House of Commons Hansard #65 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was cuts.
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Speaker, the time for consultation and inaction is over. Why is the government ignoring the dire need for affordable housing in this country?
There is unanimous support for the continuation of the SCPI program among the advocacy groups. This program is essential. If the government cannot tell us it is prepared to listen to this House on the much needed new initiatives, will it tell the housing community if SCPI is being renewed or is it already on the chopping block?
Lynne Yelich ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development
Mr. Speaker, I will repeat again. There have been absolutely no cuts to the funding for SCPI. In addition to extended funding for one year this spring, our government made an additional $37 million available to 2005-06 programing just over a month ago.
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, there is no time on Canada supporting or not supporting the international establishment of an arms trade treaty. That is the point. The vote comes up next week at the United Nations.
I want to ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs this question. The vote is next week and 100 countries have supported the establishment of this treaty. Canada is not on that list.
Will he support this treaty, yes or no, or is his government going to cower under the gun manufacturers lobby and say no?
Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
Mr. Speaker, the reality is there is time because the decision will be taken in due course. We have until next week. We have a motion that was tabled, and the hon. member is aware, by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.
We are looking at this of course in conjunction with other information provided by the U.K. We are very interested in having a trade treaty in place that will ban the trafficking of illicit arms that would go to conflict areas of which we are all very aware, including those in Africa of which the member is obviously very concerned, as are we, and it will happen in due course.
Fabian Manning Conservative Avalon, NL
Mr. Speaker, earlier this month Liberal Senator Colin Kenny called for the closure of Canadian Forces Base Goose Bay located in Newfoundland and Labrador. Was this the secret Liberal agenda all along?
Then just last week Liberal Senator George Baker stated:
If the Senate committee had any brains at all, which they don't, they should have suggested the closure of Bagotville, Quebec. But I'll bet you that they'll never recommend the closure of a base in Quebec, although it makes all the sense in the world.
Can the Minister of National Defence inform the House as to the status of the above mentioned bases and whether or not he will be taking advice from the Liberals who want to close these bases?
Gordon O'Connor ConservativeMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, we are now seeing the hidden agenda of the Liberals. They wanted to destroy the communities of Bagotville and Goose Bay. That is totally unacceptable.
Our government will implement our Canada first policy, which will increase the resources and the operational commitments at both those sites. There is a bright future for CFB Goose Bay and CFB Bagotville.
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
Order. I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Kevin O'Brien, Minister of Business for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Hon. Kathy Dunderdale, Minister of Natural Resources for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
I would also like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Michael de Jong, Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation for British Columbia.
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
It being Thursday, I believe the hon. member for Wascana has a question.
Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK
Mr. Speaker, on the Thursday question about procedure and process, I wonder if the government House leader or the government whip could indicate to us today what the government's agenda will be for the rest of this week and for the following week.
I wonder, since we are now well into this particular supply period and we have an expiry date facing us on November 10, would the government be in a position today to indicate which two days between now and November 10 will the government designate for the consideration of the estimates on the floor of the House of Commons in committee of the whole?
Business of the HouseOral Questions
October 19th, 2006 / 3:05 p.m.
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform
Mr. Speaker, today we will continue the debate on an opposition motion which gives the government an opportunity to talk about keeping its promise to review our programs to ensure every taxpayer dollar spent is well spent and by reducing the debt by $13.2 billion.
Tomorrow we will begin debate on Bill C-25 , proceeds of crime, followed by Bill C-26, payday lending.
Next week, we will continue with the business from Friday with the addition of Bill C-27, dangerous offenders, Bill S-2, hazardous materials, Bill C-6 aeronautics, and Bill C-28, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on May 2, 2006.
With respect to my hon. colleague's question on supply day, just like a child waiting for Christmas, he will have to wait a little bit longer. We will get back to him next week.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to do with the fact that an extremely serious incident occurred during oral question period. This incident involved the Minister of Industry.
In his usual fashion, the Minister of Industry used comments made by others to illustrate his own argument. This time, he went too far.
The Minister of Industry misled the House by saying he had the support of Claudette Carbonneau, the president of CSN, on the older workers assistance program introduced by the government yesterday.
I have before me two extremely specific quotes by Ms. Carbonneau, who said precisely the opposite of what the minister said today. In my opinion, this constitutes a breach of parliamentary privilege. I will read these two quotes by Ms. Carbonneau, which are quite clear.
For years the CSN has been calling for an income support program for older workers unable to find work after losing their jobs. The federal government delivered precious little today in its targeted initiative that in no way responds to the real needs. The CSN is extremely disappointed.
That is exactly the opposite of what the Minister of Industry said here in this House.
Ms. Carbonneau also said:
—there is another class of workers, those 55 and older who, no matter what active measures are offered to them, have no chance of retraining. What they need is an income support program to bridge the gap between the end of their employment insurance benefits and their retirement. There is nothing for them in the program announced today [Tuesday].
That is what Ms. Carbonneau said in a press release.
What gives a government minister the right—knowing the very clear and categorically expressed opinion of someone like Ms. Carbonneau, who is leads thousands of unionized workers in Quebec—to knowingly misrepresent the comments of such a person by saying strictly and precisely the opposite of what Ms. Carbonneau said. It was in all the papers and all the media.
I maintain that the minister misled the House and breached parliamentary privilege. He should apologize, not only to Ms. Carbonneau, but also to this House and the people he misled.
Oral question periodPrivilegeOral Questions
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform
Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite clear from my hon. colleague's comments that this is not a point of privilege. This is clearly a point of debate. I could go on to give examples of why this is so, but I would trust, Mr. Speaker, being as learned as you are, you would rule accordingly. I would ask you to please give a ruling immediately.
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
I appreciate the kind comments from the hon. parliamentary secretary.
Nonetheless, the hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean indicated that, in his opinion, the minister misled the House. The quotes provided by the hon. member and those provided by the minister during his responses to today's questions will need to be reviewed. That is what I will do and I will soon come back to the House with a ruling.
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Mr. Speaker, during oral question period, there was heckling going on while my hon. colleague from Honoré-Mercier was putting a question to the Minister of the Environment.
I do not know why, but the Minister of Foreign Affairs took comments about environmental impacts on humans and animals as a personal attack.
Someone on our side shouted, “What about Peter's dog?”, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs shouted back, “You already have her”. What an appalling thing to say.
It is disgusting. It is shameful. I demand to know why the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated that. I want to know at whom he was aiming. I want him to apologize to everyone. It is disgusting.
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, there were some comments on this side of the House that the lack of action on the environment by the government might have an impact on the foreign affairs minister's dog, to which the foreign affairs minister responded, “You already have her”, and he gestured toward the seat in front of me, which is the seat of the member for Newmarket—Aurora.
This is clearly shameful. The minister owes an apology to the House. It was a shameful display, for which he absolutely must apologize.
Oral Question PeriodPoint of OrderOral Questions
Edmonton—Spruce Grove Alberta
Conservative
Rona Ambrose ConservativeMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what happened over here but I would like to point out that the member for Bourassa, who raised this question, at one point called me a name, a sexist comment saying that I was merely a pretty picture vase sitting at the front of the entrance to a home.
It has been a number of months, but I am glad he raised this issue because it has always bothered me, so I would like an apology from him today for that.
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
I would like her, Mr. Speaker, to tell me what this is about exactly, given that I never address her or speak to her.
Obviously, this is a diversion tactic on the part of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is once again making a show of his private life in this House.
He should apologize.
I do not know what the member is talking about. She can call me and talk to me, but I do not know what she is talking about.
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
We will leave this matter for the moment.
The hon. chief government whip has a point of order.
Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Speaker, the point of order that I am raising really highlights what we have just heard in the latest exchange. I am raising a point of order about something that everyone heard and that there is no disputing.
During question period the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, in asking a question of my colleague, the hon. Minister of the Environment, said something that is completely unparliamentary and shameful. He accused the minister of lying. He knows that is unparliamentary. He has been here long enough and I am sure he knows that.
I would ask him to immediately retract that terminology and apologize to the minister.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, the respect I have for this place and for all parliamentarians gathered here to do the work that all Canadians sent us here to do is of the utmost.
I humbly beseech you, Mr. Speaker, that in this regard, the minister has presented herself as bringing forward a plan to Canadians with targets and timelines of the things that I mentioned. I accept the consequences of my action, but I will not withdraw.
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
The question that was asked by the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley was ruled out of order by the Chair because he used unparliamentary language in the question. The question, as I recall it, and I am quite prepared to review the blues later but I heard the question quite clearly, asked the minister if she had done this unparliamentary thing. He did not accuse her of doing it; he asked if she had.
He used language that, in my view, is unacceptable and that is why I ruled the question out of order. I hope we do not hear that kind of language again. It is unparliamentary and it should not be used in the House, but I do not believe that in the circumstances it is one that has to be withdrawn because he did not make the accusation.
I will review the blues since the chief government whip has raised this matter as a point of order, and make sure that I was correct in what I thought I heard, but I did not order the member to retract the words at the time for the simple reason that I did not believe he had gone over the line, except that he had used unparliamentary language. That is why I ruled the question out of order. I assure the chief government whip that if questions are asked in that tone, they will be ruled out of order in the future. The notice is there.
Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Speaker, as always, I respect your judgment in this matter. Perhaps with all the noise in the House today, I could have misheard the member's question. I respect the fact that you are going to review it and if subsequent action is necessary, I am sure you will take it.