House of Commons Hansard #106 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was chair.

Topics

Contraventions ActRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Outremont Québec

Liberal

Martin Cauchon LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-38, An Act to amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

Tom Wappel Liberal Scarborough Southwest, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, entitled “Aquatic Invasive Species: Uninvited Guests”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report. However, notwithstanding the deadline of 150 days stipulated in Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the comprehensive response to this report be tabled within 90 days of the presentation of the report to the House.

In brief, the report is a unanimous report of the fisheries and oceans committee which concludes that the government has woefully dragged its feet in protecting Canada and in particular the Great Lakes from the very real threat of invasive species. The committee offers very real and concrete recommendations for the government to act immediately.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Monte Solberg Canadian Alliance Medicine Hat, AB

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition today on behalf of people from around my riding and a few from Saskatchewan calling upon the House of Commons to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Maurice Vellacott Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK

Mr. Speaker, my petition is similar to my colleague's. It draws attention to the fact that fundamental matters of social policy should be decided by elected members of Parliament and not the unelected judiciary.

They therefore call attention to the current legal definition of marriage as the voluntary union of a single male and a single female and that it is the duty of Parliament to protect that, even to the extent of using section 33 of the charter, the notwithstanding clause, if necessary to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. This was signed by several hundred petitioners.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Maurice Vellacott Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK

Mr. Speaker, the next petition is with respect to the issue of stem cell research.

The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that thousands of Canadians suffer from debilitating illnesses, that Canadians do support ethical stem cell research which has shown encouraging potential, and that non-embryonic stem cells which are known as adult stem cells have shown significant research progress.

They call upon Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find the cures and therapies necessary to treat the illnesses and sufferings of Canadians.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

Judi Longfield Liberal Whitby—Ajax, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first calls upon Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being the lifetime union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. It is signed by several hundred residents from the Durham region in my riding.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

Judi Longfield Liberal Whitby—Ajax, ON

Mr. Speaker, the second petition asserts that Bill C-20, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act does not go far enough to protect children in Canada.

It calls upon the government to split Bill C-20 so that child pornography can be voted on separately from anything else in the bill. Again, this is signed by several hundred residents in my area.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from citizens of the general Peterborough area who are still concerned about the war in Iraq.

They point out that the United Nations was founded to prevent the scourge of war, that Canada is a member state of the United Nations, and that preventive strikes against Iraq, such as the one we have just seen, cannot be justified as self-defence under the charter of the United Nations.

Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to denounce any aggression against Iraq and declare Canada's non-participation in any such aggression, and to urge the United Nations to seek peaceful solutions that respect the charter of the United Nations and all other international law, including the sovereign equality of nation states.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition with respect to stem cell research.

The petitioners point out that many Canadians suffer from diseases, such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, cancer, muscular dystrophy, spinal cord injury and ALS, and that Canadians support ethical stem cell research which has already shown an encouraging potential to provide cures and therapies for these illnesses.

They call upon Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find the cures and therapies necessary to treat the illnesses and diseases of suffering Canadians.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Halifax West Nova Scotia

Liberal

Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 177, 197, 204 and 208 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Question No. 177Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

John Reynolds Canadian Alliance West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC

For the past five years: ( a ) what is the total value of loans outstanding, in default and/or written off by the government with a breakdown for each department and crown corporation; ( b ) what is the total value of corporate loans outstanding, in default and/or written off by the government with a breakdown for each department and crown corporation; and ( c ) what is the total amount of individual loans outstanding, in default and/or written off by the government with a breakdown for each department and crown corporation?

(Return tabled).

Question No. 197Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Rick Casson Canadian Alliance Lethbridge, AB

With regard to the announcement on October 8, 2002 of the $246.5 million aid package for the softwood lumber industry: ( a ) what actual amounts have been given out as of February 28, 2003 and to whom or to what groups; ( b ) has Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) kept track of how many employees are taking advantage of the enhanced program; ( c ) how much has it spent on the enhanced program; ( d ) is HRDC monitoring the success of the enhanced program and if so, by what criteria is success being measured; ( e ) has Industry Canada given out any money under the Softwood Industry and Community Adjustment Fund; ( f ) has Industry Canada received any suggestions for workable ideas for community development and if so, has it or will it be publishing these plans or ideas; ( g ) has Natural Resources developed a plan for dealing with the pine beetle-killed wood and for containing or eradicating the beetle; ( h ) has Natural Resources planned how it will create both a centre of excellence for pulp and paper research and a boreal forest research consortium; ( i ) will they be stand-alone institutions or be connected with an existing school or other institution; and ( j ) what will their mandate be and will this information be made public?

(Return tabled).

Question No. 204Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

James Rajotte Canadian Alliance Edmonton Southwest, AB

With regard to border crossings between Canada and the United States since June 1, 2002: ( a ) what submissions have been made to the government of the United States; ( b ) what forms did these submissions take--verbal or written or both; ( c ) what was on the agenda at any face to face meetings or conference calls; ( d ) what were the titles of any written submissions; ( e ) what were the dates of the meetings and/or written submissions; ( f ) what correspondence, if any, was sent directly to the President of the United States or, if not, to which departments and/or agencies of the United States government were the submissions made; ( g ) have there been any submissions specifically dedicated to the possibility of a second checkpoint; ( h ) have there been any submissions specifically dedicated to the proposed 24 hour advance notice for commercial trade; ( i ) has there been any discussion and/or memoranda within Canadian departments concerning the possibility of sending a trade team or special envoy to the United States with respect to border crossing, trade and/or trade corridors; ( j ) have Canadian departments received submissions--verbal or written--from Canadian industries concerning problems with the border, and if so, how many; and ( k ) have Canadian departments received submissions--verbal or written--from Canadian exporters concerning a possible decline in trade and/or exports with the United States?

(Return tabled).

Question No. 208Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Maurice Vellacott Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK

For each year since 1988, what was the total number of abortions performed in Canada, including: ( a ) the number of abortions by weeks of gestation (i.e. first, second and third trimester); ( b ) the number of abortions resulting in complications, by type of complication; ( c ) the number of subsequent hospitalizations; and ( d ) the number of deaths as an indirect or direct consequence of an abortion?

(Returns tabled)

Question No. 208Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

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

Question No. 208Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

Is that agreed?

Question No. 208Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed from May 16 consideration of the motion that Bill C-28, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 18, 2003, be read the third time and passed.

Budget Implementation Act, 2003Government Orders

10:10 a.m.

Halifax West Nova Scotia

Liberal

Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, the budget was tabled in February of this year, several months ago, and it is almost June. There has of course been a great deal of debate on the subject. I think members, certainly on this side, are convinced this is an excellent budget and it has the support of most members in the House.

In any event, I think we have had ample opportunity to debate the bill. Therefore I move:

That the question be now put.

Budget Implementation Act, 2003Government Orders

10:15 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

Debate? Debate? Is the House ready for the question?

Budget Implementation Act, 2003Government Orders

10:15 a.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Budget Implementation Act, 2003Government Orders

10:15 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

There is a bit of confusion here. I think the government was hoping to put the question.

I asked twice if the honourable members wished to debate this motion and no one rose. That is why there was some confusion.

However, we are resuming debate, and I am prepared to recognize the hon. member for Drummond.

Budget Implementation Act, 2003Government Orders

10:15 a.m.

Bloc

Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the floor. I did hear the question but I had been told that an hon. member from the Alliance was going to speak before me. That is why I did not rise.

Ever since it was brought down in February, the budget before us has stirred up its share of commentaries and unflattering remarks. The farther we go in examining this bill, the more irritants we discover.

I shall begin with clause 64 of the Budget Implementation Act, 2003, which represents a serious problem not only for those directly concerned—the school boards—but also for parliamentary democracy.

This is a dangerous precedent; not only introducing a retroactive amendment to an act, but also permitting the government to get around the judgments already handed down against it by the courts.

This kind of manoeuvre, we should point out, was first attempted by the member for LaSalle—Émard, now a Liberal leadership candidate. After the judgments were handed down in 2001, the then Minister of Finance decided to introduce a retroactive amendment to the Excise Tax Act in his budget, which would have enabled him to recapture significant amounts of goods and services taxes from the coffers of the school boards.

The announcement caused such a stink that the former Liberal minister, the hon. Marc Lalonde, wrote to the Minister of Finance on behalf of his clients asking him to reconsider his position. In a letter dated January 15, 2002, he wrote:

On October 17, the Federal Court of Appeal handed down a unanimous decision to the appellant school boards, with the Commission scolaire des Chênes being the test case. The court ruled that school transportation constitutes a commercial activity that is eligible for 100% input tax credits—.

The board in question is the Commission scolaire des Chênes in my riding. For this board alone, the November 2001 ruling in its favour represents $500,000. If the government continues to refuse to grant school bus transportation tax credits, there will be an annual shortfall of $200,000.

Must we appeal to the Prime Minister's better judgment to get him to recognize that his government's position is indefensible, not because his party is not keeping its statutory commitments to the school boards to avoid unnecessary costs, but because the effect of clause 64 is to get around the courts' rulings. It is as if the government had decided to put itself above everything, even above the law. Such an attitude is dangerous, and the impact will, no doubt, be to discredit the judicial system.

As the hon. Marc Lalonde wrote about the school boards, and I will quote him once again:

—it is our clients' impression that the Minister of Finance is basically saying, “Heads, I win, tails, you lose”.

We will continue to speak out against this serious injustice that the government is preparing to inflict on the school boards.

This is an excellent opportunity to tell those now listening that only the Bloc Quebecois members have come to the defence of the interests of Quebec school boards. On the opposite side of the House, not a single Liberal member is prepared to act in the taxpayers' interests. This is proof of how important the Bloc Quebecois's presence in this House is.

We are fulfilling our duty in defending our communities against the repeated assaults of this centralist government. The people of the ridings of Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière and Témiscamingue must be made aware of this.

Let us now look at the employment insurance plan. The problems facing workers affected by the softwood lumber dispute or the fisheries crisis—soon to be joined by the victims of the mad cow crisis—are growing, yet the federal government is ignoring them, too obsessed with raking in money in the EI fund, where billions of dollars are being amassed.

For the past several years, the government has been helping itself to the fund, which has angered those who contribute to this fund, so much so that central labour bodies have started legal action against Ottawa. In the Superior Court, the CSN and the FTQ have launched a challenge against the constitutionality of the Employment Insurance Act. Transparent management is certainly not the reason we find ourselves in this situation today.

Despite unfavourable opinions by the Auditor General years after year, the Liberal government has continued to misappropriate money from the EI fund to finance other activities.

This is serious. What is at stake here is some very fundamental interests of the workers in Quebec, of overtaxed businesses, of men and women hoping that one day there will be a parental leave that fits their lifestyle, and of the labour force as a whole. What the Liberal federal government is doing to the EI fund is weakening the social safety net on which the public relies.

While billions of dollars are currently being raked in to be used later for purposes other than those for which the fund was intended, the provincial governments are obliged to find creative ways of supporting people who are going through serious crises.

The Government of Quebec had to dig into its own pockets to supplement the lost income of the fishers and processing industry workers in the Gaspé Peninsula. Why? Because the federal government has been sitting idly by while people were ending up out on the street, penniless. Quebec has been left holding the bag while the employment insurance surplus has reached more than $45 billion.

Need I remind this House that soon some workers will be the victims of the mad cow disease crisis? Yesterday, a Liberal, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, told us that people could always collect employment insurance benefits, but this is 55% of their salary, based on a maximum of $39,000 a year. And let us not forget the waiting period. The compensation measures leave a lot to be desired.

Need I remind this government that, for the past 15 years, protection for workers who lose their jobs has diminished?

In Canada, in 1990, 75% of unemployed people were eligible for employment insurance benefits. Less than ten years later, this rate dropped dramatically, to 39%.

In Quebec, for the same period, the rate of unemployed who were eligible for benefits went from 81% to 47%, which means that half the workers in Quebec are no longer entitled to benefits, yet EI contributions are still being deducted from their paycheques. Let us not forget the government does not pay one cent into the fund. It is workers and employers who contribute to employment insurance.

While eligibility criteria for the plan have become stricter and the number of insurable hours to be entitled to benefits has increased, the government cynically decreased the amount of benefits from 66% to 55% of insurable income with a $39,000 ceiling, as I mentioned earlier.

Upon its creation in the 1930s, the unemployment assistance program was nothing less than an insurance policy. The nature of it has changed, as it has almost become a privilege to be entitled to it. This is outrageous.

Again, I will mention that the Liberal government does not contribute a cent to the fund, which is accumulating surpluses at a staggering rate.

The surplus in the EI fund is a clear indication of the existence a fiscal imbalance, and the provinces and the taxpayers are paying the price.

To counteract this plundering of the fund, which has been going on for far too long, the Bloc Quebecois has, on a number of occasions, proposed the creation of a self-sustaining fund. Instead of recognizing that this scheme no longer makes sense, the present MInister of Finance is perpetuating the bad habits of his predecessor. To prevent further protest, he has announced consultations, which will buy him time to continue raking in the surplus, to pay down the debt.

I invite the Minister of Finance to review his position and to seriously consider the Bloc Quebecois proposal. We speak for the workers and the business owners, when we say it is time the plundering stopped.

Let us now move on to part 6 of the act to implement certain provisions of the budget, which deals with the air travellers security charge. As we have done ever since this tax was implemented, we continue to speak out against it as unjustified. In fact, it is a hindrance to the mobility of the population and means just one more fee the travel industry has to collect.

I continue to argue that charges relating to security and policing must be met by everyone via public funds, and not through a disguised tax imposed on those who travel by air. Security is a national affair. Of course, a terrorist on board a plane is a threat to the passengers but, as the tragic events of September 11, 2001 have demonstrated, people on the ground are also in danger. We all stand to gain from enhanced security measures. Imposition of a specific tax on the travelling public is unfair and abusive.

In December 2002, the Standing Committee on Finance, of which I am a member, acknowledged the negative impact of this tax in its prebudget report to this House.

The Tourism Industry Association of Canada met on numerous occasions with committee members to explain why it sees this tax as “an instance of poor public policy”.

The Minister of Finance received no fewer than 300 briefs, all of which were opposed to the security charge, from provincial departments of tourism, airlines, airport authorities and industry associations. I have not found a single individual or organization in favour of this measure; no one, apart from this government, is.

In response to dissatisfaction, the government announced in its budget a reduction in the charge for domestic flights only, a reduction made possible thanks to a change in accounting methods. What the government is really doing is not reducing the amount of money it is taking from the airline industry, but rather amortizing security equipment costs over a 15 year period instead of five years, as originally planned. This is unacceptable.

The Minister of Finance decided that it should be airline passengers who finance security measures that benefit everyone. While he is lowering the charge on domestic flights, the charge on international flights has not been reduced.

If security measures at border crossings are paid for by the government from the consolidated revenue fund, and not by the people or businesses who cross the border, then why should it be any different in the case of air travel? What is the reasoning behind the government's position?

In its report on the viability of Canada's airline industry tabled on April 11, the transport committee recommended eliminating the security charge for airline passengers, since transportation security is a critical national need that must be funded federally.

Just this weekend, the current Minister of Finance and candidate for the Liberal leadership inferred that he might go ahead and lower the special airport security taxes. Can the minister tell us what he is basing these intentions on? Could it be that he has seen studies that he forgot to present to the Standing Committee on Finance?

While we are on this topic, I must point out that I was concerned when I read in a Quebec paper that the federal government is reviewing the airport security charge without even telling us about it.

A reporter found out about this review through a request under the Access to Information Act. What is the minister waiting for to table these studies in the Standing Committee on Finance and the House? Unless the hush hush surrounding these studies is a sign that the minister is hiding something? Could it be businesses operated by friends of the Liberal Party with deep pockets who have contributed to the party?

Finally, I would have liked to come back to those who were forgotten in the budget. I would say that this government has not lived up to its commitments with regard to the elimination of child poverty. The figures published recently by Statistics Canada show that the rich still get rich and the poor still get poorer, which reflects badly on the hon. members opposite.

When a government no longer cares about the messages sent by its citizens, when a government is ready even to defy the justice system, when a Prime Minister says that he does not need parliamentary debates in order to make decisions, this is cause for worry. Faced with such a dangerous attitude, I can only invite my constituents and all the people of Quebec to think hard about their future.

When the federalist government in Quebec City denounces the federal government's inaction with respect to the people who have lost their livelihood, when it denounces the brutal reality of the fiscal imbalance and its effects on the province's ability to provide services to the population, one possible solution remains, an exciting project that will bring people together, that of creating our own country.

For some time we have been hearing people talk about change. As far as I am concerned, the only real change for us, for Quebec, is our sovereignty.