Debates of Oct. 2nd, 2006

Natural Resources

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

I am proud to say in this House today that the government has invested $2.1 million in research on semiconductor lighting.

Thanks to this research, we will be able to develop a light bulb that will last 20 years and consume 90% less energy than current standard light bulbs. This is the kind of technology the government will continue to support. Canadians want results, they want progress, and they want value for money. That is what we are delivering, not empty promises.

Museums

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives campaigned on a promise to increase funding for our woefully underfunded museums. They broke that promise, but not only that, the President of the Treasury Board singled out Canadian museums for attack with drastic cuts, saying he was going after programs that were “wasteful, inefficient and completely out of touch with average Canadians”.

I know the heritage minister has been like an absentee landlord when it comes to articulating the value of heritage and culture, but I would like to ask thePresident of the Treasury Board, what is it about our Canadian museums that ticked him off so much that he set after them, saying that they are wasteful and inefficient?

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, of course I am rather surprised that my friend is distorting the comments that the minister made. The fact of the matter is that our government spends $241 million a year on museums. I do not know where the member comes up with his assertion.

Economic Development

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for Canada economic development for Quebec recently announced a new program, with no new money, to the detriment of coastal communities that depend on the fishing industry.

In 2005, the fishing communities economic development initiative for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine and the North Shore had a budget envelope of $34 million over five years. This has now disappeared.

Does the minister responsible for Canada economic development consider that there is no longer any problem in the fisheries sector and that this justifies the disappearance of $34 million in specific aid for this sector?

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, we have given stakeholders in Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine and people across that large region six new tools, such as the one we were just talking about, known as CEDI-Vitality.

Unlike the former program, which applied only to fisheries, this program combines a non-repayable contribution with interest-free loans. This is far better for fishing industry stakeholders, for example, who need more funding for larger projects.

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Bill Bennett, Minister of State for Mining for British Columbia.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have two points arising from question period. First of all, I believe that on at least four separate occasions the Minister of Justice, in response to questions with respect to judicial matters, referred to certain lists from which judges were appointed. I wonder if the Minister of Justice would be kind enough to table those lists in the House of Commons.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Apparently not. The hon. member for Wascana.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

The silence speaks volumes, Mr. Speaker.

I have a second point arising from question period. There was from the government, toward the end of question period, a specific question dealing with the issue of street racing. I would simply point out that this is an item that is covered by the bill that is presently being debated before the House. Accordingly, I would think that this question would be out of order.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, my learned friend knows in fact that the lists that are compiled are compiled by the judicial advisory committee. The judicial advisory committees are comprised of Liberal government appointees.

My learned friend knows that those lists are confidential. If he chooses to go to the Privacy Commissioner and demand that those lists be released, contrary to the undertakings that the former government gave, he is welcome to do that.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in fairness, I think the Minister of Justice would want to acknowledge that those judicial advisory committees include nominees of all provincial governments in Canada, the chief justices of Canada, the bar association of each of the provinces, and the Canadian Bar Association. They are not Liberal committees.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it was the previous government's minister of justice who placed those individuals onto the committees. There is nothing--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. The Minister of Justice is responding to the issue raised by the member for Wascana. We will hear the Minister of Justice in his response.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, the judicial advisory committees were compiled by the former government. There is no statute. There is no regulation that indicates who should be on those committees. It was entirely on the part of the former Liberal government as to who was going to be on the committee.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

While I have no doubt that members appreciate the exchange of views on this important subject, I do not think it is a matter for intervention by the Chair. The hon. Minister of Justice did not read from the list. He simply pointed out that the name had come from a list.

Therefore, I do not think there is a requirement for tabling such document at this time. While I am sure the debate has been of interest, we will move on to the next point.

The hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier on a point of order.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago in response to a question asked during question period, the President of the Treasury Board quoted passages from a letter signed by the Ethics Commissioner, Mr. Shapiro.

Since only parts of the letter were quoted, I asked the government to table this letter in the House for us all to see. It has now been a week since this request was made and we are still waiting for the government to table this document.

[John Baird, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I read from a letter written by Mr. Shapiro to the hon. member for Malpeque, a colleague across the way.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it does not matter to whom the response was addressed. A minister who quotes a document must submit it, unless he provides a good reason not to. The last time it was the Prime Minister who quoted a document. He said he could not table it for reasons of national security since it was a cabinet document. In this case, the President of the Treasury Board used as a response a letter signed by the Ethics Commissioner, Mr. Shapiro. It does not matter to whom the response was addressed, he has to table this document in the House.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I told my hon. colleague from Ottawa—Vanier quite clearly that I would be pleased to give you the letter.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The minister has given his undertaking. We will find out when he tables the document.

With respect to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Wascana concerning the question put during question period today, I would refer hon. members to Marleau and Montpetit. On page 477 this paragraph states:

At one time, Members were also prohibited from asking a question during Question Period if it was in anticipation of an Order of the Day; this was to prevent the time of the House being taken up with business to be discussed later in the sitting. In 1975, the rule was relaxed in regard to questions asked during Question Period when the Order of Day was either the Budget debate or the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, as long as questions on these matters did not monopolize the limited time available during Question Period. In 1983, the Speaker ruled that questions relating to an opposition motion on a Supply day could also be put during Question Period. In 1997, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs recommended, in a report to the House, that questions not be ruled out of order on this basis alone. The Speaker subsequently advised the House that the Chair would follow the advice of the Committee.

I refer hon. members to the footnotes to that paragraph which indicate that the Speaker made this statement on April 7, 1997, on page 9377 of the Debates, and accordingly, I think the question is probably in order.

I cannot anticipate all the reasons hon. members might have for thinking questions are out of order. Even I sometimes think up some, but not very often.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Norman Doyle, Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adoption), with amendments.

I have the honour as well to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration entitled “Stateless Vietnamese Refugees in the Philippines”.

Finally, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration entitled “Audit of the Canadian Security Intelligence Services Immigration Services”.

Visitor Visas

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a petition signed by over 200 constituents. The petitioners strongly urge the government to adopt Motion No. 99 and thereby follow the lead of the United Kingdom by lifting visitor visas for Croatian nationals. Croatia has made huge strides in recent years by participating in NATO's membership action plan and NATO-led operations, and is also in the process of joining the EU.

Age of consent

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions that I would like to present today.

The first is on behalf of the constituents of Macleod. This petition states that the protection of our children from sexual predators must be a top priority for the federal government and requests that the government assembled in Parliament take all measures necessary to immediately raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age.