Debates of Nov. 22nd, 2007

Peter Van Loan Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, the law on the books right now means that fast growing provinces like Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta are shortchanged in their representation in the House of Commons.

That member was a member of a Liberal government that twice introduced bills addressing representation in the House of Commons but never once suggested increasing the representation for Ontario. I do not recall her ever saying one word before today on the issue.

The fact is that this government is taking action to increase the representation for Ontario and deliver fairness for Ontario, Alberta and B.C., and move to restore the principle of representation by population, which is not the case under the law today.

Bonnie Brown Oakville, ON

Mr. Speaker, Canadians believe in fairness and that means having real representation by population, but they also believe in respect. The approach that the minister has used in dealing with the Premier of Ontario is a disgrace.

The minister simply cannot explain the fundamental unfairness of his bill so he has resorted to insults.

Is this what the government meant by the end of federal-provincial bickering?

Peter Van Loan Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, the fundamental unfairness is the law that is on the books today.

The fairness is our effort to restore it. The small act of a small-minded person, the small man of Confederation, is to say “when I'm getting more seats for my province, when I'm getting more fairness for my province I'm going to complain and I don't care about the consequences for national unity and the rest of the country”.

They know it is tough and that is why the Liberals never did anything for Ontario, Alberta and B.C. on representation. We are doing it after they never did.

Rodger Cuzner Cape Breton—Canso, NS

Mr. Speaker, the tabling of legislation yesterday affirmed what Nova Scotians knew eight months ago, that the government gutted the Atlantic accord. No matter how much the government denied it, it gutted the accords.

This new political salvation scheme it is on now is, at best, marginally better but it does not deliver what it promises.

Will the minister scrap the side deal and reinstate the accord?

Peter MacKay Minister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to figure out the logic of the hon. member from Cape Breton. He said that it was marginally better but that it was gutted.

The reality is that we have actually improved upon the Atlantic accord. We made it whole. We have added an addition of the crown share valuation. We have given Nova Scotia an option to benefit from the national equalization program, as well as be the beneficiary of the Atlantic accord.

It is whole, it is intact and it is better. The hon. member just does not like good news.

Rodger Cuzner Cape Breton—Canso, NS

Mr. Speaker, I am sure Nova Scotians will understand if I do not run to the bank with the minister's word.

The officials say that the October 10 arrangements are conditional, that Nova Scotians are held permanently into the new equalization formula.

Today, in the Halifax Herald, the minister himself says that the Atlantic accord has flexibility and that Nova Scotia can opt in or opt out, whatever it wants to do.

We want the Atlantic accord reinstated for the benefit of Nova Scotians.

Peter MacKay Minister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency

Mr. Speaker, if I were to send the member to the bank I would check the deposit slip.

The reality is that this Atlantic accord arrangement is better. This Atlantic accord allows Nova Scotia flexibility. It allows Nova Scotia to be a beneficiary of the national equalization formula, which it has opted for to the benefit of Nova Scotians, of over $157 million in the last two years. Plus, under this accord, which runs until 2020, Nova Scotia has the ability to opt in or return to a more beneficial arrangement if the financial qualities are there.

Yvon Lévesque Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Canada Revenue Agency has audited many restaurants in Quebec and sent out notices of assessment based on an average tipping rate of 16% of the bill. That rate was set arbitrarily on the basis of incomplete information.

How can the minister let the agency take such inaccurate shortcuts when setting assessment rates, knowing full well that such methods produce imaginary rates that are completely out of touch with these workers' reality?

Gordon O'Connor Minister of National Revenue

Mr. Speaker, let me assure the House that each tax case is assessed against the particular conditions that apply to it.

However, I cannot talk about a particular tax case in the House because of the Income Tax Act.

Jim Prentice Minister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, but we do not agree with the Bloc. Our role is to create an economic climate that supports business development. We have responded positively to the 22 recommendations from the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

Here is what the vice-president of the Quebec association of manufacturers and exporters said: “The government has heeded our call. Focusing on investment is the right strategy.”

Anita Neville Winnipeg South Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, Brian Mulroney's cronies have high level positions throughout the government, yet we are supposed to believe that there was no cover-up to protect Mr. Mulroney.

We know Mr. Schreiber has sent the Prime Minister many letters since June 2006, yet the government claims that no one above the rank of plumber has noticed.

Will the government produce documentation now to prove its pathetic excuses or will it have to wait until it is forced to do so by a parliamentary committee?

Rob Nicholson Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, there was a sworn allegation in an affidavit and it came to the attention of the government. The Prime Minister took the reasonable step of appointing a distinguished Canadian in the person of Dr. Johnston and Dr. Johnston has a mandate to set the parameters for a public inquiry.

Members will recall that this is exactly what the opposition wanted a couple of weeks ago and I think we should let Dr. Johnston do his work.

Merv Tweed Brandon—Souris, MB

Mr. Speaker, the American secure flight program proposes that airlines flying over U.S. territory provide American authorities with passenger lists. As part of the consultation process, the Government of Canada's deadline to submit its official comments to the U.S. was yesterday.

Can the Minister of Transport tell the House what his response was to the U.S. government?