House of Commons Hansard #59 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was seniors.

Topics

Health
Oral Questions

2:55 p.m.

NDP

Judy Wasylycia-Leis Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, last week's budget contains absolutely no money to deal with the critical shortage of health care workers that is actually leading to longer wait times.

There are plenty of corporate tax cuts leading up to 2011, but nothing to get us to the 78,000 nurses needed by that year, nothing to replace the 4,000 doctors leaving over the next two years, and nothing to deal with the urgent need for lab techs and other health care workers.

The Conservatives promised to reduce wait times, so why have they broken their promise? Why have they brought in a budget that is so poorly planned, has such poor planning that it lengthens wait times?

Health
Oral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Parry Sound—Muskoka
Ontario

Conservative

Tony Clement Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario

Mr. Speaker, in fact, the hon. member is incorrect. There was an increase of 6% on health care transfers found in the budget as part of the health accord that goes to the provinces and territories to assist them in hiring and replacing health human resource professionals, as well as our hospitals and so forth.

We are there with our colleagues in the provinces and territories to assist in the delivery of health care. We are living up to our promises.

Health
Oral Questions

2:55 p.m.

NDP

Judy Wasylycia-Leis Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, rhetoric without a plan does not reduce wait times or give comfort to Canadians who want to access quality health care.

The Canadian Medical Association is on the Hill today showcasing that 5,200 more family physicians are needed because five million Canadians do not have a family doctor.

Does he not realize that Canadians do not trust the Conservatives' wait time promise because there are no doctors to implement it? Can the minister tell ordinary Canadians what they can actually do to get a family doctor? Five million Canadians are waiting for his answer.

Health
Oral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Parry Sound—Muskoka
Ontario

Conservative

Tony Clement Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario

Mr. Speaker, in fact, there is a fund that is part of the health accord, $175 million in total, where we are working with the provinces and territories on that very issue.

Perhaps the hon. member and her caucus could explain why they are voting against a budget that will in fact help the mentally ill, help the homeless, help our cities, help the middle class, lower income and all Canadians. Why are they voting against the budget?

Mont Tremblant Airport
Oral Questions

3 p.m.

Liberal

Pablo Rodriguez Honoré-Mercier, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Mont Tremblant International Airport, the third largest airport in Quebec, is a very important economic development tool for the Upper Laurentians. However, daily customs charges that were $374 in 2006 are now $1,100. The airport cannot sustain that financial burden. Not to mention that it is the only airport in Canada forced to pay the customs charges for its transborder passengers.

Why is the minister doing nothing to address this situation? Why does he want to punish this region already hard hit by the forestry crisis?

Mont Tremblant Airport
Oral Questions

3 p.m.

Okanagan—Coquihalla
B.C.

Conservative

Stockwell Day Minister of Public Safety

Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of improvements and investments in that particular region that will not only assist trade but actually increase and enhance the whole area of security.

We believe that every province has a right to full access and full opportunity. That is why the policies we are delivering under this program are working and they are going to continue to work.

Cruise Ship Industry
Oral Questions

March 4th, 2008 / 3 p.m.

Conservative

Denis Lebel Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, the development of the Quebec market as a stop for international cruises could turn into an interesting prospect for several of Quebec's coastal regions.

Given the current situation in the international cruise ship industry, it is likely that the industry will grow significantly in Quebec, and that means that we should develop new stops along the St. Lawrence.

Can the Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec tell us what he plans to do to encourage the development of the cruise ship industry in Quebec?

Cruise Ship Industry
Oral Questions

3 p.m.

Jonquière—Alma
Québec

Conservative

Jean-Pierre Blackburn Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec

Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that if the Bloc Québécois were asked to answer the question, the answer would be “nothing” because they are becalmed by their own powerlessness.

For our part, we want to support the implementation of infrastructure in several municipalities along the St. Lawrence so that they can accommodate cruise ships.

That is why the Economic Development Agency and Transport Canada recently allocated $24 million over two years to support setting up that kind of infrastructure.

Presence in Gallery
Oral Questions

3 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members on the occasion of International Women's Week, the presence in the gallery of a group of women parliamentarians from the National Assembly of Afghanistan: Ms. Safia Sediqi, Ms. Safura Elkhani, Ms. Fawzia Koofi, Ms. Nasima Neyazi, Ms. Fariba Kakar, and Ms. Sabrina Saqib.

Presence in Gallery
Oral Questions

3 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear!

Oral Questions
Points of Order
Oral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Denis Coderre Bourassa, QC

Mr. Speaker, I can understand that, during verbal jousting, certain words might be said by both sides and I have no problem with that.

However, in his carelessness and incompetence, a minister said that the hon. member for Bourassa should stop yapping. As far as I know, as a member myself, it is unacceptable to treat one another in this manner.

I would therefore ask that you check the blues and take the appropriate action.

Oral Questions
Points of Order
Oral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

I know the minister said something concerning the hon. member for Bourassa, but I did not hear what was said, because of the noise. However, I will look at this in Hansard. If there is a problem, I will get back to the House.

The hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is also rising on a point of order.

Oral Questions
Points of Order
Oral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

Peter Van Loan York—Simcoe, ON

Mr. Speaker, I know the Speaker will be interested since it is of course the Speaker's job to ensure order in the House and I do not believe the Speaker had recognized the member for Bourassa at that time, so it was appropriate that he not be speaking at the time.

Bill C-46--Canadian Wheat Board Act
Points of Order
Oral Questions

3:05 p.m.

York—Simcoe
Ontario

Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the point of order raised yesterday by the member for Malpeque on Bill C-46. I gave a brief response yesterday, and wish to add to that at this point in time.

In the point of order that was raised, the member stated that section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act stood in the way of the government's introducing Bill C-46.

I thought you should know, Mr. Speaker, and I know it is not for you to decide questions of law, but you should be aware in considering this matter that a review of Bill C-46 demonstrates that it does not itself change the Canadian Wheat Board's marketing mandate. The bill would only clarify the authority of the Governor General to amend or repeal a regulation made under subsection 47(1). Therefore, the bill is not the kind of situation contemplated by section 47.1. As such, there is no validity in the point raised. Whether or not you wish to delve into that area of questions of law, I leave that for you to determine.

However, Mr. Speaker, I would also add that even if you did find that it was a valid issue, we did indicate that there had been clear consultations. I can advise you further that the then minister of agriculture had met at the time with members of the Canadian Wheat Board on a number of occasions, and he did discuss the government's intentions with regard to the production and marketing of barley. Of course there was a broadly taken referendum that was the subject of many questions in this House, so I know that you, Mr. Speaker, will be well aware of that. The result of that consultation was announced in this House. That result demonstrated clearly not only that a consultation occurred, but that the barley farmers did indeed want that freedom of choice in marketing, which is of course the objective of Bill C-46.

Bill C-46--Canadian Wheat Board Act
Points of Order
Oral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Malpeque, PE

Mr. Speaker, I will admit that we are almost in the area of debate here, but a lot of what the member opposite just said relative to this point of order is in fact out of line and not specific on what section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act states.

As I said in this House yesterday, the act is very specific. There must be consultations. The Canadian Wheat Board itself said that as of last Saturday there were no consultations. The act is also specific that there must be a plebiscite held, the question to be determined by the minister.

As the member opposite stated, and he did have it right, there were clear consultations last year, but the former minister of agriculture said that the consultations would not be binding. That is what the former minister of agriculture said: it would not be binding. The act requires that there be a clear plebiscite on the specific legislative point that is being brought forward. The government is clearly in error here, relative to section 47.1, and is in fact doing an illegal act by bringing this legislation forward because the conditions of section 47.1 of the act itself have not been met.