House of Commons Hansard #7 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was need.
Auditor General of CanadaRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
I have the honour to lay upon the table the supplementary report of the Auditor General of Canada for 2002.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e), this document is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions.
Charles Caccia Liberal Davenport, ON
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-220, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (genetically modified food).
Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to explain that this bill is aimed at making it possible for Canadians to know when they buy genetically modified food. At the present time the labelling of genetically modified food is left to the vagaries of the market, and it is not mandatory.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Art Hanger Canadian Alliance Calgary Northeast, AB
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-221, an act to amend the Criminal Code (no parole when imprisoned for life).
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased once again to reintroduce my private member's bill which would amend certain provisions of the Criminal Code relating to life imprisonment. It would ensure that when a life sentence is handed down it means imprisonment without any access to parole for the remainder of the natural life of the offender.
My bill sends a clear message to criminals that if they take a life then they will never again walk the streets of this country as a free person. For the families of victims, knowing that the offender will be locked away for life, this will help to bring an element of closure to a sad chapter in their lives.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Art Hanger Canadian Alliance Calgary Northeast, AB
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-222, an act to amend the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased again to have the opportunity to reintroduce this bill. The intent of this bill is to ensure that a person serving time in a prison will not be able to sue the federal government or its employees under any federal legislation in respect of a claim arising while that person is under sentence. If enacted, this bill will put an end to prisoners' frivolous law suits against the federal government and their abuse of the legal system.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Ghislain Fournier Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the unanimous consent of the House to again introduce my bill to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act (scabs and essential services).
Crown Liability and Proceedings ActRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
Do we have unanimous consent for the hon. member to introduce his bill today?
Janko Peric Liberal Cambridge, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to present to the House a petition signed by some 40 constituents of my riding of Cambridge.
The petitioners draw to the attention of Parliament that it is unethical to use human embryos for stem cell research. Since adult stem cell research holds great potential and does not pose serious ethical questions, the petitioners pray and request that Parliament take steps to ban human embryo research.
The petitioners urge that federal tax dollars only be used for ethical research not involving the destruction of human lives.
James Lunney Canadian Alliance Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition of multiple pages from the Port Alberni area. It has to do with the softwood lumber dispute. The petitioners call on the government to move quickly to see this dispute resolved. Since the time of this petition coming in, we have had another five mills close in the Port Alberni area.
The petitioners also call on the government to ban all exports of logs to the U.S. while this dispute continues.
James Lunney Canadian Alliance Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
Mr. Speaker, my second petition is on the subject of child pornography. Petitioners from the area of Nanaimo in my riding call upon the House to take note that the creation and use of child pornography is condemned by a clear majority of all Canadians and that the courts have not applied the current child pornography law in a way which makes it clear that such exploitation of children will always be met with swift punishment.
Therefore, they call upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials that promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.
Howard Hilstrom Canadian Alliance Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Mr. Speaker, my petitions are from my riding and they deal with child pornography. The creation and use of child pornography is not condoned by the majority of Canadians. The constituents in my area feel that the courts are not taking a sufficiently tough view on this. They are petitioning Parliament to take action and protect our children from child pornography.
Ghislain Lebel Independent Chambly, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak for the 33 signatories of a petition calling for a public inquiry into all of this government's actions during the last parliamentary session concerning Groupaction and the contracts to Groupe Everest, and so on, when taxpayers' money was handed over to the friends of the government.
This morning's petition is the first, but there will be a long series to follow. Later, perhaps tomorrow morning, I will be tabling a petition signed by 550 people. I will present petitions calling for a public inquiry every time that I am present in this House.
Howard Hilstrom Canadian Alliance Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition in regard to debilitating diseases, such as spinal cord injury and muscular dystrophy.
The petitioners ask that Parliament work on the issue of stem cell research and ensure that the maximum amount of research can be done so that these people suffering from these serious diseases and injuries can be helped.
Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Request for Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
The Chair has notice of a request for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Windsor West.
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am here to request an emergency debate on softwood lumber. It is very important that the House of Commons have the opportunity to debate the issue as there will be an announcement today. However there are many other issues that have not been vetted in this chamber.
With regard to the softwood lumber industry in general, there has been turmoil for the last year and a half and uncertainty in communities, as well as companies, with regard to the future of this industry and the importance it plays with regard to our economy.
Since 1996, the government has had the opportunity to take a plan of action to the people but it has not done so. In fact we know that the court case will be extending to 2004. There has been an exodus of companies from Canada, as well as citizens who have been laid off from their jobs. This morning we heard from another hon. member that five more mills closed.
There will be a media release today and we understand an aid package will be announced. We feel it is very important for this industry to have the opportunity to debate the issue in the House of Commons because it is of national concern.
Softwood lumber has contributed to the growth of a nation and the House of Commons deserves the opportunity to discuss the future of it. More important, the government's record and what it will do for the families and communities, as we have seen tremendous loss in this industry, is of such importance to Canada.
Request for Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
The Chair has carefully considered the request the hon. member has made. I note that in the past two debates have been granted on this subject. I am of the view that the hon. member's application does not meet the exigencies of the Standing Order at this time. Accordingly, I am not disposed to allow the application at this moment.
The House resumed from October 3 consideration of the motion for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her speech at the opening of the session, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.
Brent St. Denis Liberal Algoma—Manitoulin, ON
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Waterloo—Wellington.
It is a pleasure for me to participate in the debate. If there was any message that I wanted to convey in response to the throne speech that we heard from the Prime Minister through the Governor General last week it is that the throne speech is solid, balanced and responsible.
Let me outline why I believe that those three very positive words explain the great value and substance of our latest throne speech, a throne speech that shall be the foundation for the months and years between now and the next election. I know I will be proud to contest the next election based on the record of the government, not only since the year 2000 but in fact from the year 1993.
Why is it a solid throne speech? Why is the opposition somewhat blind in failing to recognize the value and vision contained in that speech? The fundamental premise of the speech is on health, the physical health of people. We look forward to the report by the hon. Roy Romanow next month. He will be reporting on behalf of the national Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada which he has undertaken at the behest of the Prime Minister. It will be the most thorough, modern, up to date and current report on the state of public health care in Canada and will certainly provide a strong signal to the government on what should be done, not only federally but provincially and territorially, to make sure that our citizens get the health care they deserve.
When I use the word solid to describe the throne speech that also refers to the health of our communities, be they rural communities or major cities and all sizes of communities in between. I represent a rural riding in northern Ontario, the riding of Algoma—Manitoulin, with some 60 communities ranging in size from a few hundred citizens up to 12,000 or 13,000. That would be the largest community in my riding. We do not see our large cities in Canada as the enemy. They in fact are our partners. It is not a matter of the cities versus rural Canada. It is a matter of the cities and rural Canada working together to make the country strong.
The throne speech recognizes the value of all communities, large and small, to the economic strength of our nation. The announcement of a 10 year program for infrastructure investment is an example of the government's recognition that our future lies, on one hand, in our citizens, but, just as important, in the communities wherein those citizens live.
The throne speech is solid also because it talks about health of the environment. Several bills will be reintroduced, such as species at risk and others, that will deal with the environment. However I would like to point out that the government's commitment to the Kyoto accord is a real commitment. I look forward to the debate in the House of Commons on the Kyoto accord. I look forward to a vote in this place hopefully before the end of the year where the House of Commons will endorse the government's plan and intention to ratify the Kyoto greenhouse gas accord.
Our citizens expect nothing less than that we do the right thing, not only for ourselves and the planet in this day but for our children and grandchildren who will inherit this planet from us.
We cannot pick up and leave. We obviously have to live here. It behooves us to manage this beautiful planet for the benefit of all, not just our own wealthy nation but for poor nations as well.
This solid throne speech talks about the health of the economy. Some of the national media and certainly the opposition, before the throne speech was read, were suggesting that the Prime Minister, for his legacy, would undertake some huge, wild and careless spending. The proof is that is not the case. Just as he has managed the government properly, appropriately, and fiscally in a sound fashion since 1993, that continues. This is not the throne speech of a big spender. This is the throne speech of somebody who says “I have been here for 41 years and I plan to leave this place and the country the message that responsible management of the federal government finances is really what makes it easier for future governments to continue to deliver quality services and appropriate services to the public”.
During the fall 2000 election, I as a candidate, my party seeking re-election and the Prime Minister promised to continue with a balanced approach to our economy. It was balanced on the one side, in terms of debt and deficit, that we must in each year seek a balanced and surplus budget to pay down the nation's debt. It was a debt that was far too huge when we were elected and is still far too large for our country's good fiscal health but certainly a debt that is in decline relative to our GDP.
I recall that our federal debt was something in excess of 70% of GDP when we were first elected in 1993. The members do not have to believe my comments. The comments and reports of other nations in the OECD indicate that the ratio of our debt to GDP has now plummeted to below 50% and is dropping. This is a good thing for our economy. It will ensure that we are not competing with the private sector for loan dollars.
We have had five balanced budgets in a row. I believe and I am very confident that we will have another one ahead of us. With the continued support of the public, who have shared in the exercise of making sure the deficit has been slain, who understand and trust our approach regarding the finances of the country, we hope to have another opportunity in a couple of years to continue that solid approach.
When I said that the throne speech in total was solid, it was with regard to the health of our future, most particularly the future of our children. It will ensure that they have hope for jobs when they are ready for jobs, that they have hope for a good education, either college or university, that they have hope that the environment is a healthy one for them, and that they can raise their children in a place that we all can be proud of.
The throne speech also talks about the health of the planet, not just environmentally but also politically. We are facing some very challenging times right now, as we all know. I really believe the Prime Minister has led us wisely when he counselled his fellow world leaders, particularly the U.S. president when he told him to walk carefully through this difficult time and to use the resources and leadership of the United Nations as a means to find the path through this difficult time. Although the UN, I agree, is not a perfect place, at the very least a community of nations is better equipped to find a way through this difficult time than any single nation, or two or three nations.
I will conclude by saying that the throne speech is a solid, balanced and responsible approach to governing the country.
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, when my colleague from Algoma—Manitoulin talked about a solid throne speech, does he not believe that it has to be solid after 10 years of being the same throne speech? Does he not agree with me that by paying down the debt and balancing the budget the government has put it on the backs of our children, many of whom are coming out of university facing a debt of $50,000 which was created by the Liberal government? How can the Liberals be proud of a throne speech that does not even look after the youth of our country? How can he be proud of that?
I would like him to answer the question honestly. I am not saying that he is not honest but how can he be proud of a throne speech that is putting the debt of our country on the future of our country?
Brent St. Denis Liberal Algoma—Manitoulin, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from Acadie—Bathurst for his question. It is not a surprising question coming from the NDP that has an allergy toward balancing books and toward I think balanced spending.
He suggested that the government was repeating itself. He should know that good things bear repeating. A good thing is to approach the country, not as a business, as my Alliance friends across the way might suggest, but as a cooperative effort to build our nation and to provide a good place for our children and our grandchildren.
A balanced approach means investing in our communities through programs like ACOA in Atlantic Canada, FEDNOR in northern Ontario and western diversification in western Canada to make sure our communities have access to those financial resources to build on their ideas and to invest in our social programs. We have seen a major investment going into the last election. In September 2000, the government in cooperation with the provinces invested $23 billion in skills and innovation.
Our young people, quite contrary to the member's point of view, have tremendous access to education. Yes, there are some requirements that families and students contribute toward that, and any amount of debt is unfortunate, but I graduated from university with a debt and I was happy to pay it off.
Every family should have the opportunity to make sure their children have access to education. We do not manage education, the provinces do, but we are doing our part in cooperation with the provinces and others to make sure our kids have the best chance to continue to be the leaders in science and technology, medicine and social services, and leaders in the world in many other ways.
I hope I can speak to the member behind the curtain some day and help him understand that we are doing a great job.