House of Commons Hansard #74 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was chair.

Topics

Income Trusts
Oral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

I must say that I have a problem with the words used in the question. Nevertheless, if the Minister of Finance wants to answer the question, he may do so.

The hon. Minister of Finance.

Income Trusts
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Whitby—Oshawa
Ontario

Conservative

Jim Flaherty Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, there was a substantial commitment to provide security for seniors in this country. Yesterday we made a very important announcement with respect to an issue that has been outstanding in this country for more than 40 years, and that is the question of income splitting for pensioners.

I know the Liberals opposite do not think it matters much for pensioners. However, if we look at a pensioner now receiving a pension of $40,000 for one spouse and the other spouse not receiving any pension, the tax savings will be $2,500 for that couple.

I know Liberals do not think that is much money but it is a lot of money for a lot of Canadian pensioners.

Income Trusts
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Liberal

Jean Lapierre Outremont, QC

Mr. Speaker, one has to be shameless to think that those minor measures announced yesterday will make up for the $25 billion in retirees' and small investors' savings that have just gone up in smoke.

Does the minister realize that he did not keep his word, did not honour his commitments, did not keep the promise made by the finance critic? He lied right down the line about his election promises.

Income Trusts
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

The hon. member for Outremont knows very well that such words regarding another member in this House are not permitted. The question is unacceptable and we will discuss this matter following question period.

Justice
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Gauthier Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is in the process of trying to pass a bill that would grant members of the judiciary a very generous salary increase, specifically, 7.25%, plus full indexation, which would mean an increase this year between $14,000 and $21,000.

How can a government grant such generous increases to judges, while refusing to help older workers who have been the victims of mass layoffs and do not have enough money to live at home while awaiting their retirement?

Justice
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Fundy Royal
New Brunswick

Conservative

Rob Moore Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that it is this Parliament's responsibility, under our Constitution, to establish judicial salaries and benefits. It is ultimately up to Parliament to consider and improve any proposed amendments. The committee has considered Bill C-17 and it will be up to Parliament to approve it.

Justice
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Gauthier Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the government realizes that one of its primary constitutional responsibilities is to look after people who are destitute.

Indeed, it is the government's responsibility to look after 60-year-old workers who have worked in the same factory for 40 years, only to be let go due to a mass layoff.

However, these workers have been abandoned by the government, which refuses to assume its responsibilities.

Justice
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Fundy Royal
New Brunswick

Conservative

Rob Moore Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, we heard from the Minister of Finance about the important steps that are being taken to address seniors, pensioners and older workers. It is ultimately Parliament's responsibility, on the issue of judicial compensation, to approve this judicial compensation.

Foreign Affairs
Oral Questions

November 1st, 2006 / 2:40 p.m.

Bloc

Meili Faille Vaudreuil-Soulanges, QC

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. government is against having employees with certain dual citizenships working on military contracts awarded to the Montreal company CAE. This discriminatory policy goes against the charters of rights of Quebec and Canada.

Does the government intend to formally protest this violation of the Charter of Rights to the U.S. authorities or will it tolerate it by keeping quiet?

Foreign Affairs
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Central Nova
Nova Scotia

Conservative

Peter MacKay Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her question.

We have in fact raised this issue already with the highest levels of the American government.

My colleagues, the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Industry, and I have already engaged in an effort to deal specifically with the unfairness mentioned by the hon. member.

We have established a working group in the Department of Foreign Affairs, complete with American officials, to find a suitable solution to this issue.

Foreign Affairs
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Bloc

Meili Faille Vaudreuil-Soulanges, QC

Mr. Speaker, both charters specifically prohibit discrimination based on nationality and on racial profiling, which the U.S. government requires under the guise of security. We expect the federal government to oppose this measure by Washington.

Does the government intend to do so?

Foreign Affairs
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Central Nova
Nova Scotia

Conservative

Peter MacKay Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency

Mr. Speaker, I have already outlined what we are doing about this. We raised it immediately after consulting with industry. We have had a number of occasions to speak directly to the American ambassador. Mr. Negroponte was here about two weeks ago and we raised it with him.

I spoke directly to Secretary of State Rice about this. We put together a working group specifically aimed at finding a solution. We will continue to do so. I would appreciate the cooperation of the House and the members opposite.

Aboriginal Affairs
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Liberal

Anita Neville Winnipeg South Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, by slamming the door on his counterpart from Ontario, the Minister of Indian Affairs has shown how indifferent he is to resolving the crisis at Caledonia. His actions are not befitting those of a minister of the Crown. In fact, they are reminiscent of a petulant child.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Will he remove this file from the minister's responsibility and instead assign it to a minister who understands the importance of immediately resolving the situation at Caledonia?

Aboriginal Affairs
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Calgary Centre-North
Alberta

Conservative

Jim Prentice Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians

Mr. Speaker, I cancelled the meeting because I felt that the political grandstanding of the Premier of Ontario was irresponsible. I see today that the officials are comparing their conduct to “full contact sport”, so I rest my case.

I intend to take this matter seriously, and to discharge my abilities and my responsibilities with the seriousness that they deserve. I know the difference between a hockey game and public governance. If the premier and his colleagues in Ontario have forgotten that difference, it is between them and their voters.

Aboriginal Affairs
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Liberal

Anita Neville Winnipeg South Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, it is not game time. A provincial minister travels to Ottawa to meet with his federal counterpart. He takes time from his busy schedule and spends taxpayer money to travel. When arriving at the minister's office, he is greeted with stomping feet, slamming doors, and the cancellation of a pre-arranged meeting. Was this a Conservative caucus meeting? No, that is how the Minister of Indian Affairs treats a colleague.

When will the minister show true leadership, accept the federal government's responsibility, and personally meet with the many stakeholders?