House of Commons Hansard #79 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was tax.

Topics

Census
Oral Questions

3 p.m.

Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont
Alberta

Conservative

Mike Lake Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, we have answered this question several times. The fact is the government has not scrapped anything. We have moved to a national household survey. We have decided to treat Canadians as adults.

We think the information is important. We think, when properly educated, Canadians will give that information to the government. We just think it is inappropriate for the government to threaten Canadians with fines because they do not want to tell the government how much yard work they do or what their religion is.

Public Safety
Oral Questions

3 p.m.

Conservative

Gord Brown Leeds—Grenville, ON

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberal public safety critic again showed his true colours and got soft on crime. The member for Ajax—Pickering claimed our investments to keep criminals behind bars would not make us any safer. Instead he championed the failed prison farm program. A program that lost millions of dollars a year with a 1% success rate is something any Liberal can be proud of.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minster of Public Safety please remind the Liberal public safety critic what it actually takes to keep our communities safe?

Public Safety
Oral Questions

3 p.m.

Oxford
Ontario

Conservative

Dave MacKenzie Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his hard work on this file. Unlike the Liberal public safety critic, our Conservative government believes investments that keep dangerous criminals behind bars make Canada a safer place to live and raise a family.

We do not agree with the member for Ajax—Pickering who considers a program with a 1% success rate to be the most successful in the country. We think law-abiding Canadians deserve better than 1% and they deserve to feel safe. I wish the Liberal Party did as well.

Infrastructure
Oral Questions

3 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Markham—Unionville, ON

Mr. Speaker, instead of funding for much needed road projects, the town of Brantford was handed fancy photo ops and platitudes by the member for Brant.

In terms of the minister's comments, he might be interested to know that very soon a Brantford councillor will be appearing before the transport committee and he will tell the whole sad tale of misplaced federal government priorities and waste. I encourage the minister to at least read the transcripts of that testimony, which will respond in great detail to his questions.

Infrastructure
Oral Questions

3 p.m.

Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon
B.C.

Conservative

Chuck Strahl Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, we look forward to the late show as I am sure the member will be a star.

This is the situation. We work together with the local MPPs from the area. They are both Liberals and they work together with the government. They put forward proposals along with the district. There was a project that did not meet the environmental standards. There were environmental problems that could not be approved in time.

As for the Wayne Gretzky sports complex, the new community centre in Brant county and the rehabilitation of roads, those sorts of projects were the ones given to us that we could approve in time, and they are being built.

Employment Insurance
Oral Questions

3 p.m.

Bloc

Claude Guimond Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Mr. Speaker, the end of the employment insurance pilot projects will be devastating for seasonal workers, especially those in eastern Quebec where forestry, agriculture, fishing and tourism are the basis of the economy. Furthermore, the government has closed the door on the possibility of comprehensive employment insurance reform.

Basically, is the government trying to tell seasonal workers that they should find another job or two to make ends meet, as the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup said?

Employment Insurance
Oral Questions

3 p.m.

Haldimand—Norfolk
Ontario

Conservative

Diane Finley Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we are the ones who helped unemployed workers during the recession by giving five weeks of supplementary EI benefits and creating several other initiatives. As for the pilot projects, we are reviewing them. Any decisions taken will be based on what is best for Canadian workers and for Canadian job creators.

Private Members' Business
Oral Questions

October 7th, 2010 / 3 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

Before I call upon the hon. member for Ottawa South to ask his question, I would like to take a moment to provide some information to the House regarding the management of private members' business.

As members know, after the order of precedence is replenished, the Chair reviews the new items so as to alert the House to bills which at first glance appear to impinge on the financial prerogative of the Crown. This allows members the opportunity to intervene in a timely fashion and present their views about the need for those bills to be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

Accordingly, following the October 1 replenishment of the order of precedence with 15 new items, I wish to inform the House that there are four bills that give the Chair some concern as to the spending provisions they contemplate. They are: Bill C-449, An Act regarding free public transit for seniors, standing in the name of the member for Hull—Aylmer; Bill C-507, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act (federal spending power), standing in the name of the member for Saint-Lambert.

There are also Bill C-530, An Act to amend the Northwest Territories Act (borrowing limits), standing in the name of the hon. member for Western Arctic, and Bill C-572, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Budget Officer), standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

I would encourage hon. members who would like to make arguments regarding the need for a royal recommendation to accompany these bills or any of the other bills now on the order paper to do so at an early opportunity.

I thank honourable members for their attention.

Business of the House
Oral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Ottawa South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, the government House leader, in anticipation of the business this week and the business of the week that is forthcoming after the break week when we are back in our constituency offices. I would like him to address at the same time a few elements in that answer, if he could.

In the spirit of the motion for question period reform and decorum put forward by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and passed last night, I wonder if the House leader can help us understand two elements as we go forward in terms of the business we are pursuing. First, will the minister continue to be answering the preponderance of questions put to the government going forward during question period? Second, will he actually work with other parties in the House to get a number of his caucus colleagues under control with respect to decorum?

Business of the House
Oral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Ottawa West—Nepean
Ontario

Conservative

John Baird Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the questions from my friend, the member for Ottawa South. I do have to admit from time to time that I am called upon to respond to certain questions that are asked by the opposition. There are not as many as there used to be, thanks to the appointment of the new Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, who I think is doing a fine job. The new Minister of Transport has a big challenge to tidy up the department. The only minister who has a bigger challenge to deal with is the new Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

On the issue of decorum, I think there has been some degree of success. I will congratulate the Liberal House Leader . He has perhaps been more successful than I have in reining in the number of interjections during question period, and I undertake to him and to the House to continue to work in that regard. I think there has been a considerable reduction in interjections. Sometimes the members of the government or members of the opposition will bring out those types of interjections, but I will commit to continue to work with him and with our colleagues in the Bloc and the NDP on reducing them. I think we have met with some success. We do have more room to grow, but I will commit to continue to work in that regard. In many respects, that was a big part of the motion the House adopted last night, the motion standing in the name of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, and I see him smiling at me now.

Much work has been accomplished, but much work remains to be done in that regard.

When government orders resumes after my statement, we will call Bill C-36, the consumer product safety bill. We have an agreement to send it to committee after one speaker per party, and I will be moving the appropriate motion in a few minutes.

I should point out that if we cannot come together to try to protect children and keep them safe, we do not have any place here. I am very pleased with the consultations with all parties on that. I think they will be welcomed, particularly by Environmental Defence, which has been championing these issues for some time.

Following Bill C-36, we will resume the debate which began this morning on Bill C-47, sustaining Canada's economic recovery act. Other bills scheduled for today, if necessary, are Bill S-9, tackling auto theft and property crime, and Bill C-39, ending early release for criminals.

Tomorrow, we will continue with the business before us today.

Next week, as the member noted, is a constituency week.

When we return we will continue, if necessary, with Bill C-47. The Canada-Panama free trade agreement is also on the agenda.

Thursday, October 21 shall be an allotted day, as I have told our friends in the Bloc Québécois.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, with respect to Bill C-36, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, a member from each recognized party may speak for not more than 20 minutes on the second reading motion of Bill C-36, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products, following which the said bill shall be deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health.

Business of the House
Oral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

Business of the House
Oral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Business of the House
Oral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Business of the House
Oral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Business of the House
Oral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)