House of Commons Hansard #19 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.
Joe Fontana Liberal London North Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, here is another tale on Gilligan's Island, or perhaps should I say, on Harper Island.
The Minister of Industry said that he supports science and technology. The Minister of Finance talks about competitiveness and productivity, yet the Minister of Finance has gutted and cut the Canadian science and technology funds, including astronomy where Canada is ranked third in the world.
Can we get an answer from the skipper, or from Gilligan, or from--
Joe Fontana Liberal London North Centre, ON
--the pirate, as to who took the money from Canadian astronomy?
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
Order. I see we have gone to sea again. We will have a little order, please. The hon. Minister of Industry has the floor to answer the question and everyone wants to hear the answer.
Maxime Bernier ConservativeMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, in the budget we have committed $40 million for the indirect costs of research program, $20 million for the leaders opportunity fund of the Canada Foundation for Innovation, $17 million per year for Canadian Institutes of Health Research, $17 million for the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and $6 million for the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. This is the new government.
Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON
Mr. Speaker, in recent years we have seen the effects of SARS and now the avian flu. The previous government dithered and dallied and left Canadians in the lurch.
Last week under the brilliant leadership of the Prime Minister, money was allotted to address pandemics.
Could the health minister tell us what strategies are in place to address emerging pandemics and finally help keep Canadians safe?
Tony Clement ConservativeMinister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario
Mr. Speaker, in my colleague's budget on behalf of the Government of Canada, there was $1 billion earmarked for pandemics and pandemic planning.
To prepare for the pandemic, $600 million is going to go to various government agencies designed to cooperate not only with other provinces and territories but with the world to ensure that we have the surveillance necessary, we can react very quickly, we can contain any particular pandemic and then eradicate it from our midst.
That is the challenge we face and that is the challenge that we have as a result of this foresighted budget.
Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
Mr. Speaker, people without status are in an untenable situation. Since Canada stopped deporting people to certain countries in 1994, people without status have been facing a legal void that keeps them from leading a normal life. Some have been in limbo for almost nine years.
Can the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration put an end to the anguish of the people without status who are visiting him today by making an announcement soon about a process that will make it easier for them to obtain permanent residency?
Monte Solberg ConservativeMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, today I met with a number of people who are without status in this country. Obviously they have a very difficult situation. I talked to them about the need to use humanitarian and compassionate avenues to permit them to stay, where it is warranted. Clearly, I am open to hearing what they have to say and will continue to look for solutions to their situation.
Remarks Attributed to Member for Saskatoon--WanuskewinPoints of OrderOral Questions
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising from today's question period in which the member for Labrador and, as I read in the news as well, the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, attributed remarks to me in respect to race based sentencing. I would like the members to put it on the record here, because I never made such remarks. They should bring it here before the House and put it on record or withdraw those remarks, retract them completely before they spread false information and defamatory statements.
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
The Chair has heard the submissions of the hon. member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin. I see there are no other interventions on this point. The Chair is at a bit of a loss to know who said what. Obviously, I have a record of what is said in the House. What is said outside the House, I have no knowledge of or control over in that sense.
I can only suggest that the hon. members try to resolve their differences by seeing what actually was said. I do not think it is for the Chair to intervene at this point.
Clearly, if the hon. member has been misquoted, presumably between him and the other members who did the quoting, they will find the source. However, it is hard for the Chair to say what the hon. member said in any interview anywhere else because, of course, I do not hear these things, so I am sort of stuck with what I hear here in the House.
The hon. member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin is rising again?
Remarks Attributed to Member for Saskatoon--WanuskewinPoints of OrderOral Questions
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Mr. Speaker, my point is simply that members over there cannot allege wild things or allege whatever they want in respect to a member having said something inside or outside the House.
Particularly I am concerned about in this place. The member for Labrador alleges my having said something and I think he is badly confused with some other member.
It would be the honourable thing for him to come forward and acknowledge that it was some other member from my part of the country or elsewhere, because he is quite wrong in alleging that I made remarks anywhere about race based sentencing, which he implied here today. I would like those remarks to be withdrawn, never mind those remarks made by members outside the House. That is what I am asking.
Remarks Attributed to Member for Saskatoon--WanuskewinPoints of OrderOral Questions
Liberal
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
The hon. member has made his point. I am sure that there is some opportunity for members to look at their remarks and decide whether this is something that was said or not.
If members have some other remarks to make at another time on this point of order, I would be glad of course to hear them.
I am sure that the hon. member for Labrador has heard or will see the remarks of the hon. member in due course and if some steps can be taken, we will look forward to those steps being taken.
However, I do not think it is something at this point on which the Chair can intervene, because obviously, I do not have the facts at my fingertips. Without those, I am at a bit of a loss.
The hon. member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin is rising again?
Remarks Attributed to Member for Saskatoon--WanuskewinPoints of OrderOral Questions
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Mr. Speaker, if I have the floor at this time, I would ask if it might be within your jurisdiction to simply undertake to review the blues to see what is on the record and we could go from there. I am simply asking that the member be accurate in his facts instead of making wild allegations in reference to somebody else.
Could you undertake to review the blues to establish what was said?
Remarks Attributed to Member for Saskatoon--WanuskewinPoints of OrderOral Questions
Liberal
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
The Speaker can look at the blues. I do not dispute that and I am happy to do so. The difficulty that the Speaker is in is that I am, in effect, being invited to review statements made by somebody outside the House and conclude that the blues are not an accurate statement of what happened outside the House. This is the difficulty with which I am faced.
I will look at the blues, but I urge hon. members to meet and resolve this if they can on their own, or raise the matter again in due course.
We will now move to orders of the day.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government, and of the amendment.
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
When this matter was last before the House, the hon. member for Victoria had the floor. There are five minutes remaining in her statement, plus five minutes in questions and comments. I accordingly call on the hon. member for Victoria to resume her remarks at this time.
Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC
Mr. Speaker, I was speaking about housing, which is a critical issue to my city of Victoria. The budget only skirts around it. The budget's $800 million one time only affordable housing allocation is a 50% cut from money already passed into law by the NDP budget last year. Even with promises for aboriginal housing, it is still $200 million short of what was already committed. Where is the national affordable housing program that Canadians want and deserve?
Perhaps the Conservatives could learn from my city, Victoria, which has led the way by establishing an affordable housing trust in perpetuity. This is the level of government least able to pay for affordable housing, leading by example, while the federal government throws a pittance at a national problem. The federal government may acknowledge its responsibility to affordably house Canadians, but instead presents a budget that favours well housed corporations.
Where are the budget tools to tackle climate change? Since 1990, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions have risen 24% instead of moving anywhere near a target of a 6% reduction. It appears that unwillingness to act at the federal level is the real culprit in this very disturbing trend. Innovation and leadership are coming from municipalities in cities like Victoria, which are implementing community energy plans. However, to carry these through successfully, they require energy efficiency programs, such as the ones the Conservatives are presently cutting, instead of more corporate tax cuts to the oil and gas industry.
First, the Liberals refused to impose new emission standards on their friends in the business community, and gave the hydrocarbons sector grants of $1.4 billion per year. Now, the Conservatives are continuing to provide these grants to this sector which is already reaping huge profits.
It would appear that the real problem is not the difficulty of meeting the Kyoto targets, but rather the government’s reluctance to make a sincere attempt to do so.
We are not lacking innovative solutions to the climate change problem. The NDP has proposed a national energy efficiency improvement program which would reduce emissions substantially. We also propose that tax grants and reductions no longer be used to support the producers of polluting fuels, but instead to encourage the Canadian clean energy industry. Such a measure would be not only an environmental strategy, but an economically astute environmental strategy.
At this dawn of the age of the green economy, the short-sighted solutions proposed in the budget may seem adequate, but overall they testify to a profound lack of long-term vision and an abdication of leadership on the part of the present government. In that respect it is continuing in the same vein as the Liberal government of the past.
I ask the government to take another look at its budget and to make the changes needed to show commitment to the real priorities of Canadians around housing, post-secondary education and the environment.
Jim Flaherty ConservativeMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1) I wish to table a notice of ways and means motion respecting an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on May 2.
I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government, and of the amendment.
John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the closing remarks of the member for Victoria.
In the last mandate, the New Democratic Party went to Canadians and asked them to lend it their votes. Canadians saw what the party was able to get for them, and if they lent them their votes, the NDP would get more.
The other day, in the same debate, it was mentioned that Bill C-48, the so-called NDP budget of $4.8 billion brought in by the Liberals, was never implemented. The reason it was not implemented was the New Democratic Party at that time, along with the Bloc Québécois, chose prematurely to overthrow the government.
How can the member go to her constituents or to NDP supporters and say that the money promised by the NDP was taken away, money that would have gone to post-secondary education, urban transit, subsidized housing and Kyoto? How can NDP members stand and bash the Liberals? Let them take on the responsibility and answer truthfully to their constituents that they blew the whole deal.
Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the Liberal members of Parliament should get new speaking points. It seems a little ridiculous to suggest that the NDP is the cause. Millions of Canadians voted against the former government, after 13 years of promising environmental reform, of promising housing, of promising reform to the aboriginal, of promising students a dedicated transfer. It only happened when the NDP came forward at the end of the Liberal term with Bill C-48.
If the Liberals had not waited 13 years before acting and only when prompted by the NDP in Bill C-48, they would not be in the position they are now. Until Liberals become humble enough to realize that it is the Canadian people who voted them out of office, they are going to be sitting on the other side of the House for a very long time.
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech. I want to talk more about the issue surrounding the cutting of energy conservation in homes. Right now we are facing a crisis in the natural gas industry in North America. Supplies are short. The Minister of Finance has said that he wants to go to Russia to find more supply for our homes in Quebec and Ontario. What we need right now is more investment in energy conservation, and we do not see it in the budget.
Will my colleague outline how this could be changed over the years ahead to make a better effort for Canadians under energy conservation?