Tom Lukiwski

[April 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend speaks of aboriginal poverty, but I am proud to point out that since assuming office, Canada's new government has made significant progress in a number of areas that address the root causes of poverty, issues concerning housing, employment and skills development, and family supports. Budget 2007 is supporting this progress with real resources.

Unlike the Liberals who left Canada's aboriginal people with nothing but empty promises, we are moving forward with real action to improve the lives of all aboriginal Canadians.

For instance, in keeping with a commitment in budget 2007, on April 20 Canada's new government announced a $300 million fund dedicated to the development of a housing market in first nation communities, including innovative approaches to support the development of individual home ownership on reserve. This represents an estimated 25,000 homes over the next 10 years.

What is more, budget 2007 commits $105 million over five years to the aboriginal skills and employment partnership. As a result of this investment, an additional 9,000 aboriginal individuals will receive skills training and an additional 6,500 will secure sustainable skilled jobs.

Furthermore, in order to identify an effective legislative solution to the difficult issue of on reserve matrimonial real property, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, the Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada conducted consultations across the country in the fall of 2006. These are now complete and Ms. Wendy Grant-John, the ministerial representative for this initiative, has produced a report that was tabled in the House on April 20. We welcomed Ms. Grant-John's recommendations and are looking forward to introducing legislation this spring.

Jobs, housing and stable, healthy communities are the elements that will ensure the eradication of poverty for aboriginal people and provide them with the tools they need to build prosperous communities for the present and a brighter more promising future for their children. Working with our aboriginal, provincial and territorial partners, and backed by the resources of budget 2007, we have and we will work to build on the progress we have made in these areas.

Our commitment is firm. We have and we will make headway on addressing the issues that plague far too many aboriginal people and communities. Our approach is moving us steadily forward, and we will continue this progress.

[Criminal Code, April 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, with all due respect to my learned colleague from Edmonton—Sherwood Park, I believe if we follow correct House procedures, we do not need unanimous consent to see the clock as 6:30 p.m., we immediately go to adjournment.

[Criminal Code, April 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If I have been following what has just transpired in the last few moments correctly, according to procedure we have to go immediately to adjournment.

[Business of Supply, April 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I think if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock as 5:30 p.m.

[Business of Supply, April 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I must say at the outset that I am somewhat troubled and always confused by the NDP position when it comes to dealing with issues like this. I am not quite sure what the NDP position is with respect to terrorist organizations.

Last summer I was in Quebec City at the NDP convention. I was there on behalf of my party as a media observer and commentator. I recall vividly listening to debate at that time about the Middle East conflict between Hezbollah and the Israelis.

I remember very vividly the hon. member for Winnipeg North getting up to the microphone and reminding the delegates at that convention that Hezbollah in fact is a terrorist organization. The response was that she was booed away from the microphone. It was not an isolated boo or a catcall. It was a chorus of boos.

It made me wonder what the NDP actually thinks. Does the NDP not recognize that terrorist organizations in this world are a real threat to the security of all Canadians?

The question I had for the member from Halifax later on a panel show was, “Do you not agree that if Canadian troops and in fact all troops were removed from Afghanistan the Taliban would regain control, and what would that mean to the women and children of that country?”

I never got a complete answer and--

[Agriculture, April 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, throughout the prairies, producers have asked that the government act in order to provide more choices and bankable investment options for the production of biofuels. Canada's new government has listened to farmers and, more important, we have acted on their behalf.

Our government has extended our commitment to farmers by announcing the eco-agriculture biofuels capital initiative this past Monday. This $200 million initiative will assist agriculture producers to construct and expand biofuel production facilities. Under this new initiative, production of renewable fuels could increase by 1.5 billion litres.

This announcement builds on our $1.5 billion commitment to provide operating incentives to producers of renewable fuels. Producers wanted it and we delivered it.

After 13 years of Liberal neglect and ineffective programs, our government is delivering to farmers real opportunity. We have taken enormous steps to ensure these programs are delivered in the best interests of our hard-working farmers. That is getting the job done.

[Privilege, April 26th, 2007]

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me in response to my hon. colleague. I would make a couple of points.

Number one, we will be making a response to the hon. member's contention of breach of privilege, but I would suggest it is unfortunate that the hon. member did not give adequate notice so we could have had the appropriate ministers on hand to respond today.

However, I also want to point out to the House and to anyone who may be watching that in response to the hon. member's allegations that the Prime Minister answered 10 questions, the Minister of Foreign Affairs answered 11 questions, and the Minister of National Defence answered only two out of the 23 questions posed by the official opposition, the report in question was a report issued to the Department of Foreign Affairs. So it is only appropriate that the minister responsible for foreign affairs take the majority of the questions.

The member is trying to imply by his line of questioning that the Minister of National Defence should have been the one standing up and fielding these questions when in fact the very report he is alluding to was a report given to the Department of Foreign Affairs.

I would suggest that what we have here, quite frankly, is the hon. member playing petty politics with an issue far too important to the lives of our Canadian troops and to the lives of Canadians in general to play this type of partisan politics game in this House.

We will be responding in due course, but I would suggest to the member opposite that the next time he tries to promote his own partisan politics on an issue of such importance, he do so in a manner that is a little more respectful.

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Motions for Papers, April 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.