House of Commons Hansard #157 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was liberal.
Political Party FundraisingOral Questions
The Speaker
I think the hon. member knows that questions about party fundraising are not matters of responsibility of the government. This question was about fundraising. It is out of order.
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Mr. Speaker, Canada's air surveillance system is so effective that no plane can fly over the country without being detected and tracked. By consulting the flight plan, we can easily deduce whether the plane may have been used to transport prisoners. The media have been reporting on this for nearly a week and the government has been asked some very specific questions in this House on whether planes carrying prisoners have flown over Canadian territory.
Can the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness finally answer us with certainty as to whether this is true or not?
Anne McLellan LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, I will answer clearly, as I have before. I am in possession of no information that would indicate that any plane, civilian or otherwise, has landed in this country that would have participated in the act of extraordinary rendition.
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Mr. Speaker, she has already been given the flight numbers. Refraining from simply answering a clear question is a form of admission.
How is it that a small country of less than 300,000 inhabitants like Iceland knows, but Canada does not? To fly over Iceland from the United States you have to fly over Canada. How is it that this small country dares to express its concern and that the Canadian government prefers to stay in the dark?
When it comes down to it, the minister is refusing to answer us in an attempt to buy time. What does she have to hide?
Anne McLellan LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, again, as I have made plain, we have no information that any flight has landed in this country that had involvement in relation to the extraordinary act of rendition. As my colleague the Minister of Foreign Affairs made plain, we expect those who come and go from our country and through our airspace to obey both our domestic laws and international laws where appropriate.
Consequently, if we are to come into possession at any time of any information that would raise a concern, I know that my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, would contact his counterpart, the secretary of state.
Garry Breitkreuz Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
Mr. Speaker, thanks to our access to information requests, Parliament now knows that the Liberals spent more than $527 million just on the computer contracts to register seven million guns. That is almost $100 per gun. Forty million cows were registered for only $8 million. That is about 25¢ per cow. The gun registry is not doing anything to stop gun and gang violence in Toronto or anywhere else either.
How is it possible for the Liberals to spend more than half a billion dollars on a computer system that should have cost only a fraction of that amount?
Anne McLellan LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, he is probably only the hon. member and a few others on that side who think the system does not assist the police in their daily activities.
The former president of the Association of Chiefs of Police said that there was no question that the system works and that it was a valuable tool.
The gun control system improves the screening of legal gun owners, increases their accountability and provides tools to prevent the diversion and misuse of firearms.
Police officers use the firearms registry online more than 5,000 times a day to help them do their work. Since 1998, there have been 4.6 million queries to the system by police. More than 5,400--
Garry Breitkreuz Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
Mr. Speaker, it is pretty obvious that the minister is trying to equate paper shuffling by bureaucrats with public safety. She is not answering the question. Why does the computer system for guns cost hundreds of times more than that for cows?
The firearms fiasco is starting to make the sponsorship scandal look like a corner store robbery compared to a bank heist.
When will the Liberals quit pouring hundreds of millions of tax dollars into a black hole? When will they stop?
Anne McLellan LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member is not equating the potential lethal nature of a firearm with whatever lethal nature he thinks one of our bovine friends might present to the public.
I was brought up on a farm and let me reassure the hon. member that in all my years on that farm I did not actually encounter a lethal cow.
However, because guns are lethal, that is why we have a gun control system, because we put--
Denis Paradis Liberal Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is not for the Minister of Heritage, whom I commend highly for her announcements on culture yesterday in Montreal.
My question is instead for the Minister of the Environment, who has just announced several important aspects of the Green Plan to combat climate change on the eve of the Montreal conference.
Can the Minister of the Environment explain these new initiatives?
Stéphane Dion LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, after the partnership that the member and I announced to the government of P.E.I. on wind power this morning, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour announced that with the province of Nova Scotia we will bring that raw gas to downtown Halifax to displace heat and energy from their fossil fuels.
This morning, the Minister of Finance and I and the Minister of Natural Resources announced our support for both carbon capture and clean coal projects with the Government of Saskatchewan.
When Canadians say that they do not want the Conservatives, we will announce a lot of these things that are--
The EnvironmentOral Questions
The Speaker
Order, please. It being Thursday, I believe the opposition House leader has a question he would like to ask.
Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Speaker, it being Thursday I ask the government House leader what he has planned for the remainder of today, the government agenda tomorrow and on into next week or at least up until Monday night when the vote will remove the corrupt Liberal government from power.
Furthermore, I would perhaps ask him if he would care to explain to Canadians why, when his Prime Minister had the choice, he is going to put them through an election at Christmas time.
Tony Valeri LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I see the hon. member across the way is displaying his charm once more.
I also think the hon. member understands clearly that the call for the election and, ultimately, if there is an election caused, it will be the opposition members who will have to take responsibility since they will be voting to dissolve Parliament and we will be voting to sustain Parliament in order to continue the work that I will now lay out.
This afternoon we will continue with the opposition motion.
On Friday we will call consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-37, the do not call bill; report stage and third reading of Bill S-36 respecting rough diamonds; report stage and third reading of Bill C-63, respecting the Canada Elections Act; and second reading of Bill C-44, the transport legislation.
We will return to this work on Monday, adding to the list the reference before second reading of Bill C-76, the citizenship and adoption bill; and second reading of Bill C-75, the public health agency legislation.
Tuesday and Thursday of next week shall be allotted days. There are some three dozen bills before the House or in committee on which the House I am sure will want to make progress in the next period of time. They will include the bill introduced yesterday to implement the 2005 tax cuts announced on November 14; Bill C-68, the Pacific gateway bill; Bill C-67, the surplus legislation; Bill C-61, the marine bill; Bill C-72, the DNA legislation; Bill C-46, the correctional services bill; Bill C-77, the citizenship prohibitions bill; Bill C-60, the copyright legislation; Bill C-73, the Telecom bill; Bill C-60 respecting drug impaired driving; Bill C-19, the competition legislation; Bill C-50 respecting cruelty to animals; Bill C-51, the judges legislation; Bill C-52, the fisheries bill; Bill C-59 respecting Investment Canada; Bills C-64 and C-65 amending the Criminal Code.
In addition, there are the supplementary estimates introduced in October that provide spending authority for a wide variety of services to the Canadian public and we the government would certainly like to see this passed.
Joe Volpe LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, in my exuberance to be understood by the opposition, I was engaging in rather pedestrian language and used the word “lying”. I should have said “an unhealthy use of fallacious data and mendacious behaviour”.
Bill Graham LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker it is my sad duty to inform the House that there has been a vehicle accident in Afghanistan involving Canadian soldiers that has tragically resulted in four injuries and the death of a Canadian soldier, an unfortunate reminder of the risks that our men and women in uniform undertake on behalf of our country.
Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends of these Canadian Forces members. All next of kin have been notified.
I am certain that all hon. members of this House join me in sending our sympathy to the families affected and the victims of this unfortunate accident.
Canadian ForcesOral Questions
The Speaker
Perhaps the House would care to rise for a moment of silence in memory of the soldier who was killed in Afghanistan.
[A moment of silence observed]
Eleni Bakopanos LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy)
Mr. Speaker, I believe the vote that took place in the House last night was misrepresented outside. I would like to bring to the attention of the House that this may even a point of privilege, my privilege as a member in this House, in terms of how I and members on the Liberal side voted last night.
We voted on a section of a particular private member's bill, the private member's bill of the member for Champlain, a member who is now retiring and who we wish a good retirement, which you, Mr. Speaker, had ruled sections 2, 3, 4 and 6, the retroactivity part of that bill, as being out of order. What you said in your judgment when that bill was read for the first time was:
--its provisions would infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown and thus prevent the Chair from putting the question to a vote at third reading.
You did allow the bill to be voted on at second reading. You went on to say that if it were supported at second reading, which is exactly what happened yesterday in this House, it would then proceed to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. That is exactly what was voted on in the House last night.
When the hon. House leader of the Bloc rose last night, the Chair did not point out to the hon. member that was exactly the ruling that took place in this House.
I would like the Chair to reiterate what you had reiterated when that bill was first put, that it could have second reading but not third reading in this House because it was ruled out of order, especially sections 2, 3, 4 and 6, which concerned the retroactivity part of the bill.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Mr. Speaker, in regard to this point of order, I can understand the member trying to save the government's face in this matter. But we must understand one thing. She mentioned that the bill required a royal recommendation. Everyone knows that these are expenditures. This is money that the government took from needy seniors and kept in its own coffers. Everyone knows that this requires a royal recommendation.
However, the member must know as well that with good will and the unanimous consent of all the parties in the House, Parliament is master of all bills and could have passed this one. The government could have given the royal recommendation and, in this way, there would have been justice and fairness for seniors. But that was not done.
Her attempt is in vain because everyone now knows that those people have two faces, the one they show in public and another when it comes time to act.
Eleni Bakopanos Liberal Ahuntsic, QC
Mr. Speaker, I really think that the hon. member is being dishonest when he says that we have two faces.
We should say exactly what happened in this House. No one is against seniors. On the contrary, it is the government that introduced legislation in this regard. We did all we could to get assistance.
Eleni Bakopanos Liberal Ahuntsic, QC
You never listen.
I know you do not have any respect for this decision, but the point of order was that one—