Debates of Jan. 27th, 2003

Immigration

[Diane Ablonczy, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister says it is important, but the Senate committee on national security is sounding the alarm about asylum seekers who go missing in Canada. It says thousands of undocumented refugee claimants never show up for hearings. The government has no idea where these people are or even who they are. The Senate committee points out that some could well be a threat to our national security.

Will the minister tell us what specific policies he is going to put into place to address this shocking incompetence of the Liberal government?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the government will not make any systematic detention. Our policy is not based on building walls but on controlling the doors and that is exactly what we are doing.

I just mentioned that we are making some removals. We are doing our job. I want to pay tribute to our agents who are doing a tremendous job. It is about time that we are taking a stand for Canada here.

Public Service

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues--

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

--must have picked up mind reading. They used to applaud after I had asked my question.

My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. At the beginning of the year, the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt sent to thousands of public servants a bogus survey that targets the Official Languages Act and linguistic duality, which is a fundamental value of our country.

I would like to know what the government intends to do to set the record straight.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to imagine that a member of Parliament would conduct a survey within the public service and state from the outset that the act discriminates against anglophones.

Also, that bilingual hiring ignores merit. These two statements are completely wrong.

It is insulting to the members of this House who comply with and support the Official Languages Act. It is insulting to the public servants who believe in the principle of providing Canadians with services in both official languages. It is insulting to all Canadians who support the fundamental value of our linguistic duality.

Political Party Financing

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister.

I have a long list here. I first thought it was the “Who's Who” of corporate Canada but a second look at this long list shows it is a list of big business donations for the leadership campaign of his friend the former minister of finance.

Could the Prime Minister assure us that his new rules for the financing of political parties will put a stop to the role of big money in politics in this country?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member on his try for the leadership of his party. It is good to have parliamentarians who are willing to offer their services. Of course he probably did not have a great problem with big businesses contributing to his campaign.

We will have a piece of legislation before Parliament on Wednesday. There will be a vote at second reading and the bill will go to committee.

The time has come to have a new regime for the Canadian public. I have observed the trend in the United States and I do not want the same thing to happen to the Canadian system.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplemental question for the Minister of Finance.

To guarantee that the new legislation on political party financing is effective, can the Minister of Finance confirm right now that there will be money allocated in his next budget to publicly finance political parties? Can he confirm this right now?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, naturally I will table a budget shortly, but even with such a warm invitation as that, I am not going to reveal what is in it.

Kyoto Protocol

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, last week the heritage minister blamed corporate donations for hampering the government's handling of the Kyoto file. She stated, “There is an obvious link between corporate donations and government policy”.

In the interests of transparency, will the Minister of the Environment tell the House which companies interfered and how?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I have absolutely no knowledge of any company that has interfered in the manner suggested by the hon. member.

We had a lengthy period of discussion in Canada which involved a large number of round tables with the participation of companies and others. We then had an announcement by the Prime Minister in June, 18 months ago, that a decision would be made in 2002. The decision was made in 2002. It appears that the schedule was followed as expected.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

While the Minister of the Environment insists he is clean, the Minister of Canadian Heritage let Canadians in on a dirty little secret that corporate influence exists in government policies that go beyond Kyoto. The Prime Minister must agree, if he has taken an initiative with such gusto as tabling new legislation.

Will the Prime Minister tell the House what other legislation has been altered or manipulated, or is the heritage minister just making it up?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I never said that we were influenced by that, but that is the perception. The member for Red Deer said for example that he was opposed to Kyoto because it was to help to raise money. This is on record. No Liberal member ever said that.

As a country we have an opportunity to give to Canadian institutions, which will make our society much more different. It will make sure people will keep their trust in the elected members of Parliament. Unfortunately people have lost some faith because of the appearance and not necessarily the reality. I want to eliminate that appearance as quickly as possible.

Airline Security

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday a single mother facing deportation escaped custody at Vancouver airport. Friends opposed to her deportation swarmed immigration officers and she managed to get into a car and escape.

In the post-September 11 environment, the government promised to improve airport security but it has largely only improved its bottom line by raising taxes.

Just what kind of airport security is it that allows an unarmed handcuffed deportee to outfox security officials?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, we do not comment on specific cases of deportation or immigration. However, the situation has been resolved, and well resolved.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Vancouver airport incident comes on the heels of a Senate report entitled, “The Myth of Security at Canada's Airports”. According to the report, there are still no procedures outlining how air crew are to interact with air marshals; there are many airports where no bags are being screened at all; passengers are being screened differently from one airport to another; and there is virtually no screening of cargo on commercial flights.

How can the government claim to be looking out for Canada's national security interests when this is its shoddy record on air security?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that Canada has one of the most secure aviation regimes in the world. It has been enhanced with all the improvements that have come in since September 11, 2001. I believe that Canadians understand that we do have a secure regime.

With regard to the Senate report, we have had a chance to look it over. It makes some useful recommendations. Much of that report is based on anecdotal evidence and many of the recommendations are out of date. I would have thought better of members of the Senate and the opposition that it came forward with alarmist, irresponsible recommendations.

Budget Surplus

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last year the Minister of Finance forecast a $1 billion surplus for the 2002-03 fiscal year. However, in the first eight months of this year, the surplus has already grown to $8.2 billion.

Do these figures not demonstrate very clearly that the federal government has more than enough flexibility to provide proper funding for health care?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, we are certainly very happy that the numbers are positive, that we have a surplus up to this point, and 2002 saw the creation of some 560,000 jobs in Canada.

When there is this kind of an increase in employment, it brings with it some increase in tax revenues. I hope that when the next budget is brought down, we will be able to predict that there may be a bit more money in the coffers than what was forecast in October.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with a surplus that is more than eight times greater than anticipated, does the Minister of Finance realize that he is preventing us from making the right decisions and spending the money in the right places, such as health care?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, in October, we made fairly clear forecasts, which, we explained, were based on information from the private sector.

Therefore, when it comes to decisions that we made regarding the budget, the member will have the opportunity to judge whether or not we did a good job.

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, just to follow up on that, private sector forecasts have calculated the surplus to be as high as $8 billion. The Deputy Prime Minister and the finance minister are confirming those figures.

Given this new reality, can the Minister of Finance tell us how much of this surplus he intends to use to reduce taxes for hard-pressed middle income Canadian families?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is referring to the Conference Board forecast. I would point out to him that it was done on a full accrual basis and not on the modified accrual basis that our October statement was done on. If we make those adjustments, we will find that its estimate was not that far off the estimate in October. It does not create a huge additional amount.

The member knows we have set aside funds for contingencies and a contingency reserve as well as prudent forecasts. He knows that the $100 billion tax reduction is still being implemented.

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it may be still being implemented but there are hard-pressed Canadian families. Polls show that 73% of Canadian families feel that they are overtaxed.

The minister will know that single income families pay far more taxes than their dual income counterparts. What will he do in his upcoming budget to address and correct this unfairness?