House of Commons Hansard #5 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was parents.

Topics

Business of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

April 7th, 2006 / 12:05 p.m.

Niagara Falls Ontario

Conservative

Rob Nicholson ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations and I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, during the debate on the take note debate on Canada's significant commitment in Afghanistan, scheduled for Monday, April 10, the Chair would not receive any dilatory motions, quorum calls or requests for unanimous consent; any member rising to speak during debate may indicate to the Speaker that he or she will be dividing his or her time with another member; and when no member rises to speak or after five hours of debate, whichever is earlier, the committee shall rise; when the committee rises, the House shall immediately adjourn to the next sitting day.

Business of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

Business of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Business of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Business of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Business of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

(Motion agreed to)

Communications between Bureaucrats and Members of ParliamentPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

12:05 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, I am rising to provide further details in response to the question of privilege raised by the member for Scarborough Southwest, who alleges that his privileges have been breached since he was unable to meet with public service officials during the last election campaign.

While I cannot comment on the specific details the member identified, as these circumstances took place under the previous government, I am able to confirm that the Privy Council Office does not have a policy that prohibits public servants from being in contact with members of Parliament during an election. While the PCO provides guidance to departments on appropriate activities during an election, such as limitations on government decisions and announcements and restrictions on the political activities of public servants, there is no policy that states public servants cannot speak to MPs.

With respect to the question of privilege, my understanding is that the member for Scarborough Southwest is arguing that his inability to meet with these public servants prevented him from carrying out his duties as a member of Parliament. However, this raises a grey area which the Speaker could advise on, as the events the member refers to occurred when Parliament was dissolved.

For example, it could be argued that in Canada's system of government, a member of Parliament is a member of a particular Parliament. When a particular Parliament is dissolved, that Parliament is terminated and no longer exists, and there is no Parliament of which to be a member. Accordingly, it could be argued that the member for Scarborough Southwest, who is currently a member of Canada's 39th Parliament, was previously a member of Canada's 38th Parliament until that Parliament was dissolved on November 29, 2005.

It can also be argued that this constitutional principle--that during dissolution there is no Parliament and hence an MP ceases to be a member of Parliament following dissolution--is recognized in section 69 of the Parliament of Canada Act, which states that members of the House of Commons at dissolution are deemed to continue to be MPs for the purposes of the payment of their salaries until the next general election.

If MPs legally remained members of Parliament during a dissolution, there would not be a need for this provision of the act. However, that is not to say that for practical purposes members of Parliament do not continue to have constituency duties to assist constituents with respect to government services.

The dissolution of Parliament also meant that all business of the House of Commons, including its committees, had been terminated.

While I understand that the member for Scarborough Southwest continued to have an interest in the work that the Subcommittee on Public Safety and National Security had been conducting before dissolution, it is clear that the subcommittee no longer existed and that its review of the Anti-terrorism Act was terminated.

Because these alleged events took place while Parliament was dissolved, it is clear that the member's privileges could not have been infringed upon. Marleau and Montpetit, at page 51, state:

The House has the authority to invoke privilege where its ability has been obstructed in the execution of its functions or where Members have been obstructed in the performance of their duties.

It is also stated at page 52 that:

--individual Members can only claim privilege insofar as any denial of their rights, or threat made to them, would impede the functioning of the House. In addition, individual Members cannot claim privilege or immunity on matters that are unrelated to their functions in the House.

Given that at the time these alleged events took place the member for Scarborough Southwest did not have any parliamentary duties, it is my submission that the member's privileges could not have been breached.

That said, I would like to take this occasion to advise the House that this government is committed to taking an open and constructive approach with all parliamentarians. We will be responsive to requests from parliamentarians for ongoing information and briefings.

Communications between Bureaucrats and Members of ParliamentPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

I thank the parliamentary secretary for his intervention on this matter. As indicated yesterday, I have the matter under advisement and will continue to work on a ruling on the subject and come back to the House in due course.

The House resumed consideration of the motion for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her speech at the opening of the session, and of the amendment, as amended.

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

Leon Benoit Conservative Vegreville—Wainwright, AB

Mr. Speaker, I will continue in the debate today by talking about two issues: first, the federal accountability act; and second, agriculture which was also talked about in the throne speech.

We said during the election campaign that our very first piece of business when we came back to the House would be the federal accountability act, and it will be. The need for the federal accountability act is clear and obvious.

One member in his statement yesterday went through a list of the top 10 Liberal scandals. We have seen things such as: the billion dollar HRDC boondoggle; the Shawinigate scandal in the former prime minister's riding; another former prime minister registering his ships offshore in Barbados to avoid paying taxes in the very country for which he was a prime minister; the $2 million gun registry that was totally out of control and has now cost $2 billion and is ongoing, and we will get rid of that; and the ad scam and the sponsorship scandal. Those things are talked about most often. Another was the issue of Mr. Dingwall, the former Liberal minister and former head of the Mint, and his statement that he was entitled to his entitlements. That attitude was widespread through the former government.

The need for the accountability act is clear, and we will put it before the House. After discussing it and possibly amending it, I believe there is no reason why we should not get agreement from all parties to pass it.

Our goal and our commitment is to make government more effective and accountable to Parliament and to Canadians, and we will do that.

The federal accountability act is the toughest anti-corruption law in Canadian history. For that reason, it will be the most significant legislation I have seen tabled in the House in the 12.5 years of being a member of Parliament. Without a doubt, it will make more difference in the lives of Canadians and in the level of trust that the public has for politicians than anything else that has happened in the House in the last 12.5 years, and probably much longer than that.

For example, if passed, it will bring in a corruption watchdog to protect whistleblowers against bullying. It will end the revolving between lobby firms and ministers' offices. It will give the Auditor General the power to shine the light in every dark corner to hunt for waste, theft and corruption. It will ban big money and corporate cash in political campaigns. By moving from a culture of entitlement to a culture of accountability, it will fix the system for Canadians. It is extremely significant.

I would like to get into more detail on this, but I do want to talk about agriculture. I am sure we all have a chance in debating the federal accountability act when it comes to the House. It will be our first order of business, and I am looking forward to that debate.

What are we going to do for farmers and what have we already done? We did not wait for Parliament to sit to take action to deal with the neglect we have seen for the past decade or so.

We are going to put in place a program which is simpler and more responsive to the needs of Canadian farmers. We know Canadian farmers are hurting, possibly like never before. Therefore, the very first thing we did, after being sworn in as the government, was to extend the emergency payment program of three-quarters of a billion dollars to the Canadian grain and oilseed producers.

We are going to continue with not only larger and important measures and trade issues, but we are also going to pursue many so-called smaller, maybe less important issues which will help Canadian farmers in a very real way. I am looking forward to that in the years ahead.

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

12:15 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I have three brief questions for my colleague from Vegreville—Wainwright.

I first want to recognize and acknowledge that it must be satisfying for him to see the pending accountability act. I recognize and pay tribute to the dedicated work he contributed as the chair of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

I have a question for him about the new accountability act. One of the major irritants in the Auditor General's report of 2003, the infamous big, fat Auditor General's report, was chapter 5 about polling, which was not dealt with by Gomery. Could he indicate to me if his government plans to plug this outrageous opportunity for abuse, which the Liberals took advantage of to do their own private politically motivated public research?

Second, in the interests of tax fairness, is it the government's intention to plug the overseas tax fugitive loopholes that the former Prime Minister used to avoid paying Canadian taxes, such as tax havens in Barbados? Does he know if his government plans to finally do something about that?

My third question is on behalf of the farmers in my province of Manitoba. We have a terrible problem with Richardson's ground squirrels. Would he commit at this time that his government will do something about allowing prairie farmers to buy strychnine at a greater concentration than 2% so we can do something about this biblical plague of Richardson's ground squirrels which we suffer on the prairie provinces?

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Leon Benoit Conservative Vegreville—Wainwright, AB

Mr. Speaker, on the question of the Richardson's ground squirrel, more commonly known as a gopher, for about seven or eight years I have been pursuing this issue in the House of Commons, through private members' bills and motions, and across the country. Quite frankly, I have received literally dozens of phone calls from farmers and municipalities across western Canada encouraging me to keep that up, and I will.

I will now be working with the appropriate ministers to have returned to farmers the effective gopher control. Many people may consider this an unimportant issue, but to western Canadian farmers it means possibly $200 million a year that is currently lost and can be returned to them. It is an important issue and I will continue to work on it. I look forward to making progress on that as quickly as possible.

In terms of the offshore registering of companies that allow Canadians to avoid paying taxes in this country, I do not know exactly what is going to be in the federal accountability act in its entirety. We put out a document before the election, which certainly lays out some of the key ingredients, but as far as I know that will not be dealt with in this legislation. I really cannot say for sure, but now that it has been mentioned, I will look into whether there is an intention on the part of our government to close that loophole.

The other question was on polling. The Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates dealt with this issue at various times. It was completely unacceptable and inappropriate the way the former government used taxpayer money to fund polling, which was done strictly for partisan reasons. We exposed several cases of that.

In the federal accountability act we have committed to end that practice. It is inappropriate, and we simply will not be a part of that. Through this legislation, we will end it for future governments as well.

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

12:20 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment as Acting Speaker.

I have a quick comment for the member for Vegreville—Wainwright about whether it would be more credible for his government to stop claiming that it has the $755 million out under special funding when in fact it is only $400 million. We really would like to see the other $350 million in the hands of the producers around the country.

My question is related to the statement yesterday by the minister of agriculture for Alberta. The federal government is looking to either get rid of CAIS or dramatically change it. The minister of agriculture for Alberta indicated a lack of cooperation or willingness to tinker with CAIS, as I understood his statement.

Could the member make any comment about any contact he has had with that minister and what he fully expects the province to do in terms of cooperating in getting rid of CAIS?

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Leon Benoit Conservative Vegreville—Wainwright, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would argue that the $755 million resulted from a drive from our party and other parties in the House. The previous government went kicking and squealing toward passing that through the House. I do not know if it had an intention of ever delivering.

The problem that the member has outlined is accurate. In the past so much of the money that was promised was never delivered. We are stuck with that program for now, but we wanted to get the money out as quickly as possible. It is flowing. We have speeded it up immensely, and we will continue to work on that.

That is a problem. We intend to deliver the full amount, and we are doing that.

I know our federal minister has met with the provincial ministers. They intend to keep up the talks. We really want to get rid of CAIS and to form a new program that will do the job much better. We intend to do that.

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

12:25 p.m.

Bloc

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

Mr. Speaker, allow me to congratulate you on your appointment. Bravo!

Before starting, I would also like to mention my re-election last January 23, which I attribute not only to the electors of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine who once again placed their trust in me and the Bloc Québécois, but also to my large and wonderful team. In fact, many people work on an election and it is through team work that we make it through, and somewhat handily.

I would like to announce also that I will be sharing my time with the member for Laval. So, we will come back to that.

Now for the throne speech. It is easy to say, at first, that there are no surprises and that it is fairly predictable. There are no surprises because it contains more or less what we heard in the days and weeks immediately preceding the speech. There are no real surprises, because we have to expect that the government will act as a minority government--one with a very slim hold on power--and that it must consider that it will have to deal with the opposition in order to move forward on certain contentious bills or issues. For this reason the best thing about this throne speech is the lack of arrogance, because it recognizes that there is a minority government. I think it is worthwhile pointing this out.

However, the throne speech lacks both substance and a timetable, particularly for some very important matters. Let us say that there are not necessarily oversights, but gaps. Why do I say it lacks substance? It is only a few pages long, contains what was expected, but without expanding on the themes and without providing details. In the matter of fiscal imbalance the speech is incredibly vague.

The fiscal imbalance, as you know full well, causes a huge financial burden on Quebec. The word “huge” can also be used to describe Ottawa's surpluses. That is why we talked about it so much during the election campaign. I talked about it during my first election campaign in 2000, and again in 2004 and in 2006. The surpluses are in Ottawa and the needs are in Quebec and in the provinces. That is the fiscal imbalance in a nutshell. You will notice that when we talk about this issue there is no deadline. Well there needs to be one. It would have been nice to see.

The opposition parties are able to work. The Bloc Québécois, in particular, does intense, disciplined and responsible work. We had a chance to present different options to the previous federal government. Today we are making proposals to the Conservative government, but there is an urgent need right now.

This brings me to one of the major gaps in the Speech from the Throne: employment insurance and everything that comes with it. The Gaspésie and Îles-de-la-Madeleine area, as you know, relies on seasonal employment in the forestry industry, in tourism and in the fishery. As the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel pointed out a few days ago, it is not the workers who are seasonal, it is the work. Individuals want to work year round, but in forestry, agriculture, the fishery or even tourism, it is not possible.

There have been some attempts and proposed initiatives, but, again, federal support is needed for those initiatives, or there needs to be acknowledgment of the fact that these people want to work the year round, and that is just not possible in the fisheries and in tourism, in particular. I will come back to this in my speech today.

Moving on, we need a system called the employment insurance program, but I continue to call it an unemployment insurance program.

I continue to call it that because we need to keep in mind the purpose of this insurance program which allows people, who are in between jobs, to receive a decent and suitable income.

Benefits cover 55% of salary. That is not very much for an employee in tourism. Often their schedules vary, for example, they might work 15 hours one time and 20 hours another. They might work more at particular times of the year, such as during the summer season when the Gaspésie and Îles-de-la-Madeleine area receives more tourists. These workers earn minimum wage and it should be noted that it is mostly women in this situation. Whether we are talking about the fisheries, factory work—what is left of it—or tourism, it is mainly women in these underpaid jobs. They receive minimum wage and work varied schedules. You can imagine what 55% of not much adds up to. It adds up to almost nothing.

That is why it is important to improve the unemployment insurance program. The Conservatives already made cuts to this program when they were in government in the 1980s. The Liberals promised to changed things and improve the situation. At the time, Jean Chrétien, leader of the opposition, even wrote a letter on the issue before he became Prime Minister in 1993. The program underwent more cuts and was absolutely guttered. This was a major blow to regions like the one I represent and it accelerated the exodus.

If the past is an indication of the future, it is very important for the opposition parties to ensure that the members across the way, those in the government, truly do their work. They have to behave much more responsibly than their predecessors, who have done nothing but cause harm to these women, men and young people.

The unemployment insurance program puts young people and women in very difficult situations. That is why we must absolutely improve the system by a set deadline.

The federal government is raking in enormous surpluses while Quebec has to bear a huge financial burden. This illustrates how important it is to have a short deadline instead of a vague deadline and just intentions.

During the 2006 election campaign, the Conservatives promised not only to recognize the fiscal imbalance, but also to correct it. The Speech from the Throne was one of their earliest opportunities to move from talk to action. Unfortunately, the government did not give clear, precise and convincing indications of how it would address this major challenge.

This challenge is indeed a major one. The people and the members of the Bloc Québécois—and me in particular as the representative for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—have high expectations of this government. They promised a lot during the election campaign. The challenges are huge.

I would like to discuss the initial responses we have received concerning fisheries. My colleagues and I know that the seal hunt has been condemned internationally by the uninformed, the misinformed, and the ill intentioned. I am talking mainly about Brigitte Bardot and, more recently, Pamela Anderson, not to mention Paul McCartney. Opponents of the hunt put out a poster demanding that the seals be protected. They justify this demand by implying that baby seals are being killed, but this is not the case. Whitecoats have not been hunted since 1987. The poster showed Brigitte Bardot standing in front of microphones with an actual baby laid out on the ice behind her. That is pretty shameless.

Unfortunately, members of the Conservative Party did not respond appropriately. I will leave it at that. I may have the opportunity during the question and comment period to delve deeper into the subject.

In closing, I would note that I am sharing my time with the member for Laval, who will take the floor shortly.

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

12:35 p.m.

Bloc

Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the voters of Laval who participated in the democratic process, particularly those who placed their trust in me for a second time. I would also like to thank all of the volunteers who helped me throughout the campaign. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on the honour bestowed upon you in your appointment as Deputy Speaker of this House. I would also like to give my regards to an 86-year-old Vancouver woman whom I had the pleasure of meeting. She confided in me that her greatest wish in life now is to learn French. Ms. Margaret Davies, I raise my hat to you.

Several things were missing from the Speech from the Throne. However, I would like to devote my time here today to talk about our seniors. In the throne speech, only nine words were dedicated to the 5,598,223 Canadian seniors and the 1,448,719 seniors in Quebec. Those nine words were, "It will work to improve the security of seniors". Only nine words to recognize the five billion volunteer hours worked by Canada's seniors. Economically, that corresponds to a financial contribution of $60 billion annually. Only nine words to recognize that 77% of seniors made charitable donations in 2004, totalling $854 million.

The population of the world is undergoing extremely significant and profound changes that are unprecedented in human history. In 2050, there will be more seniors than young people in the world. The increase in the number of seniors will affect family relations, intergenerational equity, lifestyles and family solidarity. It will also have an economic impact on health, medical care, family composition, living conditions, housing and immigration.

Demographic changes will affect politics, the vote structure and representation, because seniors read, watch the news and stay current. More seniors vote than any other age group.

If we want to have a healthy democracy in years to come, young people also have to get involved and start learning about politics and keeping up with the news.

In 1950, there were 12 people in the labour force for every senior. By 2000, this ratio had declined to nine to one, and in 2050, there will be only four labour force participants for every senior. This will directly affect the social security system. That is why the UN has held three major conferences on aging in the past 25 years.

The most recent conference, which took place in 1999, focussed on implementing principles developed in 1994. These principles call for giving seniors greater autonomy, creating conditions to improve their quality of life, enabling seniors to work and lead independent lives, creating health care systems and economic and social safety nets for seniors and introducing social support systems to make it easier for families to care for seniors.

The Bloc Québécois includes these values in its platform. This is increasingly important, because in 2001, 44% of seniors in Quebec had incomes under $15,000 and 80% had incomes under $25,000. The guaranteed income supplement accounts for 20% of the incomes of people who earn less than $15,000. This is not very much. Retired women have incomes ranging from $11,000 to $17,000. The guaranteed income supplement is very important to them. Out of their incomes, seniors have to pay rising amounts for housing, which represents between 21% and 30% of income, as well as for food, transportation and taxes. People who earn $15,000 a year pay taxes. These four items account for roughly $20,000 annually, and that does not include medication.

In Quebec, 58% of low-cost housing is occupied by the elderly. These people are very poor and have no financial or other resources. This is why I am so surprised that more was not said on this matter in the throne speech. The Canadian Council on Social Development states that:

Economic security refers to an assured and stable standard of living that provides individuals and families with a level of resources and benefits necessary to participate economically, politically, socially, culturally and with dignity in their community’s activities. Survival is more than just mere physical survival and includes a level of resources that fosters social inclusion.

With an income of $11,000 or $12,000 per year and all manner of expenses totalling $10,000, there is not a lot of money left over to be part of the social network. Yet, 19% of seniors live just below the low income cutoff. Despite all this, the former government did not deem it advisable to refund the Guaranteed Income Supplement, with full retroactivity, to those seniors entitled to it.

We know that in 2001, some 68,000 seniors in Quebec and 270,000 seniors in Canada were deprived of income as high as $6,600 a year. Thanks to a broad operation put in place by the Bloc Québécois, 42,000 of these seniors have been found so far. These efforts represent roughly $190 million that have been redistributed to the least fortunate in our society.

The fact remains that the seniors who were duped by the federal government still need to be reimbursed. My colleague, Marcel Gagnon, who is now retired, presented Bill C-301 calling for full retroactive payment to seniors who were entitled to it. On November 23, 2005, the hon. members of this House voted unanimously in favour of passing the bill at second reading in order for the government to reimburse the $3.2 billion it has owed seniors for a number of years now.

In short, this Speech from the Throne includes only nine words to acknowledge those who built Canada and Quebec; just nine words to acknowledge those who defended our rights and freedoms during two great wars; nine words to acknowledge those who, despite having major financial difficulties, made many sacrifices in order to feed and educate their family; nine words to acknowledge those who continue to take part in our lives and agree to babysit our children at the last minute, to do our laundry when our washing machine is on the fritz, to cook our roast beef when we are too busy to do it ourselves.

I am referring to my mother, Jano Demers, to whom I am eternally grateful. Thank you, maman. It is true that when we have a busy schedule we often have to call on our elders to get us out of a bind.

The Speech from the Throne includes a mere nine words to refer to all these hours spent passing down our history—to us, to our children and to our grandchildren.

Eight words are not enough. This government must do better than that. It must ensure that seniors can live out their remaining years with dignity and respect. The government can do so by ensuring that those who are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement receive it and by paying $3.2 billion in retroactive payments to those who have been cheated in recent years. The government must ensure that the old age pension and guaranteed income supplement continue to be fully adjusted for inflation and the specific realities that seniors must face. It must offer the option to opt out for compassionate leave with full financial compensation in Quebec, which already has the health and social service infrastructures in place to support caregivers effectively. It must act quickly to establish the program to assist older workers.

Lastly, it must do everything it can to adapt government services and crown corporations to the reality of our seniors.

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

12:45 p.m.

NDP

Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her very timely and very, very important remarks.

In my riding, elder care is deteriorating daily because of a lack of commitment by our provincial government.

I would ask my colleague whether she thinks the federal government needs to target transfer payments, to ensure that the money transferred to the provinces is used to help our seniors.

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

12:45 p.m.

Bloc

Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC

Mr. Speaker, I think that the provincial governments are wise enough to be aware of what seniors face and to be able to make good use of transfer payments, investing the money in programs to benefit seniors.

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

12:45 p.m.

Nepean—Carleton Ontario

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit surprised that the member has not talked much about the accountability act, which was a key part of our throne speech.

The accountability act will be the toughest anti-corruption law in Canadian history. It will bring in a watchdog that will protect whistleblowers against bullying. It will give the Auditor General the power to shine light in every dark corner in her hunt for waste, corruption and theft.

This law will extend access to information right into all the crown corporations. It will ban corporate cash and big money from political campaigns all together. This is one of the most consequential pieces of legislation ever passed. In fact, it is the toughest anti-corruption law in Canadian history. Why did the member not focus more of her attention on that law?

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

12:45 p.m.

Bloc

Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

Here is my concern. It is good to have appropriate legislation to give us some assurances with respect to the accountability of members of Parliament and ministers of the crown, hence the governments. At the same time, it is important to go beyond that. Good government does not involve only good legislation to ensure that governments are accountable. It also means ensuring that our fellow citizens, the people, those in need, have all they need to live with dignity. It means providing social housing, pension indexing, health care, all that people need, and not only accountability.

I am certainly very pleased that thought was given to accountability, so that scandals such as the sponsorship one never happen again. But that is not enough. Efforts have to be made to ensure that every citizen has what he or she needs to live with dignity.

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Merv Tweed Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that I will be sharing my time with the member for Lévis—Bellechasse.

Before I proceed with my comments on the throne speech, I would like to offer my thanks to the constituents of Brandon—Souris. I have had the pleasure of representing that constituency. This is my second election and I am very grateful and honoured by the confidence that they have shown me by allowing me to be their representative. I would also very briefly like to acknowledge and thank my family, and my wife, Bev, who is a working person as I am. She was unable to attend my first speech and unfortunately could not be here today, but has been with me all week and saw some of the highlights of Ottawa and Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to congratulate you on your new appointment. I am very pleased to see that. I know that you will be a very strong representative. I want to thank the Prime Minister and the agriculture minister for their comments last night.

Last night was the first time since I have served in this Parliament that I actually, at the end of the day, believed that we got straightforward honest answers from government and that it understood the issues and concerns that the agricultural community is going through and responded with direct responses. I think that is such a refreshing attitude for a new government and I hope that it continues throughout.

In the communities of Brandon—Souris, 85% of our revenue is generated through agriculture and agri-food related businesses. My communities and I recognize how very important a successful, thriving agricultural industry is and I look forward to working with the minister on a continued basis offering advice as asked, and sometimes when not asked, to ensure that our positions are represented when governments make decisions.

On January 23 Canadians turned a new leaf. They made a new decision that they would like to take the country in a different direction. I feel very fortunate that I am a part of that. It was a turn of a new leaf for change, a change from the way government has acted and performed in the last several years, and the attitude and the disdain with which it treated the Canadian population, particularly in the last few years.

Canadians have asked us to provide change. They have asked us to clean up government. For many years I would have said that as honourable people we would not need this type of an act. Unfortunately, it has come to that point in our history and I am very proud to be a part of the accountability act that we are going to present to Canadians. It will change the way we do business in Ottawa but also reinforce and regain the confidence of Canadians who for some time have been quite skeptical and cynical of Parliament and the members who represent them.

I am pleased that we are going to move on our promises made during the election campaign. One of the very first things will be the accountability act, but the reduction of the GST from 7% to 6% will be announced in the upcoming budget and eventually it will go to 5%.

As I travelled throughout my constituency, and I know many of my colleagues have made the same comment, many of the criticisms came from the fact that it is not going to benefit certain groups or individuals in our community. I say to them, that is simply not true.

The reduction of GST by 1% and eventually 2% will impact every individual in my community and every Canadian in the country. Whether one is paying for a gas bill, hydro bill, telephone bill, transportation costs, legal services, and even when our children go out to make a purchase, they will have less to pay. A lot of people use the phrase that we are going to put more money in the hands of Canadians. In my position, the way I look at, we are going to leave the money in their pockets and let them choose how they choose to spend it and do with it as they will.

Be assured that when Canadians tally up their year end or month end expenses, that reduction will be significant over a period of time. Whether they are homeowners, whether they are buying a new vehicle or even buying a newspaper, over time people are going to see the benefits of that reduction. And Canadians are going to see a bigger benefit when it is reduced to 5%. Every Canadian will benefit from this reduction.

We talked about ensuring safe communities. How can anyone argue about ensuring the safety of our communities? During the election campaign, a lot of the debate in my communities was that we have to provide rehabilitation services, that we have to provide a form of transition for criminals to work their way back into our communities to become a productive part of our communities, but at the end of the day, my communities want to feel safe. They want to know that the perpetrators of crimes are going to serve the time that they have been sentenced to. They want to know that those criminals are not going to get out on an easy street pass to go back into our communities and commit the same types of crimes that they had been charged and prosecuted for.

It makes absolutely no sense to say that we are working on behalf of the criminals to get them back into the community. We forget the other half of the equation that so many Canadians are worried about, which is, what we are doing to protect the law-abiding citizens of our community.

It is very important to stress that these sentences must be served to their completion. There cannot be an easy way out. If that means serving the full time, then that is what I want to see. I want to guarantee the safety of my law-abiding constituents. I will deal with the criminal element at the end of their term and hopefully bring them back into our communities in a safe environment, but first and foremost, I want to protect the people who live in my communities in a safe environment.

We have had many discussions about child care. The communities that I represent, and I suspect many of the communities that other members represent, are rural communities. We have no access to institutionalized day care. We have no access or the wherewithal to provide these types of services. Many of the working families in the communities I represent work shift work or work part time. Husbands go one way while their wives go the other way. It is just not possible to provide a cookie cutter system of services for those people. They have said to me time and time again that they continue to be asked to contribute their tax dollars to provide these services, but at the end of the day, they do not get any return on their investment.

By offering the dollar benefit to families with children under six years of age, it provides them with a real choice. It provides them with an opportunity to choose where they receive their child care services from.

If we look at the studies that many people often refer to, moms and dads, when asked who they wanted to care for their children, their first choice was the mother or the father. Their second choice was the children's grandparents. Institutionalized day care was fifth on that list.

I think we have actually addressed many of the concerns that people expressed in the campaign and before that. We cannot have a national system that provides services for 20% of the population. That would not be a national system. I suggest that the previous administration's proposal to do that would be just as catastrophic as the health care system that we currently have, where access to care and timely service has been completely forgotten in trying to be all things to all people.

In the campaign we were told many times by the past government, the Liberals in opposition now, that the Conservative Party has come up with simple solutions to solve complex problems. For 13 years the Liberal government ignored the simple solutions and that is why the problems have become so complex. If we want to decrease wait times, put in a wait time guarantee. If we want to increase economic activity, decrease consumption taxes. If we want safe streets, provide resources for the police officers and make sure criminals serve their full time. It may be simple, but it is common sense and I agree with it.

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

12:55 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my Conservative colleague that there is no mention of the employment insurance account in the Speech from the Throne. Since the Conservative Party took office, contributions paid by employees and employers have allowed the government to accumulate $1.6 billion in surplus.

There is nothing in the Speech from the Throne about an independent employment insurance account, and there was no mention of it in my hon. colleague's speech either. An independent employment insurance account would be available to employers and employees to increase benefits and reduce the number of weeks people need to qualify for longer benefit periods.

What does the hon. member have to say to the unemployed in Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel and to my colleagues here: the hon. members for Gatineau, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, Rivière-du-Nord, Terrebonne—Blainville, Laval, Brome—Missisquoi and Beauharnois—Salaberry?

What does one tell people who have lost their jobs? We had been asking the Liberals since 1997 for changes to the program, including an independent account and a program for older workers who lose their jobs.

What do the Conservatives have to say about the fact that since coming to power, they have accumulated $1.6 billion? That money belongs to working people and the unemployed. The Conservatives have not said a word about the unemployed, they have not helped them, and they have not improved the program as requested by the Coalition des Sans-Chemise.

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

1 p.m.

Conservative

Merv Tweed Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague. In the past several years many opposition parties, in fact all opposition parties have criticized the previous government for the way it handled the EI premiums and the EI fund. We have to look at opportunities. It is a huge amount of money. It is a large amount of money that I certainly do not want to see rolled into government general revenues. It should be specific to the issues that are concerning people.

I would suggest to my hon. friend that it is not just Quebec that is suffering from these situations. It is a Canada-wide situation. In a lot of cases it is somewhat regional, but I think we will see this government move on those types of issues in the future.

In the throne speech we directed our comments specifically to the five commitments that we made. It was our opportunity to show Canadians that we are committed to doing what we said we would do in the election campaign. Obviously there are other issues that the government will deal with as we go through this process. I would ask the member to offer his comments and suggestions to improve the system for the people in his community. I am sure he will find a very open mind on this side.

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

1 p.m.

Liberal

Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB

Mr. Speaker, to truly understand early childhood development issues, perhaps one has to have children. I myself have an 11-month-old daughter. As a member of Parliament, I receive a very good salary, but we have to put ourselves in the shoes of parents who earn an average salary. Often, to provide their families with a reasonable quality of life, both parents nowadays have to work. This enables them to own more than one car and to afford certain luxuries from time to time. However, when both parents work, child care can be problematic. The plan to offer parents $1,200 a year is one thing.

But the annual cost of a day care space in New Brunswick is $12,000 of a family's net revenue. That means that the first $12,000 dollars a family earns goes to pay for day care.

If we really want to offer parents a logical choice, should we not keep the existing program, improve it, and strengthen day care centres? We could offer parents a lump sum of $1,200, thereby giving them more choice. That would be better than giving them $3.50 a day. Since both parents have to work, that does not seem to me to be a real choice.

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

1 p.m.

Conservative

Merv Tweed Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Mr. Speaker, I think it will benefit families. I see families in my communities who have no choice but to pay their tax dollars and get no benefit from the child care system that the previous government was proposing.

What we have to consider is that we are not only offering the $1,200 for every child under six to families, but we are saying that we will create more child care spaces. The past government for 13 years talked about child care and child care development but delivered nothing. It signed agreements with provinces and it always had a 12 month opt-out clause. All we have done is implement the policy it set in place.