Debates of Oct. 16th, 2007

Address in Reply

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I would remind hon. members they must address their remarks through the Chair, not to one another.

The hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell now has the floor and I am sure he will observe the rules in every respect.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has made it very clear that the Speech from the Throne indicates where the Conservative government is heading with respect to better serving Canadians and better serving Canada. It contains our five priorities. You can vote for the Speech from the Throne. We hope you do. You are Canadians as well--

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I know the hon. member knows I cannot vote unless there is a tie, so I invite him to address his remarks through the Chair and avoid that kind of confrontation.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I was following my colleague's bad example.

I would invite my colleague to vote in favour of the throne speech to avoid an election. It contains many good things for Canadians. It contains what Canadians want and what they are asking of the government. Members should vote in favour of the throne speech.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we must note that the throne speech is an important marker and clearly signals the direction that the government chooses to take. The challenge we currently have is that there are some glaring oversights.

Today on Parliament Hill we saw a very powerful demonstration called “Make Poverty History”. First nations, the Council of Canadians, and poverty action groups gathered on the Hill to talk about first nations poverty.

The Liberals imposed a 2% funding cap in 1996 and that funding cap continues to be in place under the Conservative government. I would ask my colleague precisely what is in the throne speech that will signal an end to the crushing poverty that is faced by first nations, Métis and Inuit across this country?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is fair to say that our government is interested in all Canadians, including those who find themselves in situations of poverty. Within the throne speech are initiatives outlining that we will be working for Canadians who find themselves in poverty, particularly on aboriginal reserves. We spoke about improving housing and providing affordable housing. We spoke about providing tax cuts for Canadians from which everyone will benefit.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on the tremendous speech he made before the House this evening.

I was very encouraged that the Speech from the Throne brought attention to very specific justice measures once again, bills that were passed democratically by the House but unfortunately were held up in the unelected red chamber.

Does the hon. member think the Senate has any moral or democratic grounds whatsoever to hold up those justice measures that were democratically passed by the House? I would like to know if the member has any advice regarding the red chamber.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what Canadians saw in the first session of this Parliament was obstruction both in the House and in the Senate with the delaying of bills. Bills that passed in the House moved to the Liberal dominated Senate, but under the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition they stagnated, much to the shame of that party.

Canadians have asked for change. They want a government that is going to get tough on crime, get tough with criminals. We are tabling legislation to do so, and the Senate and the House of Commons have a responsibility to pass those bills.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments made by the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell and I would like to ask him a simple question. He indicated his interest in our veterans.

The hon. member will know, given his profound understanding of the concern of soldiers, that before the last election the Prime Minister, his leader, wrote a letter to Joyce Carter in which he promised that immediately after the election the government would proceed with the extension of all VIP programs to spouses of deceased veterans.

Rather than flowery talk about very general ideas and concepts that he has in his mind, I ask the member to deal with this one specific issue. Will he, as a member of Parliament, live up to the commitment that the Prime Minister, his leader, made and honour the commitment to veterans and their spouses? I want a very simple answer, yes or no. The devil is in the details. The hon. member has an obligation to stand up for all veterans and their spouses, and for Joyce Carter. Will he or will he not do it?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me say one thing. We stand up for our veterans. We stand on the side of veterans. We have done more for our veterans than the party on the other side ever did in 13 years. Not only that, we stand with our soldiers in Afghanistan. That is clear.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

(On motion of the Hon. Stéphane Dion, the debate was adjourned)

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That the House do now adjourn.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 8:49 p.m.)