House of Commons Hansard #91 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was burma.

Topics

PrivilegeGovernment Orders

6:30 p.m.

An hon. member

On division.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed from April 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C-215, an act to amend the Criminal Code (consecutive sentence for use of firearm in commission of offence), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

6:30 p.m.

The Speaker

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-215 under private members' business.

(The House divided on the motion:)

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

6:40 p.m.

The Speaker

I am happy to declare the motion carried. As is the practice, I am voting for further debate on this bill.

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

The House resumed from May 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-274, an act to amend the Patent Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Patent ActPrivate Members' Business

6:40 p.m.

The Speaker

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-274 under private members' business.

The question is on the motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Patent ActPrivate Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the motion lost.

Order please. It being 6:56 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-2, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Citizenship ActPrivate Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

The Speaker

There is one motion in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill S-2. Motion No. 1 will not be selected as it is identical to an amendment proposed and defeated in committee. The House therefore will now proceed to the motion for concurrence at report stage.

Citizenship ActPrivate Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

Conservative

John Reynolds Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC

moved that the bill be concurred in.

Citizenship ActPrivate Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

The Speaker

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Citizenship ActPrivate Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

Citizenship ActPrivate Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

The Speaker

When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?

Citizenship ActPrivate Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Citizenship ActPrivate Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

Conservative

John Reynolds Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Citizenship ActPrivate Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

The Speaker

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Citizenship ActPrivate Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Citizenship ActPrivate Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

An hon. member

On division.

Citizenship ActPrivate Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Citizenship ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:55 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Mr. Speaker, as a trading nation, Canada depends on our economic prosperity by having a healthy relationship with our trading partners. No relationship is more important to the economic prosperity of all Canadians than a strong relationship with our largest trading partner, the United States.

The decision, after months of dithering by a Prime Minister who has developed an international reputation as a professional ditherer, not to participate in the joint defence of North America is costing Canadians jobs.

While the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in responding to my question of March 9, tried to infer that it would be business as usual, Canadians do not believe this government for a minute when it suggests it will be business as usual.

Nancy Hughes Anthony, president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, states that many other members, particularly those in technology, defence and aerospace industries, are losing business and will lose the potential for future business. Business means Canadian jobs.

Mr. Thomas Donahue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, confirmed that potential technology development and jobs associated with developing a knowledge based economy will not be available with the dithering by the Prime Minister on this and other important decisions that affect our relations with our largest trading partner.

With the massive increases in spending and taxes planned by the Liberal-NDP coalition, Canada is in no position to turn down opportunities for investment in job creation. A survey of Canadian business leaders by Compas Inc., sponsored by BDO Dunwoody and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, found that 71% of respondents believed that the decision not to lower Canada's high tax rate will hurt Canada's finances.

The last formal Liberal-NDP coalition resulted in double digit inflation with the resulting bankruptcies. People lost their homes because they could not pay the interest rates of 12% to 18% caused by the runaway spending.

Corporations do not pay taxes. People pay taxes, unless of course one is the Prime Minister and registers the companies in offshore tax havens to avoid Canadian taxation. Average Canadians, on the other hand, who do not work do not pay taxes.

It had to be an all-time low in the relationship with our largest trading partner when the link was made by the new Canadian ambassador to the United States that it was the dithering on the North American defence commitment that resulted in the border disputes regarding live cattle and softwood remaining unresolved.

The federal government's own declaration in its space policy framework states that the maintenance of Canada's sovereignty in the new world economic order depends on using the space program to assist in our transition to a knowledge based economy. Then, by its own admission, the Liberal government's indecision on North American air defence is one more threat to national security.

A local success story in my riding is E.T.M. Industries Inc. in Renfrew. The fact that the foreign affairs minister is unaware of companies like E.T.M. suggests that the decision not to cooperate with the Americans was not well thought out. It is another example of the type of table napkin diplomacy that has become the trademark of a Prime Minister who dithers.

E.T.M. Industries has developed a specialty market contributing to the space program. Companies like E.T.M. should be supported. While E.T.M. is not in a position today to state how much business would be lost, Canadians will never know how many jobs would have been created if Canada had decided to participate in the joint defence of North America.

The reason the Conservative Party put forward the motion for a full, open democratic debate on missile defence is that we felt it was important for Canadians to see in detail what was being proposed before any decision was made.

It would be an absolute tragedy if the $250 million Canadian space program collapsed as a consequence of the decision not to cooperate with the defence of North America. The Canadian space program has evolved around a niche strategy that heavily relies upon the United States. Canada makes no investment in a national launcher program or domestic satellite navigation system.

Citizenship ActAdjournment Proceedings

7 p.m.

Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca B.C.

Liberal

Keith Martin LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I listened quite intently to the hon. member's comments and they are profoundly flawed in much of what she said. She referred to two areas. One relates to the economic performance of the government and the other relates to the defence performance of the government. I am going to address them separately for her edification.

The first one deals primarily with the cooperation in the United States. Marpac, CFB Esquimalt is in my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. I can say that the relationship we have with the United States is quite extraordinary. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, I can say that our relationship with the United States is not only a priority but we are also very pleased with the level of cooperation between our countries through our army, air force and navy.

We share communications and work. We cooperate. Indeed we will work together in the future. The new international policy statement states very clearly that the United States is our signature partner. We recognized that in history. We recognize that today and we will recognize that in the future. A large chunk of the international policy statement deals with our cooperation with the United States to fulfill our needs in Canada for Canadians.

We recognize that we share North America. Our responsibility together is the defence of our North American community. We work very well and closely with the United States on all of those levels, whether it is the defence of the north, the defence of our sea ports, or border security. We have done a great deal.

The Deputy Prime Minister works very closely with her counterpart in the United States in dealing with the protection of Canada for Canadians and the protection of the United States for its citizens. We work together for the benefit of both countries. This is a relationship born in history and will continue into the future. We have supported that with $13 billion of cold hard money to provide more troops, and to provide more equipment and training for our men and women in uniform.

On the economic issue, one of the reasons I left my former party was the issue of economics. The line in the sand which exists for me personally and I think for most Canadians is that we will not get into deficit spending. My former party, the party of the member across the way, has been standing for deep cuts and spending. Those do not add up. This is played out south of the border where the President of the United States has adopted a plan of deep cuts and spending which has resulted in record deficits in the United States. That is something we cannot countenance in our country.

Surplus spending and balanced budgets are integral to provide for our social programs, defence forces and indeed to pay down the debt so we can save money on the interest payments. That provides Canada with a strong, stable economy so our private sector can work well.

In closing, I want to assure the hon. member, although she knows very well, that the government has put forth eight consecutive surplus budgets. We have also committed to ensuring that our private sector community can bid in a competitive way with U.S. companies for U.S. contracts, which they are free to do.

Citizenship ActAdjournment Proceedings

7:05 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Mr. Speaker, while this country might spend $250 million U.S. annually in public sector space activities, the United States spends more than $28 billion U.S. annually. The most significant aspects of the Canadian space program have been jeopardized by the current government's policy of criticizing our American allies on the one hand, while freeloading on the American capabilities on the other.

The United States space command, also known as Spacecom, was merged with strategic command, Stratcom. Previously the combat commander of Spacecom was also the combat commander of Norad. Linking the two commands made sense to the Americans. Canada's decision not to participate in the severing of SpaceCom from Norad has short and long term repercussions to the Canadian space program.

For Canada the SpaceCom-StratCom unification could spell the end of joint Canada-U.S. outerspace development. When SpaceCom was at Norad, Canada enjoyed special access to American space technology and initiatives. Years of chronic underfunding of our national defence budget means that we no longer have the finances to fund any type of space capability.

Citizenship ActAdjournment Proceedings

7:05 p.m.

Liberal

Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct that the United States spends a great deal more than we do on defence. However, we also do not have a massive deficit and we are not going to put our country into a deficit under any circumstances.

Having said that, the member also knows full well that we have put the largest investment into the forces in the last 20 years. We are doing that with a balanced budget. It is the responsible thing to do. Not only can we obligate that spending for our defence forces but as our economy continues to strengthen, we will be able to put even more money in the future toward training, personnel and equipment.

The member knows full well that Norad is the centrepiece of our relationship with the United States. We are committed to Norad. The U.S. is committed to Norad. We will continue to work with the United States for the defence of our country and for our North American community.

Citizenship ActAdjournment Proceedings

7:05 p.m.

Conservative

Bill Casey Conservative North Nova, NS

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to explore a little more an issue I brought up on April 22 about a lighthouse in Wallace, Nova Scotia on the Northumberland Strait.

First of all, I would like to describe the harbour at Wallace. It is a long harbour leading in from the Northumberland Strait to the wharf at Wallace. For decades there has been a lighthouse there that has been the guiding light for fishermen, commercial vessels, and recreational vessels to return to the wharf in all kinds of weather.

Recently, the Coast Guard has suggested that it will not replace the light bulb in the lighthouse. It has several suggestions of replacing it with lighted buoys, less bright lights or whatever. We feel that this lighthouse light is essential. It is a matter of life and death in certain circumstances. It should not be compromised for the sake of a few dollars.

The fishermen who are dealing with this situation every day and use this light hear about all kinds of expenditures that are made by the government. They hear them every day on television with regard to ad scam that the Liberals have been operating mostly in the province of Quebec. The fishermen wonder if the government can afford to spend all this money, why can it not afford a light bulb for a lighthouse that could save lives?

I noticed this week that the Liberals announced $1.25 million for a farmers market in Moncton, if I am not mistaken. I am sure it is a worthwhile enterprise. How can a farmers market be compared with a lighthouse that could save lives in the event of foul weather?

The light can be seen from 17 miles away. It can almost be seen from Prince Edward Island. We want Prince Edward Island to see us. For decades the purpose of this light was to help mariners come into the harbour. Cumberland County Councillor Gerald Langille said recently, “Many fishermen are becoming concerned with what we are going to be left with. The powerful light we have is visible when it's most important, in relatively poor weather. When the weather is fine and all our navigation equipment is working, the lighthouse is a mere inconvenience, but when things go bad, it has always been there and it has given us a strong sense of security. Why should it be downgraded at the expense of our safety?

This is such an important issue. This is not a convenience issue. It is not something that maybe will enhance the community or something that is optional. This is a safety issue. It is life and death. It is how the fishermen find their port. It is how the fishermen find their way back to the wharf.

I would like the Liberal government to confirm today that it is going to replace that lighthouse bulb. The lighthouse bulb will last 15 years. It costs $87,000. It is an expensive light bulb and I will grant them that. However, it lasts 15 years.

The question is, how many lives will it save? Anyone who has boated on the Northumberland Strait knows how fast the wind comes come up, how rough the water can be, and how strong the currents are. This lighthouse is absolutely critical.

I ask the parliamentary secretary tonight if he will advise us if the lighthouse will be maintained at its current strength, so that Wallace can maintain its safety and also go ahead with plans to attract more commercial vessels to the harbour. Perhaps Wallace can then build a marina and expand the harbour.

Citizenship ActAdjournment Proceedings

7:10 p.m.

Charlottetown P.E.I.

Liberal

Shawn Murphy LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the importance of lighthouses, and not only as safety concern. They are somewhat of a mythical institution in Atlantic Canada. I am sure my friend across the way will agree with me on that. Being brought up on the Atlantic Ocean, we know that lighthouses are a very important part of our culture and our way of life.

I have been to the community of Wallace. I do not recall seeing the actual lighthouse, but I can vouch for the beauty and charm of that community and other communities along that part of the Northumberland Strait. Perhaps I can see the lighthouse from my own home, I do not know, but when I get home I will try.

To answer my learned colleague's question, it is my understanding that consultations have been held with the community, with the stakeholders, and that a resolution of this issue has been reached. The lighthouse is either in the process of being fixed or it will be, and it will be of course maintained in its current capacity.

This issue is being played out across Atlantic Canada. We have both the importance of lighthouses and what I call our love of lighthouses. There is the importance we feel that these institutions have, but we also have at the same time the advent of technology, technology for navigational aids, new technology used by the Coast Guard.

It is also, I should point out, the technology used on many of the boats and vessels that are seen along the Atlantic coast and within the Northumberland Strait. This is an issue that is being played out right across Atlantic Canada.

Of course we do not have the number of lighthouses we used to have years ago and certainly a lot of the lighthouses are now unmanned. We know, of course, that many years ago we had manned lighthouses.

In conclusion, let me say that I believe this issue has been resolved. Again, it is probably a good example of consultation between the stakeholders, the community and the Coast Guard.