Debates of Feb. 11th, 2004

Petitions

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here from people in rural communities who feel abandoned under the government by the government enforcing gun control, animal control, unnecessary pollution and waste control, and farmland, bush and forest control, a debt for which we are not responsible.

They are asking Parliament to correct Trudeau's mistake of 1982 and amend the Constitution Act of 1867 to include the right to own, use and earn a living from private property.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions signed by hundreds of people in my riding and in surrounding ridings.

The petitioners are calling upon the government to look at the moral values of our society. They believe that the defence of traditional marriage as the bond between one man and one woman is a serious moral good. They also believe that marriage, as a lasting union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of others, cannot and should not be modified by a legislative act or a court of law.

They request that Parliament take whatever action is required to maintain the current definition of marriage in law in perpetuity and to prevent any court from overturning or amending that definition.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from petitioners who draw to the attention of the House and all Canadians that the Auditor General's report submitted to Parliament on December 3, 2002, determined that the cost of the federal firearms registry for long guns at that time was perceived to have exceeded $1 billion; and a recent administrative review verified that the gun registry would cost another $541 million before it was fully implemented; and the fact that eight provinces, three territories, police associations, police chiefs and police officers across Canada have withdrawn their support of the firearms registry for long guns; and that recent public opinion polls have demonstrated that a majority of Canadian taxpayers support the abolition of the firearms registry.

They therefore call upon Parliament to abolish the national firearms registry for long guns and to redirect those taxes to programs in support of health care and law enforcement.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table several petitions, the first two pertaining to the concerns Canadians have about the future of our health care system.

They are very concerned that the Government of Canada has not adopted any of the recommendations in the report by the Romanow commission. They are concerned that the government has not adhered to the fundamental principle of maintaining a not for profit health care system.

They call upon the government to act as quickly as possible to apply the recommendations of the Romanow report and to ensure that the federal-provincial wrangling over health care is put to rest as soon as possible.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from Canadians who join thousands of others across the country to express their concern about the failure of Parliament to enact or to have the government enact the motion for alcohol warning labels dealing with FAS or fetal alcohol syndrome.

The petitioners indicate that the awareness of the hazards of consuming alcohol while pregnant has been shown to reduce alcohol consumption during pregnancy and they believe that legislative and regulatory changes to prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages in Canada, unless the warning label is affixed on the bottle, is absolutely required to prevent the serious and growing incidence of fetal alcohol syndrome in our society today.

[John M. Cummins, Canadian Alliance, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me today to present this petition. The signatures were collected by the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and the petition addresses the issue of marriage.

The petitioners note that the best foundation for families and the raising of children is the institution of marriage and that it being the union of a man and woman. They call on Parliament to uphold the commitment it made in June 1999 to ensure that marriage be recognized as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Jeannot Castonguay, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to table in the House a petition signed by 92 people in my constituency, who call upon Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting two petitions. The first petition is one which was initiated by the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and has been signed by a number of residents of my constituency of Burnaby—Douglas on the subject of marriage.

The petitioners suggest that marriage is the best foundation for families and the raising of children. They note that the institution of marriage as being between a man and a woman is being challenged. They make reference to a motion that was passed in this House in June 1999 and state that marriage is the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament.

They call upon Parliament to pass legislation 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.

I have a second petition signed by hundreds of residents of my constituency of Burnaby—Douglas and people from across Canada on the same subject.

The petitioners note that same sex couples form loving and committed relationships but are denied the equal ability to celebrate those relationships through marriage. They suggest that the protection of true family values requires that all families be respected equally and that denying same sex couples the equal right to marry reinforces attitudes of intolerance and discrimination.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to enact legislation providing same sex couples with the equal right to marry.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the privilege to present to the House a petition signed by concerned constituents from my riding of Crowfoot, more specifically, individuals from the areas of Camrose, Ohaton, Bawlf, Meeting Creek, Rosalind, Alberta.

The petitioners call upon the government to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

I take a great deal of privilege and pleasure in introducing this petition.

[Jim Abbott, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition signed by 265 Canadians. Whereas a recent court decision has redefined marriage as the union of one man and one woman, whereas we regard it as a dangerous precedent for democracy in Canada when appointed judges rather than elected members of Parliament create law for our land, they ask Parliament to reaffirm now, as it did in 1999, its commitment to preserve marriage as specifically the union of one man and one woman only.

[Rob Anders, Canadian Alliance, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition signed by several hundred people in my riding in the city of Calgary.

They point out that the gun registry has cost $1 billion, that it is not supported by the provinces and that it has not reduced gun crimes. Therefore they call upon Parliament to repeal the gun registry.

I think it makes perfect sense. They have obviously well documented their case.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to present three petitions, all on the same subject.

The petitioners from across my riding, from one end to the other, urge the government to move to protect and preserve the definition of marriage as that between one man and one woman.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, government orders will be extended by 25 minutes.

The House resumed from February 5 consideration of the motion for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her speech at the opening of the session, and of the amendment.

Speech from the Throne

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on the occasion of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.

With yesterday's disclosure by the Auditor General of the sponsorship scandal, we can see that there is a huge contradiction between the PM's desire to spend tax dollars wisely and reality.

The purpose of my speech therefore is to focus on these contradictions, in order to show the public in Quebec and in Canada that the present government is nothing more than a carbon copy of the Chrétien government.

On page 5 of the printed Speech from the Throne, we read the following statement:

To this end, the Government is launching an ongoing process of expenditure review, overseen by a new Committee of Cabinet. This will ensure that spending reflects priorities and that every tax dollar is invested with care to achieve results for Canadians.

Allow me to tell you that, as a longstanding member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, I find this statement by the Prime Minister particularly offensive. The specific purpose of that committee is to scrutinize government spending in order to ensure that the taxpayers' dollars are properly invested, within a democratic process in which all official parties of this House are represented.

Moreover, the committee works in close cooperation with the Office of the Auditor General of Canada to, once again, ensure that the government does not get away with wasting taxpayers' money, as was the case, among others, in the infamous sponsorship scandal.

Mr. Speaker, I should point out that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques. He will, of course, support the numerous points that I am raising regarding this throne speech.

The Prime Minister wants to eliminate the democratic deficit in this House and give more powers to MPs. Yet, he intends to set up a very partisan cabinet committee, without any opposition members sitting on it. This is some contradiction. Where is the democracy in this process? Where is the transparency in this new committee?

We have yet to see whether the new Liberal cross-bencher, the member for Châteauguay, who made some interesting discoveries in the government's extravagant spending, particularly in the sponsorship scandal, will expose other financial scandals. I doubt it.

It is interesting to read in the throne speech that Canadians expect the government to use their taxes wisely and want to have the assurance that public funds, which means their money, will be used properly.

If the past is any indication of the future, Quebeckers and Canadians are justified in not trusting the new Prime Minister to make proper use of their taxes. Let me explain why.

First, as regards the sponsorship scandal, which is probably one of the worst cases of corruption and waste in the history of Canadian politics, the new Prime Minister has the nerve to tell us that he did not know anything about it. Let me point out some facts.

The new Prime Minister was the Minister of Finance and Vice-President of the Treasury Board for most of the time that the sponsorship program was in existence. He is the one who signed the cheques that were used to increase the federal government's visibility all across Quebec.

Yet, he never condemned this abuse of public funds for the sake of Canadian unity and for the benefit of the Liberal Party of Canada and its friends.

The Prime Minister now has the nerve to tell the public that he did not know about it, particularly now that these same Liberals are taking cover behind a public inquiry to try to save face before the upcoming election.

If the current Prime Minister had really wanted to act quickly, he would have arranged for the Auditor General's report to be tabled in November, as scheduled, and not during the February session.

Without waiting for the report of the Auditor General, he could have called a public inquiry two months ago, right after he took office. But no, he preferred to buy time.

The fact that he is calling a public inquiry at the last minute is evidence that he is putting the election first, and transparency second.

It has been the trademark of the federal Liberals ever since I was elected here, in 1997. The rest of my colleagues have witnessed what has happened since 1993.

Quebeckers will probably be voting in three months time without realizing the scope of the scam created by the government. They have the fortitude to tell us that each tax dollar will be carefully reinvested, when the Prime Minister and some of his ministers are neck deep in financial scandals like the sponsorship program. It is absolute hypocrisy. Where the Prime Minister is concerned, what we have seen is what we will get.

Let me give you another good example of bad faith that can be found in the throne speech. My political party, the Bloc Quebecois, set up a special committee, the Léonard Committee, to examine federal programs. The committee has decided to review the expenditures of federal departments since 1997-1998, a reference year for the last two mandates of the former finance minister, now Prime Minister.

What we have found out is that the government has completely lost control over government expenditures for the entire period ending in 2002-2003. Over a five-year period, expenditures have gone up by 39%, compared to 9.6% for the inflation rate.

Is that what you would call making good use of taxpayers' money? In comparison, spending in Quebec and Ontario increased by 20% and 19.7% respectively. While the provinces were tightening their belts, the federal government was living it up in Ottawa.

A closer look at federal spending reveals multiple cases of excessive spending on the part of the government during the time when the administration of our country's finances was the responsibility of the current Prime Minister. For example, the government payroll increased by 41%; that of legal services by 141%; that of the federal Department of Health, which does not deliver any services to the public, by 78%; and that of CIDA by 132%.

As finance minister, the new Prime Minister acted deliberately in favouring federal administrative spending over services to the public. And he is the one who just told us, in the Speech from the Throne, that the money of Quebec and Canadian taxpayers must be put to good use.

And yet, had Ottawa increased its spending at the same rate as Quebec and Ontario did, the federal government would have extra fiscal manoeuvrability that would total, and listen carefully to this figure, $5.7 billion a year.

It is a fiscal effort that the Prime Minister refused to make when he was finance minister, preferring to spend freely while making drastic cuts in transfer payments to Quebec and the provinces, particularly in the areas of health and education. Now he wants to call the shots in these two areas that are strictly under provincial jurisdiction by giving out money while controlling its use through national standards.

If the current Prime Minister was not competent as finance minister, believe me, the past will be an indication of what the future holds.

However, the Bloc Quebecois committee is not the only one that has discovered this explosion in government spending. During the same period, the Office of the Auditor General gave repeated warnings about the fact that spending was getting out of control. As member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, I have seen numerous examples of expenditures that were both unjustified and unjustifiable to the public. Our friends opposite can hardly accuse the Bloc Quebecois of producing a partisan document when the Auditor General has come to practically the same conclusions as we have.

I come back to this famous committee. What will this new cabinet committee on government spending be all about? Just like the foundations, it will escape all parliamentary control. This committee will not give a real picture of government spending.

Instead of trusting democratic institutions like the Standing Committee on Public Accounts or the office of the Auditor General, which reports to Parliament, the Prime Minister would rather trust a partisan committee to make sure every tax dollar is wisely spent. Is this a way to erase the democratic deficit? I have my doubts.

Now a word on the throne speech. Besides broad philosophical statements, there is hardly anything concrete, and certainly nothing on rural and regional development. Not a word either on the two big crises affecting the regions: softwood lumber and mad cow disease.

I still have much more to say, but my time is running out. To conclude, let me say that tomorrow, I am going back to work on the public accounts standing committee. Together with my colleagues in the opposition, I will do everything I can to demonstrate beyond any doubt that the Liberal Party of Canada, the Prime Minister included, is responsible for the sponsorship scandal.

Committees of the House

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that you will find consent for the following motion:

That notwithstanding Standing Order 106(1), the Standing Committees on Agriculture and Agri-Food as well as Official Languages be permitted to meet on Thursday, February 12, 2004 at 11:00 a.m. for the purposes of Standing Order 106(2).

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her speech at the opening of the session, and of the amendment.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Bloc member's speech. It was very interesting to see that, according to his statements, the Bloc Quebecois is even in a position of perhaps becoming the Auditor General's substitute. I find it interesting that, as a consequence of their talks in committee, the Bloc members have come to the same conclusion as the Auditor General.

The question I would like to ask the member is simply this. Does he not believe in the system that exists here to find out what happened?

Instead of trying to find partisan motives to perhaps score some political points, would he not come to the conclusion that, even if there are issues raised by the Auditor General, he will have the opportunity, as early as tomorrow, without any delay, to contribute to finding the answers that are very necessary, not only for Quebecers, but also for all Canadians?

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course I will be asking the Auditor General some questions. She will certainly provide answers.

However, I will remind the member opposite that we, on this side, have asked 441 questions on the sponsorship scam. We did not get any answer. All we saw was a cover-up. Ministers have been passing the buck back and forth. We saw their faces turn red—which is the right colour for a Liberal, I guess—as they learned about the whole sponsorship issue.

Of course, we will do everything we can in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. We will be the first ones to welcome the Auditor General. We will be authorized to identify witnesses who will be able to confirm what we already suspect, which will help us carry out our duties.

I would just point out to my hon. colleague opposite that I remember the sad scenario that was the Groupaction inquiry, where the Liberals decided that our sittings would be in camera. We heard from Chuck Guité and Pierre Tremblay. I respected the secrecy surrounding those in camera sittings, others did not. Without getting into what was said, I can tell you that the answers they provided matched exactly what the Auditor General said yesterday.

As for the Auditor General, when I asked her if it was the worst report or the worst situation she has seen since she has been appointed Auditor General, do you know what she told me? She said, “I do not dare say it is the worst because each time I do an audit, each time I examine similar issues, I am always surprised.” In her mind, this is not over.

You can therefore imagine all the work that awaits the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and the famous public inquiry. I do hope that the Liberals opposite, who are asking us to cooperate, will also cooperate by postponing the election so that the truth can come out and Canadians can get to the bottom of this scandal.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague, the member for Lotbinière—L'Érable, for his excellent speech.

In my opinion, as far as the management of public funds is concerned, the capacity of the Prime Minister and former finance minister has been overestimated. I would like to know what my colleague thinks of the skills of the Prime Minister, especially his past as finance minister, particularly as concerns the scandal at HRDC where a billion dollars disappeared into thin air. Another billion was wasted on gun control. Now, it is the cronies who received $250 million.

Would my colleague say the Prime Minister and former finance minister is a good manager of public affairs?