House of Commons Hansard #7 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was pfos.
Jay Hill ConservativeSecretary of State and Chief Government Whip
Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations between all parties and I think you will find consent that, notwithstanding Standing Order 28 or any other usual practice of the House, the proposed calendar for the year 2008 be tabled and, furthermore, that the House adopt the calendar being tabled.
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
The document referred to by the chief government whip has been tabled. Is it agreed that the proposed calendar be adopted?
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present another income trust broken promise petition submitted to me by Donna Mackey of Oshawa, Ontario, who remembers the Prime Minister boasting about his apparent commitment to accountability when he said that the greatest fraud is a promise not kept.
The petitioners remind the Prime Minister that he had promised never to tax income trusts, but he recklessly broke that promise by imposing a 31.5% punitive tax, which in only two days wiped out over $25 billion of the hard-earned retirement savings of over two million Canadians, particularly seniors.
The petitioners call upon the Conservative minority government to admit that the decision to tax income trusts was based on flawed methodology and incorrect assumptions, to apologize to those who were unfairly harmed by this broken promise, and to repeal the punitive 31.5% tax on income trusts.
Carol Skelton Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present on behalf of the citizens of Biggar and area.
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to prevent the proposed demolition of the historically unique locomotive roundhouse in the town of Biggar. I ask the minister, on behalf of the petitioners, to deem the valuable structure a national historic site.
Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to table in this House a petition signed by more than 1,000 citizens of Berthier—Maskinongé.
The petitioners are calling on the federal government to assume its responsibilities and act quickly to eliminate dish and laundry detergents containing phosphates.
Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Mr. Speaker, today I am submitting a petition from B.C. with hundreds of names on it. The petitioners are asking the government to continue its work on combating human trafficking, a crime that is growing across Canada.
Tina Keeper Liberal Churchill, MB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition from people within the Churchill riding.
The petitioners call the House's attention to the fact that our rural riding is in desperate need of affordable quality child care and early learning spaces. The false impression created by the current Conservative government that rural people do not desire or require such social programming has served to strain many rural families.
Gurbax Malhi Liberal Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am honoured to present a petition today.
The petitioners call upon the government to institute a system of visa bonds for temporary resident visa applicants wishing to come to Canada as members of the visitor class, to give immigration counsellors discretion over the creation of visa bonds, to establish minimum and maximum visa bond amounts as a guideline for immigration officials, and to allow the visa bond to apply to either the sponsor or the visitor.
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to present this petition.
When I was first elected almost seven years ago now, I raised the issue of the government toughening the laws with regard to date rape drugs. I have a petition that was put together by several constituents and folks in Abbotsford who were inspired by their own tragedy to spread the word and cause that all governments should do everything they can to protect women from the cowards who use date rape drugs to abuse women.
If I had to guess, I would say that this petition has somewhere between 750 and 1,000 names on it. It calls upon the government to increase penalties, have date rape drugs treated more seriously in our Criminal Code and to take a number of specific actions against those who use date rape drugs.
Our government has taken action on a number of these things but we can never do enough to protect society from those who would do us harm through a number of means, not the least of which is, frankly, the gutless cowards who use date rape drugs.
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
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 ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings
October 24th, 2007 / 3:10 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 ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.
The House resumed from October 23 consideration of the motion for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her speech at the opening of the session.
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to participate in this debate on the Speech from the Throne, not because of what was in the speech—in our opinion it is so acceptable that later this afternoon, the Bloc Québécois will vote against this Speech from the Throne—but because it gives me the opportunity, along with my Bloc Québécois colleagues, to give a voice to Quebeckers in this House. Their voice was not heard before the creation of the Bloc Québécois.
For example, five conditions were known and were the result of the work the Bloc Québécois has been doing for years, in some cases, or at the very least, months or weeks. These conditions were not pulled out of a hat. It is not a shopping list, unlike what I heard from the government.
The Bloc believes that these are responses to some of Quebec's issues and concerns. Furthermore, these issues and concerns correspond to the concerns of Quebeckers.
The first condition was federal spending power. I will delve into that later. The second was assistance and support for the embattled forestry industry. I will also discuss that in greater detail later. Our third very important condition related to the withdrawal of Canadian troops from combat zones, specifically Kandahar. I will not discuss this condition now because I will be sharing my 20 minutes with my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île, who will do a much better job of talking about it than I could. This condition was not fulfilled in the Speech from the Throne. On the contrary, the government has announced that it plans to extend the mission until 2011, which flies in the face of what we and Quebeckers want. I would even venture to suggest that most Canadians agree with us on this issue.
As to fulfilling the Kyoto commitments, my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie clearly explained our position, which a majority of Quebeckers also support. My colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry did the same with respect to Quebec's need to reduce its dependency on oil in order to escape the Conservative federal government's decision to promote oil-based development, which is making Quebec poorer. Quebec produces neither oil nor natural gas. It is in our best interest to escape the oil economy and move toward new energy sources, as demonstrated by my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry. Canada's plan, however, is to develop the oil sector by exploiting the oil sands. The Kyoto accord is not in the best interest of the oil industry, nor is it in the best interest of the Conservatives' economic development strategy, which is not even remotely sustainable.
Lastly, the issue of supply management was also raised. The Bloc is pleased to see this in the throne speech. However, since this condition is the only one met by this government, we cannot vote in favour of the Speech from the Throne. We were not surprised to see the Conservatives defend supply management, given that, since December 2005, the Bloc Québécois has had this government cornered, just like the previous government, with a unanimous vote in this House to pass a motion stating that Canadian negotiators at the World Trade Organization can never agree to any compromise that would undermine or prevent the development of the supply management system.
In summary, there is very little in the Speech from the Throne to satisfy Quebec and Quebeckers.
I would like to come back to the issue of the federal spending power and its elimination, which is the traditional position not only of the Bloc Québécois, but of all successive governments in Quebec. It is interesting to note that we are the only party to be clear on this matter. The Liberals and the leader of the Liberal Party immediately warned the Prime Minister about his very vague proposal to limit use of the federal spending power. As for the NDP, that party is always keen on principles and is very much in favour of coast-to-coast programs, that is, standardized, Canada-wide programs that ultimately make the provinces into branches of the federal government. This is something that Quebec, Quebeckers and all successive governments in Quebec have always rejected.
I want to come back to what the Conservative government and the Prime Minister are proposing with regard to spending power. I will read what the throne speech says:
To this end, guided by our federalism of openness, our Government will introduce legislation to place formal limits on the use of the federal spending power for new shared-cost programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. This legislation will allow provinces and territories to opt out with reasonable compensation if they offer compatible programs.
As we can see, this in no way meets Quebec's demands. What is more, it is practically a virtual proposal. First, the government is saying it will limit spending power, not eliminate it, but place limits on it. The Minister of Transport was very clear on this: this government does not intend to reduce or even limit federal spending power to the point of eliminating it in Quebec's areas of exclusive jurisdiction. He said so last Friday.
The worst part of this whole thing is that the government is saying that it will limit federal spending power for new shared-cost programs. This means that it does not intend to do anything about existing shared-cost programs. There are not many of them, but there are some. The government is announcing that in future, it will limit federal spending power in Quebec's areas of exclusive jurisdiction. Alain Noël, a professor in the political science department of Université de Montréal, said the following in the October 20, 2007 issue of La Presse:
By agreeing to such a reform, the Government of Quebec would be recognizing the legitimacy of federal spending power only to obtain virtual restrictions applicable to programs that have ceased to exist.
As I mentioned, only two such programs remain, to our knowledge: the infrastructure program and the agricultural policy framework program. These sorts of programs have ceased to exist. Mr. Noël goes on to say:
It is a little as though Ottawa were offering to give the provinces full control over producing black and white TVs.
This professor, who is a shrewd observer, has seen through the Conservative government's proposal. This is pseudo-open federalism, a facade, window dressing, a veneer, a purely symbolic gesture. We can see that here, during oral question period, nearly every day the House sits.
This even shocked André Pratte, editorial writer for La Presse, who merely skimmed through the Speech from the Throne. We know he always tends to side with the party in power. I sometimes says that if he had been a journalist or editorial writer for Pravda under the Soviets, he would have been a communist. But we live in a capitalist system in North America.
I was saying that Mr. Pratte always takes the side of the party in power. He read the Speech from the Throne quickly and was immediately delighted, saying that after 40 years of debate on the federal spending power we finally had an answer. However, after reading the piece by Mr. Noël, he was forced, in the same issue of La Presse, to take another hard look and admit that, indeed, there was nothing substantive in the federal Conservatives' proposal.
If even an observer as biased as André Pratte is forced to acknowledge that Alain Noël's analysis is right, then it is maybe high time this government woke up and truly met the expectations of Quebeckers. It has to stop putting on a show and suggesting that it is different from the previous governments. The Conservatives are just as centralist, the only difference being that they speak from both sides of their mouths. The Speech from the Throne is indisputable proof that they are not open to limiting or restricting the federal spending power.
For that reason alone, the Speech from the Throne is totally unacceptable. Once again, by refusing to eliminate the federal spending power, the government and the Prime Minister are not keeping their promise to get rid of the fiscal imbalance, which is essential according to the Séguin commission. We are looking at yet another broken promise.
Unfortunately I do not have enough time to come back to the crisis in the forestry. I would like to close by talking about the urgent need for support measures for that industry.
In my riding, in Saint-Michel-des-Saints, two plants have closed. The entire community is in crisis. Not only should the employment insurance rules be changed, but the government should stop falling for the ideology of laissez-faire. It should intervene together with the Government of Quebec and support this community in crisis. The community will remember this in the next election and it will re-elect the Bloc member for Joliette.
Louise Thibault Independent Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, naturally I listened carefully to the speech by the House leader of the Bloc Québécois who reminded us, among other things, of the Bloc's five conditions. I do not know if he will agree with me, but I believe that there could have been four or six.
Given the sad reality of poverty, which continues to spread in Quebec and elsewhere, can he tell me why the Bloc Québécois did not make this one of its conditional priorities and completely overlooked this aspect of our Quebec society which really needs to be addressed by both Quebec and federal jurisdictions?
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, that is a legitimate question. Some NDP members have asked somewhat similar questions. The phenomenon of poverty remains very present in Quebec society, as it does unfortunately in industrialized societies. The gap between rich and poor is widening. There may be fewer poor than a few years ago, particularly after the recession in the early nineties, but today their poverty is more dire. Thus, this is quite a legitimate concern.
The Bloc Québécois believes that the federal government should intervene at two levels. First, it must increase transfers for social programs. In the last budget, while satisfied with the effort made—an inadequate effort—we were critical of the fact that no money was invested in social transfers for social programs that essentially affect anti-poverty programs for Quebec or for post-secondary education programs. We will tackle the issue again when the next budget is tabled because not only are Quebec programs being undermined, but post-secondary education is being underfunded.
Second, the Liberals completely undermined our many years of work to improve the employment insurance system. Let us not forget the Axworthy reform, which the Conservatives initiated. To address this, we have already introduced Bill C-269, which is now at third reading. All we are waiting for is the government's royal recommendation. I do not think the government would hesitate if it was at all concerned about the plight of these people, who are living in poverty. We will find out in a few weeks.
We did not think this needed to be one of our conditions because it could not be addressed in the throne speech. It will come up during the budget speech and when the Conservatives give us an answer about royal recommendation. Once that happens, we will be in a position to move forward on these issues.
Gérard Asselin Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Mr. Speaker, thousands of jobs have been lost on the North Shore because of the crisis in the forestry industry. Kruger has closed its doors. Instead of producing lumber, the Outardes mill is making wood chips for its paper mill. In Baie-Trinité, Bowater is limping along, and the sawmills along the Rivière Pentecôte and the Rivière-Saint-Jean have closed.
Given that the government, which is controlled by the Conservative Party, will have a surplus amounting to $14 billion or $15 billion in the next fiscal year, including $4 billion or $5 billion from the employment insurance fund, can the member for Joliette tell me whether the government could have helped the forestry industry become more competitive and prosperous? Could it also have helped forestry workers by improving the employment insurance system?
These workers are now being forced to resort to social assistance. The government could help them by offering them employment insurance benefits and by creating a program to help older workers.
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question. I know he is very concerned about the situation with the forestry and manufacturing industries in Côte-Nord. We have made six practical suggestions for the forestry industry.
The first is to bring back the fund to diversify forest economies that the Minister of Labour and the Conservatives eliminated. There used to be one and it could be brought back.
The second is to adapt federal taxation in order to stimulate the creation and development of processing companies, particularly in forestry regions.
The third is to provide support for the production of ethanol fuels using forest waste. This would be a great opportunity.
The fourth is to stimulate research and development for new secondary and tertiary processing products. This is starting to happen, but since there is a crisis, the industry and new companies need a helping hand to survive.
The fifth is to maximize benefits from foreign investments. The Minister of Industry giving permission to sell Alcan to Rio Tinto was an example of what should not be done. This sale was made without any additional conditions being set. Once again, I must say that it is the Minister of Labour's region that will be hardest hit.
The sixth and last is to offer support to workers, for example with an income support program for older workers. This was in the Conservatives' first throne speech, but nothing was ever done. Yet another broken promise by this government and this Prime Minister.
Francine Lalonde Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Mr. Speaker, my comments follow up on the speech delivered by our parliamentary leader. I will talk about the fact that, in our opinion, Canada has an obligation to leave the region of Kandahar and to focus on international assistance and reconstruction, so as to truly help Afghanistan achieve its objectives.
In a speech that was very well received at CERIUM, in 2004, our leader said:
What the international community is doing in Afghanistan is a test for the United Nations, for NATO and for the future of multilateral interventions in the world. The deployment of armed forces there is enshrined in international law, in multilateralism.
Until the decision was made by Canada to go to Kandahar, support for the mission in Afghanistan had been really strong, both in Quebec and in Canada. Why are we on a mission in Afghanistan? Why are we on a mission in Kandahar? We thought we were in Kandahar because General Hillier had convinced Bill Graham, then Minister of National Defence, and the member for LaSalle—Émard, who was then the Prime Minister, to go there. However, former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien recently said that it was probably because the then Prime Minister and current member for LaSalle—Émard had not made a decision soon enough and could not get another region.
The fact is that since Canada has been on a mission in Kandahar, we have had a trumped up vision of events in Afghanistan. Why? Because the Kandahar region is where Pashtuns come from. This is where the Taliban, with Mullah Omar, gained power all over Afghanistan, after the forced withdrawal of the Russians, for which Saudi Arabia and the mujahedeen worked so hard. Some of them stayed in Afghanistan, while others settled everywhere.
This whole region is the former Pashtun breeding ground, except for the City of Kandahar and the perimeter enlarged by Canadians, who had to do it all over again, because that ground was lost in the past year. In light of this situation, that whole region is not favourable to the democratic project and to the future that Afghanistan hopes to have. In fact, voter participation in the election was very low. This is a tribal region that provides very good support to the Taliban, and that region itself was prepared by the Pakistanis and the infamous ISI. Therefore, we must leave Kandahar.
A motion brought before the House by the Liberals, supported by the Bloc Québécois, nearly passed. Unfortunately, the NDP did not support it. If it had supported it, the entire international community would already know that the Parliament of Canada decided that Canada should leave Kandahar in February 2009. Unfortunately, the NDP did not support us in this measure, otherwise, it would be a done deal.
This would have allowed all members of this House, as I myself did at the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly in July, to indicate to their counterparts from those European countries that are participating in the mission in Afghanistan that this mission's success will be achieved through a more equitable sharing of political weight, casualties and cost. There have been debates in Germany, others are being held in Denmark, and NATO is having a meeting today. When I took part in the debate at the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, I said that Afghanistan must not be abandoned, but that the weight and sacrifice must be shared more equitably.
Newspapers often give the impression that Canada is responsible for what is happening in Afghanistan. No, it is NATO that shared the responsibility. It is a first for NATO and it is important that it be successful.
This is why the government should have said that we would pull out of Afghanistan in February 2009 and that, until then, we would try to convince the international community to replace us, so that we could turn our attention to those interventions we excel at.
Why are we on a mission in Kandahar? As I said, I thought it was General Hillier who wanted to go there, but it was for other reasons that had nothing to do with Afghanistan.
It has something to do with the transformation of the Canadian army—to which General Hillier has dedicated a great deal of effort—and the militarization, or remilitarization, of the Canadian Forces. Hence, the many purchases of very expensive equipment that will be used for what afterwards? We do not know. Before changing our foreign policy we changed our defence policy. We have always been critical of this move.
We are not saying that we can just leave. This has been accepted. We are saying that we must give notice in order to leave in 2009. We cannot just leave because we do not want to give the impression of having been defeated. We must not do this. We have an international responsibility, even though Parliament adopted the motion to go to Kandahar with a majority of only five votes. By five votes, I told the international parliamentary assembly.
We nevertheless wanted to fulfill our international obligations, but we cannot do more than that. It would be ill-advised because we are not providing a sense of Afghanistan's true state of development, of what is happening elsewhere.
I met an Afghan parliamentarian who came to Montreal. He said that one of the population's serious problems is that it sees a lot of money in the military and also in international aid. They believe major projects will materialize and then, as they are tendered, they turn out to be small projects. The money does not reach the people. They feel that the money comes from the outside world but it does not reach their little world. That is a very significant problem.
Coordinating international aid for the reconstruction plan is an extremely difficult problem. We are familiar with torture by Afghan police—no one is denying it. There is the problem of corruption and the enormous problem of drugs, which provide a living to small farmers.
Often, the main difficulty for these farmers is that they have no credit. If they did, they could plant other crops rather than borrowing from the war lords or other racketeers who buy the drugs they grow in their fields.
There are many problems that need to be dealt with, and the war is not the way to solve them. Security is necessary, but responsibility for security must be shared. As much money as possible and as many resources as possible have to be invested in improving Afghans' living conditions and enabling them to plan for the future. Only then can the important role NATO has taken on in this region succeed.
We must not forget that when it comes to foreign affairs, we cannot think only about Afghanistan. What are the neighbouring countries? To the west is Iran, which borders Iraq. This is a little Middle East. To the north are the countries of central Asia, which have huge deposits of oil. There is also Turkey, China to the east and Russia to the west. This is the area where the future will be played out. It is important that NATO succeed, but for that to happen, the countries have to share responsibility for security more equitably. They have to learn to work together, coordinate international aid and make sure all the money they seem to have can reach the people in other ways.
The Taliban are very present in the Kandahar region. Farmers cannot support Canadian soldiers, even though they may be better than the rest, because they will be caught in the crossfire.
We therefore must give up our nearly exclusively military role. Observers have said that the effects of Canada's international aid are not visible. The various NATO countries must really work to reconstruct this country, and each must shoulder its fair share of the work.
Gérard Asselin Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Mr. Speaker, our problem right now is that the Prime Minister is trying harder to please the U.S. president than the Canadian people—meeting the demands and obligations and playing a role in National Defence or asking DND to play a role in the UN member countries. There was an agreement, but there was also a deadline: February 2009.
Quebeckers are having a hard time identifying with this situation. The priorities are misplaced. While we talk about a lack of social housing, poverty, crumbling infrastructure, community health services and education, the government decides to invest billions of dollars in armaments and send our troops to play a role they are not used to.
Our peacekeepers are used to peace missions and reconstruction in developing countries or war torn countries. If the government sent a contingent of 2,000 or 2,500 soldiers from Valcartier to rebuild a community health centre or a school or to work with the Red Cross, I would have no problem with that. Quebeckers simply do not relate to sending such a contingent into combat.
As the old saying goes, we reap what we sow. If we sow war, the chances are we will have war.
My question is for the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île. What role could Canada play after February 2009?
Francine Lalonde Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Mr. Speaker, before the session was prorogued, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development had made plans to send a delegation to Kabul, not Kandahar, since that would have meant being confined within the military perimeter. We wanted to go to Kabul to meet foreign diplomats and anyone capable of providing us information on what needs to be done—we have some idea, but we would like to know more specifically—to truly help Afghanistan recover and take charge.
That is why I found it regrettable, no doubt about that, when the Prime Minister announced the establishment of a committee totally unfamiliar with the work parliamentarians had undertaken. At the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, we had already heard numerous testimonies on Afghanistan and, thus, were about to travel to Kabul to complete our study.
My suggestion is that we continue our work, so that we can report to the House, with the cooperation of the other parties, and provide an even better answer to my hon. colleague.