Debates of Oct. 18th, 2005

Nicholas Salamis

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my Conservative colleagues and all Greek Canadians to pay tribute to an icon of Montreal's Greek community, Father Nicholas Salamis, who passed away on Sunday at 108 years of age.

Father Salamis was born on the Greek Island of Samos in 1897. At the age of 17 he immigrated to America before settling in the Greek community in Montreal in 1919. At age 35 he decided to become an Orthodox priest and returned to Athens to study theology.

In 1938 Father Nicholas Salamis returned to Canada and spent seven years in a Toronto parish before he transferred back to his beloved Montreal.

Father Salamis became the rock of his community watching over his flock for over 40 years. I am told that Father Salamis conducted over 10,000 religious ceremonies throughout his tenure.

My executive assistant, George Sardelis, who is of Greek descent, has spoken highly of Father Salamis to me on many occasions.

The Greek community will miss him dearly. However, we will never forget his passion and commitment toward his community.

Commemoration of the Persons Case

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, October 18 is the anniversary of the Persons case, which is a reminder that women's rights were hard won.

In 1927, Emily Murphy, Nellie McClung, Irene Parlby, Louise McKinney and Henrietta Muir Edwards asked the Supreme Court of Canada to declare that the word “person” included women. The answer was no, and they were denied access to judgeships and seats in the House of Commons and the Senate.

The case went before the British Privy Council, which ruled in their favour on October 18, 1929. The English lords determined “that the exclusion of women from all public offices is a relic of days more barbarous than ours”.

Let us pay tribute to them today for opening the first doors to gender equality.

New Democratic Party

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to parliamentary democracy, the New Democratic Party is acting more like an old autocratic party.

When the member for Churchill stood up for her conscience and her constituents by voting to preserve the traditional definition of marriage, the NDP leader stripped her of her critic responsibilities. Then he encouraged his hand-picked candidate to defeat the hard-working MP in a nomination battle, forcing her to sit as an independent member.

The MP for Churchill is a former hospital employee, union representative and a school board trustee. She is hard working and well liked by her constituents and parliamentary colleagues. In short, she represents the populist spirit of Tommy Douglas. But that spirit has no place in today's NDP which puts slavish devotion to political correctness far ahead of mainstream Canadian values.

If people want an MP who stands up for her constituents and does what she believes is right, not just somebody who toes the party line, they have no home in today's downtown NDP.

Etobicoke Sports Hall of Fame

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on October 20 the Etobicoke Sports Hall of Fame will be holding its 12th annual induction dinner at the historic Old Mill Inn and Spa in my riding.

I commend the board of governors, organizers and sponsors for hosting this event in recognition of the exemplary accomplishments of community members.

Congratulations to this year's inductees: W. Zeke O'Connor, Mark Osborne, Erin Woodley, Frank Bonello, Tom Watt and Louis Cauz. They have demonstrated that with determination and commitment, excellence can be achieved. They have set a remarkable example of superior sportsmanship.

In Etobicoke we are proud of our heroes. I wish them the very best in all future pursuits.

Income Trusts

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the government has tried to claim that it has support for its actions against income trusts, but here is what the Canadian Association of Retired Persons said today:

—based on the surge of e-mails, faxes, letters and telephone calls...seniors are actually enraged, frightened and panicked about potentially losing retirement savings that they count on for essentials of daily living.

Will the Prime Minister finally admit he bungled, backed down and reversed his position on income trusts?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member were to take a look at the file, he would find out that, first, the province of Alberta has raised the same worries, as has the Minister of Finance. He also would note that there are worries about reinvestment in terms of productivity, which is so important, and worries in terms of fairness among investment vehicles.

This government takes no lessons from that opposition in terms of seniors. As a government, we have been retiring debt and making sure that the health care system is sound for them, certainly issues that the hon. member and the opposition have not taken into account and have refused to believe.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, that is not what seniors are saying. Seniors are seeing a government full of waste and scandal, whether it is fisheries, or Indian affairs, or the Mint or Technology Partnerships. They see the same government clamping down on the retirement savings of seniors and investors.

Here is what CARP quotes seniors actually saying:

Your actions are happening at a time when retirees are facing some very major increases such as energy costs...As government, you should be trying to help the people, not hurt us.

Once again, and another chance for the Prime Minister, will he back down and reverse his ill-considered decision on income trusts?

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the flow through entities referred to by the hon. member are a great concern to the government and to individual investors as well.

What has developed in the marketplace is a differentiation between the tax treatment in corporations and the tax treatment in income trusts. This is of concern to all Canadians, including the people about whom the hon. member seems to be concerned. We want to treat all Canadians in an equal fashion so they indeed can save for their retirement.

David Dingwall

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, what the parliamentary secretary is really saying is the returns were too good, so they want to clamp down on them.

Just to draw the contrast, yesterday the government said that it would deduct any improper payments from the severance it wanted to pay the Prime Minister's friend David Dingwall. We know that David Dingwall already improperly received $350,000 from Technology Partnerships.

Will the Prime Minister assure us that he will deduct that $350,000 from any payment to David Dingwall?

[David Emerson, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows that the agreement with the government is with the company and we have recovered that money. Therefore, if the company chooses to go after Mr. Dingwall, that is the business of the company, not the Government of Canada. We are recovering all taxpayer money. We have done so and we will continue to do so.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

What we know, Mr. Speaker, is that David Dingwall is not entitled to another dime of taxpayer money.

I want to ask the Prime Minister again because this was his idea. This is the man he called the Saint David of public service here on the House of Commons floor. Once again, will he assure us that he will not pay David Dingwall a cent when he already owes $350,000 back to the government?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the House that I am always keen to get information publicly as quickly as possible. Having been led to believe that the results of the audit would be available tomorrow, I said so in question period. However, at 6 p.m. I learned that the audit results would not be available until a week from tomorrow. I immediately reported this in the House at 6:20 p.m. or so yesterday. While I regret having inadvertently given wrong information, those are the facts.

[Brian Pallister, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, like the government, the minister runs faster backwards than forward. We all know that Dingwall could not possibly have been off side because there were no lines on the ice. Section 7.5 of the Mint's travel policy says, “Exceptions to this policy will require the approval of the President”. There also are exceptions in the Mint's hospitality policy for, guess who, the president.

These rules were written after the sponsorship scandal, after Ouellet, after Radwanski and after the Prime Minister came into office. Why has he done nothing? How many Liberal red flags does the Prime Minister need?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, there are two points of which the hon. member should be aware. First, expenses are not approved by the president. Expenses are approved by the board of directors of the Royal Canadian Mint.

Second, as I announced yesterday, the appropriateness of those rules will itself be examined by a well known expert in corporate governance called Peter Dey. Mr. Dey will be examining the appropriateness of all those rules and making recommendations for potential improvement to the Mint.

Child Care

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned from the lips of the Prime Minister himself that although child care centres come under Quebec's jurisdiction, children themselves are of national interest. According to the Prime Minister's reasoning, the federal government could therefore impose its conditions as far as child care funding is concerned, since children are of national interest.

Are we to take from this that the federal government would, in the name of national interest, override Quebec's jurisdiction over child care?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, that is not what I said. I said that child care centres fell under provincial jurisdiction, but that it was quite natural for Canadians to say their children ought to be of national interest. This has nothing to do with jurisdiction or authority, but definitely does has a lot to do with a vision of our country and the future of the generations to come.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, he has just repeated exactly what I said. Continuing with the Prime Minister's line of reasoning, those same children, of national interest according to him, also attend elementary school.

So, will the next step in that reasoning be to conclude that Ottawa will be sticking its nose into elementary schools, which are exclusively under Quebec's jurisdiction, in order to impose its rules and conditions, still in the name of “national” interest?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that. The answer is no. I said so yesterday.

There is one thing I do not understand. Canada and Quebec have just achieved an extraordinary victory at UNESCO which protects cultural diversity and is the culmination of a battle waged by Canada and the provinces, Quebec in particular. It is inconceivable to me today that the leader of the Bloc Québécois has not even had the decency to congratulate Quebeckers and Canadians on this victory we have achieved together.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand that the Prime Minister does not want to answer the Bloc leader's question. However, I want to ask him this. He indicated that he was getting involved in child care, a matter that has absolutely nothing to do with the federal government, because children were of national interest.

My question is quite simple. If he can justify getting involved in child care because children are of national interest, I guess he considers this also justifies getting involved in elementary schools because these same children remain of national interest?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, this is incredible. Unlike the Bloc, we and the Quebec government believe in a Canadian federation. In a federalist system, both levels of government work together to ensure the public good. This is at the heart of everything we do.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a new constitutional theory that enhances the one held by the Prime Minister. Now, we will invite the Quebec government to take care of military problems. This is a federation, we will ask the government to take care of everything. That is the reality.

My question is as follows. How can the government seriously justify the fact that it is poking its nose into child care in Quebec? This network existed long before the federal government. The Prime Minister was on his knees during the last election campaign in order to find out how this network worked. How can he now set national standards?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, this is pure nonsense. It has never been a question of setting national child care standards throughout Canada. Never.

[An hon. member]

They want to scare people.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

In fact, everyone agreed to work together, including with the Quebec government. It was never a question of setting conditions and national standards. Instead, it is about working together and supporting this model which may inspire the other provinces.

Health

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has repeatedly asked where the response to the Chaoulli decision is to be found from the government and repeatedly we have been told that no response is necessary, that we already had the response in the $41 billion and that no new rules are required to stop the growth of private health care in Canada.

The Prime Minister said that this was the fight of his life so let me ask a very simply question. Does the federal government need new rules to stop the growth of private health care in this country, yes or no?