in this place. That is the point. We have Standing Orders in place and we all follow those Standing Orders. We all work together in order to achieve the schedule has been presented. In trying to change those Standing Orders, without any real sense of urgency, is an attack on democracy in this place and on the ability for members of Parliament to do their jobs.
We do not quite understand why the government at this point in time is rushing to get legislation through. We can easily deal with as soon as we come back in the fall. We can get to the business in our constituencies, we can listen to Canadians and do the things we have to do in our ridings and not take on an added expense of extending the hours of this place just for political purposes for the government. That is something that astounds me, especially when we could come back and deal with a lot of these things in the fall.
(1355)
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify something for my colleague from the Conservatives, who is very upset with Bill C-48 that somehow will cost the Government of Canada so many additional dollars.
The Conservatives supported Bill C-43 when it had the corporate tax cuts of $4.6 billion. They had no problem with that. Now he used outright the term that the Conservatives do not support social spending. Those were his words. It was okay to give $4.6 billion in corporate tax cuts, but no dollars back to Canadians.
There is no question that all Canadians will benefit from the changes in Bill C-48. By improving dollars for affordable housing, there will be construction throughout the country. Small and medium size businesses throughout the country will benefit from the building of homes and improvements to homes. It is not as if it will just be the people who finally get to have some decent housing around them. It will be those small and medium size business in rural Saskatchewan, remote Manitoba, all over. Everybody will benefit. The dollars for education benefit everybody throughout Canada.
I know the budget is not supporting the people about whom the Conservatives seem to care. It is not supporting corporations. How can they possibly stand here and say to Canadians that they do not value them as much as they value corporations?
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can twist my words any way she likes. If she wants to talk about hypocrisy, let us see who voted against the first budget introduced in the House, by way of Bill C-43. I strictly remember the NDP members stood and asked what they would get out of it. They were not prepared to support the government until it gave them something, which it did in BIll C-48. They voted against Bill C-43 initially until they got their fair portion of whatever they thought was important.
Clearly, when it comes down to those issues that she raises, we have always maintained that it is important to have a responsible level of social spending. However, do I trust the government across the way to deliver those sorts of services? More and more Canadians are becoming cynical about the way the government spends money and the types of services it delivers back to Canadians.
The fact that the NDP members are now propping up a corrupt government that continues to maintain this spending, which often does not result in positive results for Canadians, is beyond me. It is beyond Canadians that they would be so irresponsible to do so. The only thing we have been proposing is responsible spending with responsible results.
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member hit the nail on the head. We have the NDP fudge-it budget, which is about an illusion. The member for Sarnia--Lambton talked about legal fiction, the use of the word “deemed” in the motion, about making something seem to be something it is not, creating an illusion.
The NDP will not receive any of that money. We know it is contingent spending. It is about creating an illusion and talking about all these things. It will not see any of that money before an election. It is the same thing with Bill C-38. The members cannot answer the protections for religious rights in there.
The member earlier said that there were 28 hours of debate in the House on changing an institution that has served this nation and others for thousands of years. What is the rush?
Could the member comment on how tax cuts, to which members over there are objecting, stimulate the economy, create productivity and competition, which makes our economy competitive worldwide, and allows us to have the jobs that keep their members happy?
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, clearly one of the things that we have said consistently in the official opposition is there has to be a significant balance of tax relief to Canadians who are so overtaxed. Many of them are unable to make ends meet. We have always said that we would not only help Canadians but would help stimulate the economy as well. My colleague is correct. This is one of the reasons we are opposed to Bill C-48.
One thing is beyond me, and I identified that as an inconsistency in my speech, especially with regard to the government. It is the fact that it wants to try to rush Bill C-48 through the House. We have had extensive debate on Bill C-43 and we supported it. Now that the government has the opportunity to start delivering some of the money encompassed in Bill C-43 too Canadians, the Liberal-dominated Senate is holding up the legislation for no clear reasons.
Our Conservative senators have said that they want to get Bill C-43 through the Senate in one sitting. They want to build on what is in the bill to get the money to the communities and cities and to people who have been waiting for it in areas where Canadians have been struggling. Why are the Liberals holding that up?
Now the Liberals want to extend the sitting of this House to deal with Bill C-48 and Bill C-38, but they have no urgency to get Bill C-43 through the Senate.
Statements by Members
[S. O. 31]
* * *
(1400)
[Translation]
National Child Benefit
Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to congratulate the Liberal government on its recent evaluation of the national child benefit. The report, entitled “Evaluation of the National Child Benefit Initiative”, confirms that this measure is reducing both child poverty in Canada and its serious effects.
Since 1998, the Government of Canada has consistently increased benefits for children and the family. Between now and 2007-08, annual federal benefits for Canadian families with children—provided through the Canada child tax benefit and the national child benefit supplement—should reach $10 billion.
Progress has been made in reducing child poverty, but the Liberal government recognizes that a permanent strategy and ongoing efforts are required in order to achieve the goal we have set. Clearly, children and their families are a priority for our government.
In closing, I take this opportunity to wish everyone a happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day.
* * *
[English]
Summer Barbecue Tour
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in his usual lame duck fashion, the Prime Minister gave our leader advice on attending barbecues, but I have some advice for the Liberal and NDP leaders as they run the barbecue gauntlet this summer.
Now that the mad as hell tour is history, the Prime Minister must begin the caught red-handed tour. He pledged to wait until Canadians knew all about ad scam before his last election call. Now that they know more than he wanted them to, he will have to come clean for the next election. He will certainly want to get himself in shape for that run. Luckily, a visit to his favourite private clinic will not take long; waiting lines are for suckers. And dieting should be easy: he can eat all the crow he wants, followed by servings of humble pie, washed down by a big can of whoop-ass.
The NDP leader must go on the sorry as hell tour. It is Canadian taxpayers who will be sorry as they remember the Liberal-NDP budget disasters of the early 1970s. His dilemma: should he peddle his assets on his bike or have his chauffeur polish his Kyoto-friendly Cadillac? And of course, should he eat his magic bean budget salad with his silver spoon?
* * *
Veterans
Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today a plaque will be unveiled at the Canadian War Museum to commemorate the contribution made by 300 West Indian men and women who joined Canada's armed forces to fight alongside Canadians during the second world war.
[Translation]
These men and women came from nine islands in the West Indies. After their military service in Canada, three became prime ministers of their native countries.
[English]
Also, I would like to pay special homage to Mr. Owen Rowe for his role in ensuring that Canada's new war museum officially recognizes the contribution made by these West Indian men and women. Unfortunately, Mr. Rowe passed away on April 16.
[Translation]
This plaque is the result of efforts by a number of veterans to obtain national and international recognition for West Indian veterans' service to Canada.
[English]
I am proud to be participating today in such an important historical event.
* * *
[Translation]
Agriculture
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on May 11, more than 350 dairy farmers delivered 28 bags of skim milk powder to the four ministers concerned with supply management and to the Prime Minister, to get Canada to use article XXVIII of the GATT in order to prevent unrestricted imports of several dairy ingredients.
The Minister of International Trade should be aware of the risk these imports represent to supply management and should use article XXVIII of the GATT.
While the minister is telling us that now is not the time to institute new tariff quotas under article XXVIII, unrestricted imports of dairy ingredients are threatening our supply management system.
The minister must take action immediately to limit the imports of ingredients that are replacing domestic milk and to really strengthen the supply management system.
I also want to take this opportunity to wish Quebeckers a happy St. Jean Baptiste Day.
* * *
[English]
Air-India
Hon. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada's Prime Minister is in Ireland today to mark the 20th anniversary of the Air-India bombing.
In marking the tragic events of the Air-India bombing of 20 years ago, we must continue to ensure that we learn from the lessons of the past so they are not repeated in the future.
Numerous changes to our security measures have taken place, and the police continue their investigation. The government is seeking independent advice on outstanding questions related to the destruction of Air-India flight 182.
In doing so, the independent adviser to the government, Mr. Bob Rae, is consulting extensively with family members who lost relatives in the bombing. By listening to their concerns, Mr. Rae will aim to advise the government on what remains to be learned about this terrible tragedy.
We owe it to the 329 victims and their families to ensure that we draw on the important lessons of this terrorist event to punish those responsible and ensure such an event never happens again.
* * *
(1405)
Historica National Fair
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Historica National Fair is a truly national event, hosted each July by a different community in Canada. From July 11 to July 18 this summer, Saskatoon will have the honour of showcasing its historical treasures. The Bishop James Mahoney School in my constituency will serve as accommodations and headquarters for the week.
A total of 165 students between the ages of 10 and 15, representing all provinces and territories, will take part in a special week of sightseeing, historic tours, hands-on workshops and special events. The national fair is a unique opportunity for students to explore a part of the country they might otherwise never have a chance to visit. Also, this event inspires lasting memories, new friendships and experiences, and it creates and strengthens connections between young Canadians.
During the one day public exhibition, students proudly share their outstanding history projects with the general public and with each other. I therefore invite everyone to come and meet these young delegates from across Canada at the exhibition, which will take place on Friday, July 15 at the Saskatoon Field House.
I extend congratulations to all the delegates and many thanks to the organizing committee and the numerous volunteers. I invite them to have fun and enjoy their stay.
* * *
[Translation]
Blainville Lions Club
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to a founding member of the Blainville Lions Club. For the past 13 years, Lion Réjane Picard has been committed to humanitarian and social causes and her dedication is an inspiration to all Lions Club members in the lower Laurentians.
Recipient of a Melvin Jones fellowship award, Ms. Picard, who held various positions including first, second and third vice-president, president and treasurer, and then contributed her time to several committees and various fundraising campaigns, deserves our utmost respect.
The members of the Bloc Québécois join the members of the Blainville Lions Club in expressing admiration and congratulations for Lion Réjane Picard. I am especially proud to represent in the House of Commons the woman who sponsored me to the Blainville Lions Club.
* * *
[English]
Air-India
Mr. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that we take this time to commemorate the lives lost 20 years ago today and remember the victims of flight 182.
As indicated by the Deputy Prime Minister, flags at all federal government sites are flying at half-mast today. The Prime Minister has named June 23 as a national day to remember victims of terrorism. The government is also committed to establishing a permanent commemorative site in Canada.
Each of these steps is an important recognition of a significant tragedy that took place in Canadian history. We must learn from this terrorist event to ensure it never happens again, but on a personal note as well, we must remember the victims.
* * *
Ontario Pork Congress
Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Wellington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to recognize a very important event taking place this week in my riding of Perth--Wellington.
The 32nd Annual Ontario Pork Congress is under way and the always popular event is showcasing the pork industry with the theme “Strive to Thrive in 2005”.
The pork congress is a festive event which profiles the future of the industry while celebrating the past. It is a great mix of tradition and innovation.
This past Saturday, I joined Ontario pork producers at their gala dinner in Stratford. I want to extend my best wishes to President John Crowley and all of the pork producers and suppliers attending this week's pork congress.
I ask members to please join me in recognizing Ontario's pork industry and the safe and delicious food it produces.
* * *
Air-India
Hon. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today we reflect on the tragedy of the 329 lives lost on Air-India flight 182.
In the 20 years since the bombing, numerous inquiries, investigations and trials have led to many improvements in the safety and security of Canada's air transportation system.
(1410)
[Translation]
We have completely modified our national security structure to focus on terrorism, as well as improving the collaboration between security and intelligence services such as the RCMP and CSIS.
[English]
To prevent terrorist attacks, the government has passed the Anti-terrorism Act and the Public Safety Act and has integrated numerous public safety strategies through the national security policy.
[Translation]
These initiatives show the government's commitment to vigilance in its efforts to protect Canadians. We have learned from the tragedy that occurred 20 years ago, and must continue to put into practice the knowledge we have acquired.
* * *
[English]
Zonolite Insulation
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I inform the House that Zonolite insulation has claimed another life. Yesterday morning, my constituent Rebecca Bruce died of mesothelioma, a cancer caused by exposure to asbestos. She was only 47 and will be sadly missed by her husband Dennis and her two sons, Sidney and Shawn.
Rebecca's sister, Raven Thundersky, has struggled for years to have the health risks of asbestos-laden Zonolite addressed. They grew up on the Poplar River Indian Reserve in a house insulated with Zonolite, and now this Zonolite is killing them at an alarming rate. Rebecca is the fourth to die in a family of eight.
Today we honour the spirit of Rebecca Bruce, another aboriginal woman forced to live in substandard housing, another aboriginal woman murdered by the W.R. Grace Company, which sold Zonolite long after it knew it was contaminated with deadly tremolite asbestos.
Tomorrow, in her memory, we pledge to fight for all asbestos victims and to continue the fight to protect Canadians from deadly Zonolite insulation.
* * *
[Translation]
St. Jean Baptiste Day
Mr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, in accordance with tradition, Quebec will be celebrating St. Jean Baptiste Day.
The history of this celebration goes back to Gaul, where there was a tradition of lighting fires throughout the night of the summer solstice, that is, the longest night of the year. The tradition was carried on in France until the Revolution, and crossed the Atlantic to take root along the shores of the St. Lawrence.
Proclaimed the official holiday of Quebeckers in 1834 by the St. Jean Baptiste Society, the day has held special meaning for all Quebeckers ever since.
The Conservative Party caucus joins with me in wishing a happy St. Jean Baptiste Day to all Quebeckers everywhere.
* * *
Quebeckers' National Day
Ms. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this evening and all day tomorrow, Quebec will be swept by a tide of happiness, laughter and joy as people celebrate being Quebeckers of all origins.
In the Magdalen Islands, Blanc-Sablon, Abitibi, Pointe-à-la Croix, Quebec City, Montreal, Verchères, Sherbrooke, Trois-Rivières and Rivière-du-Nord, Quebeckers throughout Quebec will celebrate their national day with pride.
This year, we are honouring the songs of Quebec and those who create and perform them. As we know, Quebec's history, culture and language are intimately connected.
For over 400 years, as we have moved toward affirming our national identity, our artists have lent their words, rhythm and voices in order to express who we are and reflect our emotions, both the highs and the lows, and our hopes as well.
Quebec is music to our eyes and ears. We will say it and we will sing it. Happy national day, Quebec.
* * *
[English]
Multiculturalism
Ms. Ruby Dhalla (Brampton—Springdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are an increasingly diverse population. We can be and should be proud of our multicultural heritage. We have a tremendous amount to learn from each other and from how the diverse communities of our nation contribute to the building and strengthening of our nation.
Diversity is one of our nation's greatest strengths. The powerful and peaceful combination of so many people with so many different traditions, languages and beliefs is truly an inspiration to the world. All Canadians have an integral role to play in this source of pride and a commitment to further strengthening it.
June 27 is Canada's Multiculturalism Day. Canada is the world's first official multicultural country. This important day is going to bring together Canadians to celebrate our shared values and to strengthen our atmosphere of tolerance, understanding and respect. I invite all Canadians to participate in this celebration on June 27.
* * *
(1415)
Air-India
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today, June 23, marks the 20th anniversary of the Air-India bombing. To date it remains Canada's worst terrorist attack and to date we still have no answers. Over 320 people are dead and no one has been brought to justice.
I rise not only for those who were killed, but for the families and loved ones who remain and whose lives were changed forever. In an instant children lost their parents. Husbands and wives were split. The magnitude of this tragedy is immeasurable and without words.
In 1999 I attended the memorial service in Ireland. This year the leader of the official opposition is attending the memorial in Ireland on behalf of the Conservative Party.
On behalf of my colleagues in the House, I extend our deeply felt sympathy to the families of the victims. The Conservative Party supports recognizing June 23 as a national day of mourning for victims of terrorism.
* * *
Air-India
Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister said that the Government of Canada is committed to doing all it can to ensure that tragedies such as Air-India 182 never happen again and this is good. Bob Rae noted that the crime was planned and executed in Canada, something that our society cannot ignore.
Canadians are a diverse people coming from nearly every corner of the globe. In many parts of the world religious, ethnic and racial hatred and xenophobia date back centuries, even millennia.
If we are to build a safe, peaceful and respectful society, those old hatreds must be left behind. There must be zero tolerance for acts of violence and hatred. Governments at all levels, in partnership with civil society, must play a stronger role in promoting a tolerant multicultural society and ensuring social cohesion
This is the best way to honour the lives of the 329 people who were murdered 20 years ago today.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[English]
The Budget
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, clearly the Prime Minister was not serious when he said that it is time to put politics aside and pass the budget. The Liberal leader in the Senate is cynically playing politics with the government's own budget bill by holding up its passage. It proves again that the say anything, do anything, deceitful Prime Minister will do anything to cling to power.
The Prime Minister has his leader in the Senate deliberately slowing down the passage of the budget bill until the NDP add-on Bill C-48 passes. His mismanagement of the House has led to the impasse.
Why is he now punishing Atlantic Canadians to achieve his own partisan political gain?
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as members know, we do not speak for the other place. I would suggest to the hon. member that he call his hon. colleagues in the other place and perhaps get the same cooperation that he seems to be suggesting we are getting on Bill C-43. Perhaps he could ask for that same cooperation so that the Senate can deal expeditiously with Bills C-48 and C-38 when they both get to the Senate.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that a House leader would suggest that the Senate could deal with a bill that it does not have.
Conservative Senators proposed fast tracking Bill C-43, the original budget, so that it could be passed in one day. In fact, that would have meant that the offshore royalties to Atlantic Canada could begin flowing today. It is costing Newfoundland and Labrador $132,000 a day and Nova Scotia $55,000 a day in lost interest.
Why is the Prime Minister allowing his Liberal dominated Senate to punish Atlantic Canada by delaying the benefits of the Atlantic accord? Will the government pay the lost interest to those provinces due to his deliberate disingenuous dithering?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last year the budget was presented in the latter part of March and the major budget legislation was indeed passed through all stages into law by about the middle of May.
Opposition members have had eight weeks to deal expeditiously with this legislation. They have stalled, filibustered and obfuscated at every point. It hardly lies in their mouths to accuse the government of any delay.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, what unadulterated nonsense from the Minister of Finance, knowing his own party dithered on these bills.
In the other place Liberals are deliberately delaying the passage of their own bill and the Atlantic accord to step up pressure to pass the NDP add-on, prop-up bill.
Let us be clear. The Liberal Party is now cutting deals with the separatists to appease the socialists to support its corrupt government. Again, the government is in bed with the Bloc and nuzzling the NDP.
Why is the government playing political footsies with its new friends, and partisan games with Atlantic Canada and the lives of Atlantic Canadians?
(1420)
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us follow the opposition party's course on the budget legislation in the House.
First of all, the opposition members said that this was a budget that they could support. Then on the first vote they abstained from voting. Then when it came to that package on the crucial first confidence vote, they voted against the budget package. They voted to defeat the government, which would have effectively defeated the Atlantic accord. Then finally they came around to supporting Bill C-43 after months and months of delay. They could have had it passed in March.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: I would like to have a little order. Perhaps things could calm down for a few moments. The hon. member for St. John's South--Mount Pearl now has the floor.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that minister is deliberately ensuring that the people of this country think that the Liberals are the heroes in this case.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Loyola Hearn: He is misleading the House--
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's South--Mount Pearl has the floor and the poor minister will want to be able to hear the question.
Mr. Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, the minister is misleading the House because the budget bill was not brought in until late April. The government was afraid to bring it in for debate and the vote.
Because you could not manage your own house, why are you now--
The Speaker: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member for St. John's South--Mount Pearl was intending to address the Chair, but I think he is not complaining about management here. The hon. Minister of Finance.
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can fully understand why the hon. member is trying to cover his tracks. The fact of the matter is that the Atlantic accord in Bill C-43 has been before the House for weeks and weeks and it was that opposition party that refused to pass it.
It was that opposition party that in fact voted against the budget package which would have had the effect of putting the Atlantic accord entirely down the drain if that vote had prevailed. Fortunately, it did not and this side stood for Atlantic Canada.
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a prominent Liberal well known to members of the House called a Newfoundland open line radio show today saying that Bill C-43, the bill containing the Atlantic accord, could not be put through the various legislative stages in the Senate all at once.
The government knows that is not true. All we need is for the Liberals to agree to speedy passage. Why are the Liberals holding up passage of the Atlantic accord when Conservatives have agreed to pass Bill C-43 and to give it royal assent immediately?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the opposition is intending to convey exactly the wrong impression. These opposition members have had a hot, on again, off again, approach toward the budgetary policy of this country. Sometimes they are for it. Sometimes they abstain. Sometimes they vote against it. It is no wonder Canadians are confused.
They had the chance to pass this legislation weeks ago and they declined to do so. The responsibility lies entirely at their doorstep. The government has moved on the Atlantic accord.
* * *
[Translation]
Broadcasting
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in response to the CRTC decision on satellite radio, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has said she will wait for someone else to appeal during the 45 day appeal period. The minister can herself appeal the decision, which sets aside only 2.5% of stations for French language radio.
Why is the minister not acting? Why is she waiting for others in a matter of such importance for the francophone community?
(1425)
Hon. Liza Frulla (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I said this decision had a considerable impact on broadcasting as a whole. The CRTC took a year to reach its conclusion.
We are examining the situation. I have to say as well that we have made certain groups aware, and that the Quebec Liberal caucus is also very aware of this issue. I will proceed my own way and at my own discretion.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would not like to upset the good intentions of the minister, but on the other hand, I would like to save the francophone community. I would like to help francophones keep their radio stations. A quota of 2.5% is totally inadequate, indeed dangerous for the francophone community and Quebec culture.
The minister is a Quebecker. She has responsibilities. She has a maximum of 45 days to appeal the decision. She should do so; it is what is expected of her.
Hon. Liza Frulla (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while the Bloc has been lounging around for 14 years asking questions and taking no responsibility, we have done the following in 11 months, speaking of responsibility: the Copyright Act; the text of the convention on cultural diversity accepted by 127 countries; $100 million for the Canadian television fund; governance of the CPF; a $5 million investment in new media; a $960 million fund in the budget you rejected. Do not talk to me about—
The Speaker: Once again, I encourage all hon. members to address their remarks to the Chair.
The hon. member for Saint-Lambert.
Mr. Maka Kotto (Saint-Lambert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, calmly and with all due respect, I will say that I think the inaction of the Minister of Canadian Heritage with regard to satellite radio is cause for concern. She says she is waiting for groups to appeal the CRTC's decision, when she has the authority to act, but refuses to.
How can the minister defend her position to ADISQ or the Union des artistes, which are concerned, and rightfully so, about this CRTC decision that, once again, threatens the francophone community?
Hon. Liza Frulla (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, people who want to defend the francophonie and francophone and Canadian culture do not vote against a budget allocating $960 million over five years to arts and culture. Second, they do not vote against the Official Languages Act. They were the only ones to vote on Bill S-3, which is the Official Languages Act. People who want to protect the francophone community do not sit idly by asking questions. They assume their responsibilities.
Mr. Maka Kotto (Saint-Lambert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as I said the other day, enough sophistry.
I have one thing to say. The proverb “silence is consent” means, according to the dictionary, that you agree if you raise no objections.
Are we to understand from the silence or inaction of the Minister of Canadian Heritage in this file that she agrees with the CRTC's decision? If so, let her say it.
Hon. Liza Frulla (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, they can say what they want, but the reality is otherwise. I repeat. People who want to defend the francophone community and culture need to walk the talk. In 11 months, here are all the measures we have taken, starting with copyright, the convention on cultural diversity, the $100 million in the Canadian television fund. The only thing they had to do was stand and vote in favour of the budget and the $960 million set aside for the arts and culture. We will assume our responsibilities and I—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.
* * *
[English]
Citizenship and Immigration
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have been asked to believe a lot of things in this chamber over the years but yesterday, when the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration wanted us to believe that 74 out of 76 temporary visas had nothing to do with partisan politics, that really took the cake.
When will the Liberal government take seriously the plight of those with foreign credentials who want to get domestic credentials? When will it put the same effort into enabling those people as it seems to put into enabling its friends?
(1430)
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member will know that we have already begun that process. Some $68 million will be put in place over the course of the next four years to coordinate those jurisdictions, provincial, professional and regulatory, so they can do the appropriate assessments, evaluations and accreditations and we can accommodate all of those we have invited into our country and integrate them into a professional environment. That is pretty progressive and it applies to everybody.
* * *
Veterans Affairs
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the minister for almost getting that out with a straight face.
My second question is for the Minister of National Defence. He will know that the people of Gagetown today are expressing their anger at his department for the way in which it has handled the agent orange issue over the years, particularly lately.
I want to ask the minister a question because I am sure he must wonder as well. Given the fact that this issue was first raised on the floor of the House of Commons by NDP MPs in January 1981, why is his department acting as if it only discovered this to be the case a few years ago? Why has it not done things over the years instead of visiting Gagetown--
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of National Defence.
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak to decisions, to which the hon. member refers, that were taken over 20 years ago, but I can speak to the decisions that are taken today.
This government is determined that the individuals in the region will understand the facts, will know what took place there and will be able to judge for themselves what they should be searching for as a way to enable them to have their rights dealt with.
I can assure the hon. member that we will provide the information and we will provide a solution to this very difficult problem.
* * *
Citizenship and Immigration
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the ethics report showed that the Liberals abused trust and destroyed fairness in Canada's immigration system.
During the 2004 election, 97% of temporary residency permits issued at the request of members of Parliament went to Liberals.
Canadians deserve openness and transparency. The ethics report proved that a list of which MPs were issued TRPs on request does exist.
Why are the Liberals still hiding this information from Parliament and from the public?
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, nobody is hiding anything. As I said, we present an annual report to Parliament and the facts and figures are all there.
The member is part of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. When she asks for information it is provided for her.
As for her manipulation of those numbers, she might have taken greater care to indicate that the figures she added were a very small number of the 13,000 permits that are issued as a result of a series of events that occur over any year.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister knows those numbers came from the ethics report. A Sun editorial today pointed out:
|
Finally it's clear that the Liberals have grossly abused the TRP program for partisan political purposes. |
Canadians and those seeking to come to Canada deserve better. The Liberals have been caught and Parliament has a duty to clean up this mess.
As a start, will the government today make public the number of TRPs issued at the request of each individual member of Parliament since February 1, 2004?
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member will know, of course, that Parliament approves a particular range of permanent residents who will be accepted, integrated and settled in this country.
Last year we accepted some 236,000. We also had some 600,000 who came here as tourists. We had an additional 110,000 who came as international students. We had a further 70,000 who made application as temporary visitors with work permits. We had an additional 13,000 who came here as a result of special events.
(1435)
Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Ethics Commissioner has ruled that the former minister of citizenship and immigration was in conflict of interest, but then the Prime Minister knew that long ago.
Following last June's election, Ms. Katherine Abbott, an aide to the former minister, briefed the Prime Minister's director of communications about conflict of interest issues regarding several immigration files. Despite this, the Prime Minister put the member for York West into cabinet.
Exactly when did the Prime Minister learn of the member's potential conflict of interest?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I actually have the report of the Ethics Commissioner here and I have taken the opportunity to read it. The Prime Minister's staff did not act in any way that was inappropriate.
The Ethics Commissioner is an independent officer of this House. The matter was referred to the Ethics Commissioner. In fact, many on this side asked that the Ethics Commissioner take up this matter. He did so. He has issued his report and has made findings of fact and conclusion.
The Prime Minister has reviewed the recommendations and he has asked the minister and the Privy Council Office to take up these recommendations and determine how we can move forward.
Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the usual hear no evil, see no evil response.
Each member of Parliament must abide by the conflict of interest code and the former minister breached this code by issuing temporary residency permits to relatives of people associated with her election campaign.
The Prime Minister knew about this, and we know this because a former minister's staffer told the Prime Minister's office, and yet the Prime Minister still appointed her to cabinet.
Why did the Prime Minister not act when he first knew ethics had been breached?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is following in the footsteps of others on that side of the House in making sweeping--
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Hon. Anne McLellan: Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, those people have nothing to be proud of in this regard.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Deputy Prime Minister has the floor and everyone wants to hear the answer.
Hon. Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, it is an assertion of fact. If the hon. member had read the Ethics Commissioner's report she would have thought twice about what she said before uttering it on the floor of this House.
I apologize to all Canadians for the reckless disregard for people's reputations that--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.
* * *
[Translation]
Agriculture
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Agriculture Canada and Health Canada have given the green light to a variety of genetically modified corn known as MON 863. Mice fed with this corn have developed kidney abnormalities and elevated white blood cell counts.
How can the government explain the approval of this product, when even an Agriculture Canada employee is quoted as saying the CFIA is aware of the Monsanto data but it hasn't changed their assessment.
[English]
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this particular material has been tested throughout the world, particularly in the G-8 countries. Many of those countries have had this particular substance approved.
After the results of these tests came to light, no jurisdiction, after the review, has actually dismissed this substance as useless.
Therefore I suggest to the hon. member that Health Canada has followed the appropriate procedure in maintaining the status quo.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, would he be prepared to eat this type of corn tomorrow morning? A Greenpeace spokesperson has said it would be wise to suspend approval of this GM corn and to carry out another assessment.
Does the government intend to follow Greenpeace's recommendation and suspend approval, or will it continue to stick up for the huge multinational Monsanto?
(1440)
[English]
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Health Canada was made aware of these results in 2004. Health Canada took into account its own review, in addition to the conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority and Food Standards Australia New Zealand which also reviewed the data in its consideration. None of those particular agencies have taken this off the market.
I choose my food carefully, as do all other Canadians, and I eat Canadian food.
* * *
[Translation]
Textile Industry
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the day after it was announced that the Huntingdon textile plants would close, the government made public an improvised plan that is not meeting its objectives because since that announcement over 4,000 more jobs have been lost.
Since it is becoming more apparent with each passing day that its plan is not working, does the government intend to use the plan of action proposed by the Bloc Québécois, which includes access by our clothing and textiles to the U.S. market and aid in developing new market niches for the clothing industry? Will the government accept our good idea?
Hon. Jacques Saada (Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister responsible for the Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, long before the Huntingdon textile plants closed, my department was in contact with the local businesspeople. We sat on the Huntingdon revitalization committee. The companies did not accept our offers and the plants closed. We are following up on this matter jointly with the Government of Quebec in order to help the people of Huntingdon.
We will not solve these problems with attractive measures, but with effective measure. These will be forthcoming shortly.
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, contrary to the government, which refuses to believe in the future of this industry in a Radio-Canada news story yesterday, Canadian and Quebec manufacturers said they still believe in their chances of surviving. They maintain that the government should be more attentive to the needs of the industry if we want to keep it.
Does the government intend to take the advice of the manufacturers and review its aid package for the textile industry instead standing idly by?
Hon. Jacques Saada (Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister responsible for the Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of our CANtex program was to help companies cope with this new competition by encouraging productivity, by investing in new equipment or offering training.
We have evidence that this is working. When we go to Stedfast in Granby and Empire Shirt in Louiseville, we see that this is working. There are examples throughout Quebec that this is working. Nonetheless, people have to take responsibility. We are there to help them.
* * *
[English]
Citizenship and Immigration
Mrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Ethics Commissioner's report provides a behind the scenes look at a desperate Liberal Party seeking re-election.
Katherine Abbott, the former minister's aide, told the Ethics Commissioner:
|
--we were reacting to the temperature in the outside world-- |
|
--there was a thought that we might not come back, there was more of a pressure of just...getting it done. |
Why is it regular Liberal policy to help political supporters jump to the head of the queue?
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think if we read the Ethics Commissioner's report in its totality, we would have an opportunity to see that there is a process in place that takes everybody into consideration.
What the Ethics Commissioner did not indicate of course is the cyclical recurring events that require decisions because they take place at a particular moment in time. One of those events is taking place this weekend. I hope to see some of the members opposite at that same convention which will see thousands of people coming from all over the world, some of whom had to get TRPs to enter.
Mrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government makes legitimate immigrants jump through hoops to get into the country, but then lets its friends and supporters jump the queue.
During the last week of the campaign, the former minister authorized six permits for a gentleman described as “a great resource to the election campaign....He was able to provide volunteers, man hours, and labour”.
Will the government clean up its act, introduce transparency, and stop using TRPs for election purposes?
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if we are talking about cleaning up acts, let me advise all members that those who come to the Government of Canada for assistance are not asked to put in deposits in order to ensure that they are rendered service. We do not need anybody to sign guarantee forms of $1,000, $5,000, $50,000, or $250,000. The work is provided because the Government of Canada, and the Liberal Party as well, provides the service as is due all those citizens who access government services.
(1445)
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that minister should learn what is going on in his department because it surely is not moving to the effect that we would like it to be.
In responding to pressure from the Conservative Party last fall, the government claimed it shut down the stripper program. However, HRSD spokesperson, Sandy MacDonald said in today's Globe and Mail that the government has only taken a temporary hiatus in promoting the sex trade. I quote, “New applications from exotic dancers will once again be processed”.
Why is the department promising that it will start processing these applications when the government claimed it shut the program down?
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated before, we do not provide any temporary work visas to those on a basis of a blanket market assessment. They are only on a case by case basis. People have to make their case, employers and employees, potential or not. Unless those cases are proven, then there is no permit.
I do not know what the member is talking about. In fact, I could hardly recognize him. I am not sure it is his double.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that the minister continues to defend dancers. He seems to be quite good at tap dancing around all the questions we give him.
The current HRSD minister was at one time concerned about the sexual exploitation of people coming into this country. Now as a Liberal cabinet minister she is taking steps to reinstate a program that would import foreign workers into Canada's sex trade.
Did the minister knowingly sign off on a labour market opinion for these strippers, or did she simply reinstate this program that her government supposedly cancelled?
Hon. Belinda Stronach (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the program is still under review, and we will report back in a couple of weeks. We review each case on a case by case basis. No new applications have been approved since the review has been completed.
* * *
Agriculture
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food.
Several months ago the government announced the closure of four science sites including the Kapuskasing Experimental Farm. I realize the government wants to ensure that money for science is spent on research and development and not on unnecessary maintenance and other overhead costs.
On May 17 at the agriculture committee the minister said he intends to conduct a broad review of how agricultural science is conducted and to look for possible partnerships with the provinces, universities, research centres, and others.
Could the minister update the House on this very important issue?
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will be conducting a national review, one which will ensure that we maintain our national and regional commitments to science, one which will make sure that we talk to and engage stakeholders. In the interim, we will be putting a moratorium on the closures that were announced in Kapuskasing, Nappan, St. John's and Winnipeg.
I would like to thank the member for Avalon, the member for Kings--Hants, and the member for Cumberland--Colchester for their input on this matter.
* * *
Transport
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the port of Halifax generates an economic impact annually of 9,000 jobs and $700 million. In a flurry of pre-election hype last May, $423 million in federal dollars was announced for maritime and marine security improvements, yet when Halifax applied for a mere $1.2 million for security upgrades, the Halifax Port Authority received only $220,000 of the $423 million.
Will the minister assure us today that in the second round of marine security funding, the $2.9 million--
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Transport.
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously in the first round the port of Halifax did not get all the money it wanted, like every other port, but we have other measures and other rounds. We know that when it files the application and applies for the right things, the money will be there. The money is in the budget and will help all the ports that need security, and Halifax is one of them.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Halifax is Canada's third largest port and it is key to our regional and national economy. Some 525,000 containers pass through Halifax port annually, making security serious business. In round one of security improvements, with container traffic just over twice that of Halifax, Montreal and Vancouver received 15 and 40 times more funding respectively.
Will the minister give assurances today that in round two Halifax will receive its fair share of federal funding for training and technology security enhancements?
(1450)
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, of course we are going to treat Halifax fairly, but it has to go with the applications and things that are allowed under the program. The money is there. If it applies for the right things, it gets the right amount of money.
* * *
Veterans Affairs
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence continues to downplay the effects of agent orange on our military personnel and completely dismisses the impact on surrounding communities and civilians. DND has already prejudged the outcome of any future investigations, suggesting nothing new will be found.
How can the minister claim any legitimacy on this file when his officials have already predetermined the outcome?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I totally reject the premise of the question. We have not predetermined anything. I have been very clear with the House. These are events that took place a long time ago. We do know for a fact that these events took place over three days in one year and four days in another year, 1966 and 1967. There were a limited number of acres that were sprayed with agent orange and agent purple.
We are working with the communities. We will work with all Canadians who risk having been affected by this. We do not minimize it. We recognize this is an important issue. We want to make sure that Canadians are dealt with properly in this and we will do so.
* * *
Technology Partnerships Canada
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in response to questions about the Technology Partnerships Canada program, the industry minister stated the following:
|
All of the money that was paid to consultants who were helping clients obtain TPC money has been returned. All of it has been returned, every cent. |
He also said:
|
The reality is the audit is not complete. The audits are very complex. |
If the audit is not complete, how does the minister know that every cent has been returned?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Edmonton--Leduc is waiting very patiently for the answer. The minister has risen to answer and the member will want to hear it.
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is very funny. I think the hon. member knows that I was referring to the forensic audit. The forensic audit identified four situations where a contingency fee was paid and the contract explicitly prohibits a contingency fee.
The hon. member would be more responsible if he would congratulate Industry Canada on the good work it is doing in improving the administration of the program, in auditing so effectively and protecting taxpayers' money.
* * *
The Economy
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a unanimous Senate report on productivity tabled yesterday recommends that the government should immediately eliminate federal capital tax, slash corporate income tax rates and allow businesses to more aggressively write off capital investments. That would expand the economy so that we could fund social programs down the road.
Why did the Liberals trade away Canada's ability to fund future social programs so that they could cut a backroom deal with Buzz Hargrove and the NDP? How low will they go?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact we have taken action to improve capital cost allowances. We are proposing to eliminate the capital tax. We are going further and proposing to eliminate the surtax. We are also proposing to reduce income tax rates. All of this is to improve productivity and competitiveness.
At the same time, we also believe it is important to invest in education and skills training, to invest in housing, to invest in the environment and to invest in foreign aid. The government is proving that it is possible to do all of those things at the same time.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, funny they did not know that in February.
Look at the government's pathetic record. Canada right now is competing with Denmark as the least productive country in the western world. That is probably because we sent them Gagliano, who knows.
The fact is under the government, our productivity record is worse than those of Sweden, Japan, the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, Greece, United States, United Kingdom, France, Portugal, Australia, Finland and Ireland. That speaks volumes.
Why does the government not just admit that it has sold us out, sold out our ability to fund future social programs, our ability to raise the standard of living, just so the Liberals could cut a deal with the NDP?
(1455)
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what a shameful question.
The fact of the matter is that Canada's rate of productivity improvement over the last number of years is the second best in the G-7. We intend to become the best in the G-7. That is the purpose of our productivity agenda.
Let me refer the hon. gentleman to a great Canadian humorist, Rick Mercer, who today said, “Is there anything more pathetic than sitting indoors while the sun is shining reading a blog written by Monte Solberg?”
The Speaker: I am sure the Minister of Finance was referring to the popular member for Medicine Hat when he mentioned that name. He knows that even reading something that has a member's name in it, we have to be very careful in the House to use the member's constituency name or other title. I have to issue this admonition to the minister and would want him to comply with the rules in every respect the next time he answers a question from the hon. member for Medicine Hat.
[Translation]
The hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.
* * *
Justice
Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in its May 2005 report, the UN committee against torture criticized Canada's lack of civil remedies to compensate victims of torture on foreign soil. Canadian courts had found, in fact, in the Bouzari case, that there is no recourse against a government guilty of acts of torture, in accordance with the State Immunity Act.
Does the Government of Canada intend to afford justice before Canadian courts to victims of torture in foreign countries, as the UN committee recommends?
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I respect commitment. Now, we are studying this matter, and I hope we will have a response in this regard.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Zarah Kazemi is dead; William Sampson, Maher Arar, Houshang Bouzari and many more have suffered physically and mentally from torture on foreign soil.
Is the minister aware that Canada cannot not protect its citizens who have dual nationality against torture and cannot even give them the right, in Canada, to seek compensation from foreign governments responsible for torture?
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said, we are looking at ways to see how we can provide recourse.
* * *
[English]
Health
Mr. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the health minister has claimed that private delivery of health care will rob the health care system of personnel, yet the defence department hired a private company to provide supplementary medical personnel at military facilities. The contract is worth almost half a billion dollars. The government says it is against private delivery, but then it contracts out to private providers.
Could the minister explain that contradiction?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have explained in the House on several occasions, the defence department, for reasons of operational needs of the defence department, is not subject to the Canada Health Act. When our troops are in Afghanistan or when they are in Bosnia, they do not check into a local provincial hospital. They need to have the services of medical care for themselves when they need it.
They are putting their lives on the line for their country. Let us support them rather than attacking them, as in this absolutely ridiculous way by the member.
(1500)
Mr. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC): Mr. Speaker, what is ridiculous is the minister's answer. We are talking about Canadian soldiers on Canadian land, soldiers in this country.
The private company of which I speak uses doctors from the public system. Essentially, the government is using public personnel to provide a private service. If one follows the health minister's logic, this will deplete the public system of needed health practitioners. Why does the health minister speak out against private delivery when his own government contracts out medical services to private companies?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that the Canadian Forces have had a proud tradition of being able to make sure that they give the medical services necessary to our armed forces, our men and women in uniform, so that they can do their jobs.
The forces have always been called upon to do that. In recognition of that, they are called upon to do it outside the normal procedures of the Canada Health Act. That is required by operational necessity. It is required for the well-being of our troops. It is required for the well-being of our country. I think everybody on this side of the House recognizes that.
* * *
National Defence
Mr. Wajid Khan (Mississauga—Streetsville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in early 2006 a brigade HQ and an army task force will be deployed in Kandahar as an ongoing commitment to ISAF in Afghanistan. Given the ongoing grave security situation with regard to the Kandahar region, can the Minister of National Defence tell the House, within the constraints of operational security, what preparations are being taken in the way of equipment and training provision and for force protection for CF units due to be posted to Kandahar?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. He is extremely knowledgeable in military matters. He comes from a country in the region. He knows, and hon. members of the House know full well, that our members of the Canadian Forces have extraordinary experience in the country of Afghanistan.
I can assure him and other hon. members in the House that under the leadership of General Hillier, who was the ISAF commander in Afghanistan and is a recognized expert in the area, that our forces will be trained, they will be equipped and they will acquit themselves well in what will be a dangerous but ultimately successful mission for this country and for the development of peace in the world.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order adopted Tuesday, June 21, the House will now proceed to statements. I now call upon the hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
* * *
Air-India Flight 182
[Tributes]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember the loss of 329 people on Air-India flight 182, which was destroyed in a heinous act of terror 20 years ago.
Today many of their relatives have joined the Prime Minister, the leaders of the three opposition parties and the premier of British Columbia at a special commemorative service in Ireland. Others have joined us here this afternoon in Parliament.
[Translation]
I am honoured by their presence here today, and I thank them for coming. I too join with all of my colleagues in Parliament and all Canadians in offering our condolences.
[English]
When we lose loved ones, we often gather together as family and friends to share recollections about them. These stories help us to remember and, perhaps, to begin the healing process.
I have with me today a book that tells the stories of the people on Air-India flight 182, entitled Love, Honour, Respect: The Memories of Our Loved Ones. It was produced by some of their families to honour the wives, husbands, children and parents who were lost that day off the coast of Ireland. A copy of it was presented to the Prime Minister when he met with families on June 7 in Toronto.
When I met recently with family members, both in Toronto and in Vancouver, their personal words went beyond the stories in this book. No one could be untouched by the sense of loss, the pain, the hurt and, yes, the anger of those who lost loved ones. Family members helped me understand the many lives that were changed forever by this tragedy and the contributions that those who died might have made to our country and our world.
We cannot bring back these innocent victims, but we can honour their lives by ensuring that events such as the one that took them from us never happen again and that we do all we can to prevent terrorist acts around the world.
Above these chambers and across Canada today, we have lowered flags and have declared a national day of mourning to show that we remember those who were lost. It is in this same spirit of commemoration that the government will work with family members on how best to commemorate permanently the Air-India victims and the lives of their relatives.
Yesterday the Prime Minister announced that June 23 will be a national day for Canadians to remember the victims of terrorism. It is fitting that this day should be June 23, the day of the first mass terror attack in our history. In this way, we will ensure that Canadians will always remember the costs of such terror and the lives and loved ones lost.
The writing of the late Rabindranath Tagore, one of modern India's greatest poets, is found on several pages in the memorial book with me today. In one verse, he writes:
|
Let the dead have the immortality of fame, but the living the immortality of love |
I hope that by our actions today and in the future we can offer compassion and support to the living, whose lives were changed forever by this event.
As the Prime Minister said this morning in a moving service of commemoration in Ireland:
|
--never forget that remembrance is in itself a timeless act of love. In so doing, we keep alive the memory of those who are missed. We feel them in our hearts. We mourn them, we celebrate them. And always, and forever, we remember. |
(1505)
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on this national day of mourning, we remember the lives of those lost on flight 182, 20 years ago today. On behalf of the Conservative Party, I want to offer our sympathy, condolences and prayers for the families of the 329 victims of this horrific terror.
[Translation]
We offer our condolences to the families of the victims of this tragedy.
[English]
Neither the passing of years nor the machinery of state have provided answers to those whose lives who were changed forever on June 23, 1985.
Twenty years ago, families were ripped apart and forever altered by that deadly explosion over the cold North Atlantic waters off the coast of Ireland.
It was the worst terrorist act originating in Canada in our nation's history. An evil act of indiscriminate terror killed someone's child, someone's mother, someone's father, someone's family. Over 80 children were killed. Six parents lost all their children and over 20 complete families were killed.
An act of pure evil and indiscriminate terror still wounds the entire Canadian community. This assault on sensibility is an open wound with no answers still, and no justice for those whose family members or friends we remember at this time.
[Translation]
We share with the families in the memory of their lost loved ones.
[English]
We do so in full frustration that many questions still remain unanswered. These questions deserve to be answered and all of us need to know that our government, our country, has done its all to find out what happened.
Most important, who committed this crime? Who caused this slaughter of innocents? Were there any failures by anyone in authority who might have altered this sad history?
[Translation]
In recent years, we have come to realize that not all matters of security can be examined in public, but they must be examined by competent and trustworthy individuals. Important questions have to be answered, and whenever possible, they must be answered publicly.
(1510)
[English]
People in my home province of Nova Scotia, particularly around Peggy's Cove, were similarly confronted with a tragic disaster in 1998, which also resulted in a great loss of life. The Swissair crash forever changed the lives of families of victims but also of those who lived in surrounding areas.
Therefore, I want to remember and thank the people of Ireland, who cared for the remains of the victims of this murder and honour their memories still. They have for 20 years cared for the families of the victims. As they gathered with family, friends and officials, the people of Ireland demonstrated again at the service, as they have for over 20 years, their sympathy and support at a critical moment of remembrance. Today we thank them for their compassion and their humanity.
But above all, by remembering the victims murdered on Flight 182 on June 23, 1985, we accept our collective responsibility to them and to their families to see that difficult questions are asked and answered.
Today we honour the memory of their souls. We offer our compassion to those who have experienced enormous grief and heartbreaking losses yet have carried on with courage and conviction, determined to seek the truth and find justice, and ensure, as the Deputy Prime Minister has said, that a tragedy such as this never happens again.
I am reminded of a poignant expression which tells us that in order to lose someone we must first have had them, and so the magnitude of one's loss becomes the measure of life's gifts.
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, BQ): Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago today, 329 passengers on an Air India Boeing 747 died in intolerable circumstances. Among the victims were 278 Canadians.
This tragedy, the most devastating terrorist attack in Canadian history, is still wrapped in mystery and many questions remain. No one has yet been sentenced or held responsible for this unspeakable tragedy.
Only one thing is certain: this was a terrorist act. Although a pure accident can cause as much loss of human life and tremendous pain for the victims' loved ones, I think that when a tragedy like this is intentional, planned in full knowledge of the fact that the victims were innocent people who could not do anything about the situation that someone wanted corrected and were in no way responsible for it, the pain is even harder to bear. Our sympathy for the afflicted families is all the greater in that the pain we share is commingled with a tremendous sense of horror.
The terrorists' motives were apparently at least partly religious. But in all the great religions, the supreme being is believed to be infinitely good and infinitely just. Is it possible to believe such a being could approve of the summary execution of hundreds of innocent people? Is it possible to believe that the response to injustice is even more injustice? Is that one of the cornerstones of the new society we are trying to build, in which the most important rule, as in all the great religions, is to love one's neighbour? Do people not realize how greatly they discredit the cause they claim to advance in this way?
Unfortunately, there is an absurd belief that terrorist acts can be justified in today's world. Any one of us could be a victim of such acts. At this time, we can only express our deepest sympathy.
However, more must be done. We must try to comprehend the incomprehensible. And for that, we must first know everything that can be known. While the explosion of the Air India Boeing 747 was a terrible tragedy for everyone, nothing can compare with the suffering of the victims' families for the last 20 years and the permanent void left in their lives. Today we think of them. It is to them that we extend our heartfelt sympathy. It is because of them, the anger they still feel, their constant pain, that we ask the government to finally shed light, once and for all, on this tragic event.
Twenty years ago, 329 people died for being on the wrong flight at the wrong time, collateral damage in a crisis about which they could do nothing. We members of Parliament have the ability and therefore the responsibility to act and do all we can to ensure that such a tragedy never happens again.
To the families and friends, to those still affected by the events of June 23, 1985, I offer once again my most heartfelt sympathy on behalf of the Bloc Québécois and the people we represent.
(1515)
[English]
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the New Democratic Party of Canada, our leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth, and members of the caucus to join with our colleagues in the House of Commons in remembering the Canadian tragedy that took place 20 years ago today off the coast of Ireland.
Two decades have passed since that horrible night when 329 people died aboard Air-India flight 182, but time has not undone the heartache of entire families torn apart in a moment nor the pain of those left behind. Their loved ones were lost to terror and they are the living victims of its merciless consequences.
For too long in Canada many have looked upon the Air-India disaster as a foreign tragedy rather than what it was, the largest act of terror in our country's history, a Canadian tragedy which claimed Canadian lives and left Canadian victims.
[Translation]
Today, the leaders of the four political parties in the House are in Ireland to share the sorrow, memories and grief of the families affected. Unfortunately, their presence at this memorial will not erase two decades of neglect. However, it is a first step for the families who will finally be able to share their grief with a sympathetic nation, a comfort they were too long denied.
[English]
The greatest comfort that Canada can give to those families is answers to the questions that have haunted them for 20 years. It is time the government set right the legacy of neglect. It is time that answers were delivered where justice has not.
On behalf of the New Democratic Party of Canada, I offer our heartfelt condolences to all those who have suffered the agony of loss, and our hope that soon there will be understanding where for far too long there has been only tears and pain.
[Translation]
The Speaker: I thank all the hon. members who spoke today.
[English]
I now invite the House to rise to observe a moment of silence.
[A moment of silence observed]
* * *
(1520)
Business of the House
[Business of the House]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, under more normal circumstances, I suspect I would have risen on this, the last scheduled day for the spring 2005 session, to wish all members of Parliament a good summer in their constituencies and to inquire about the legislative calendar agenda of the government when the House was scheduled to resume on September 19.
However, since the government has decided to invoke closure on a motion to extend the sitting beyond today, I find myself in a difficult position because we do not yet know the outcome of the vote on the motion which will be held this evening.
I ask the government House leader what his intentions are with plan A and plan B? If we do adjourn for the summer, what are his intentions when the House reconvenes in the fall? If his motion on closure is successful to extend the sitting, what are his plans for next week's sitting and, by extension, does he intend to bring forward any more closure motions on legislation?
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with debate on the motion regarding the sittings of the House. When that is disposed of, we will proceed to Bill C-48, the budget legislation, and Bill C-38, the civil marriage bill.
While I will not speculate any further than that, I understand the vote this evening will take place at 8 o'clock. Subsequent to the vote, we will see what legislation we would be looking at in the fall. Essentially I will deal with what we are speaking to after question period. Once the motion is disposed of later this evening, we would then proceed to Bill C-48 and subsequent to that, Bill C-38, the civil marriage bill.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Extension of Sitting Period
The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.