Debates of March 2nd, 2007

Official Languages

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

This is your track record we are talking about, sir. The Canadian Forces' transformation model follows up on ten of the Commissioner of Official Languages' recommendations. The previous government's record on this issue was one of complete failure.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in three separate cases the Supreme Court of Canada was clear that the federal government had a duty to consult with first nations. Despite these rulings, the government has refused to conduct meaningful consultations. It imposes arbitrary deadlines that prevent real discussions from taking place: Bill C-2; Bill C-44; Bill C-45; nationhood; and now only seven days for consensus building on matrimonial real property.

Why does the government insist on taking such a father knows best attitude?

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the member could not be more wrong. In fact, her government had the opportunity to act on behalf of first nations for 13 years.

When we look at Bill C-44, it will actually bring human rights to first nations people on reserve who are unable to take advantage of the human rights laws in Canada today. That is something the government of the hon. member had the opportunity to do. It chose not to do so. It is something we will do.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it would help if the minister spoke to first nations and to the groups.

The court is clear. Consultations must be done in good faith. The Chiefs of Ontario have withdrawn from the matrimonial real property consultations because they cannot agree on the arbitrary deadlines imposed by the government.

[An hon. member]

You're against it.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

No, we very much support it.

Why does the government insist on running roughshod and short-changing the consultation process in violation of the Supreme Court rulings?

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, this exemption has been in place for some 30 years now. If that is not enough time for consultation, I am not sure what is.

If the Liberal Party would like to vote against matrimonial real property and against having human rights on first nations reserves, they can choose to do that.

Official Languages

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in committee yesterday, the Commissioner of Official Languages said that the best a unilingual francophone could hope for in the armed forces is to be an infantry soldier at Valcartier.

How can the Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages be satisfied with the proposed transformation model, when it is clearly possible for a unilingual anglophone to attain the rank of brigadier general?

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, it always makes me smile when the Bloc talks to me about la Francophonie, when everyone in this House knows very well that the Bloc is the only party that voted against Bill S-3.

The new model sets out a strict timeframe. More than three quarters of the objectives should be achieved by the end of 2007.

I would like to reiterate that, as far as the government is concerned, linguistic duality within the armed forces is a priority.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner of Official Languages also said:

it is nearly impossible for a unilingual francophone to have a rewarding career in the Canadian Forces.

What is this government waiting for to call all our armed forces to order once and for all, and put an end to this shameful discrimination against francophones?

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I can only smile as the Bloc throws its little temper tantrum. It is the only party that did not vote to support Bill S-3 and that does not believe in la Francophonie outside of Quebec.

Immigration and Refugee Board

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, even though 52 out of 156 positions are still vacant, the government is continuing to systematically reject candidates proposed by the selection board to fill immigration commissioner positions. As a result, the backlog, which was heavy to begin with, is getting heavier.

Will the Minister of Immigration abandon her ideological approach and show a little more empathy for the thousands of people who are waiting for their files to be processed by filling the 52 vacancies?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's new government is committed to putting an end to the Liberal culture of entitlement at the IRB.

We asked a non-partisan official to look at the appointment process. He submitted nine recommendations to make the process more open and more accountable. I have accepted the recommendations, and I am going to act on every one of them.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are hardly ones to talk. They are the ones who appointed their political organizers' wives.

Instead of trying to stack the selection board, does the minister not think she should accept the board's recommendations so that the Immigration and Refugee Board can do its job properly and clear up the backlog?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the new merit-based appointment system will be more effective, more efficient, more transparent and more accountable.

What does the opposition have against a merit-based appointment system and greater accountability?

Income Trusts

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister keeps changing his story on income trusts. First, he said that he acted because of a huge revenue loss from Bell and Telus, but then—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. The hon. member for Markham—Unionville has the floor. We want to know what the question is. I am sure the government is eager to answer it.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, his first story was it was all because of a huge revenue loss from Bell and Telus, but then those companies said that they would not pay any tax anyway. So he went on to his second argument. He said that it was all because of tax leakage, but then all the experts said that his numbers were totally wrong.

Why should Canadians believe the bullying minister's third rationale, whatever that might turn out to be?

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure my friend will see the supreme irony in suggesting that the government has changed its story on income trusts. The Liberal Party has had at least three positions on income trusts and still cannot decide where it wants to come out.

The assertions made in his question are completely inaccurate. There was huge support for the government's tax fairness plan, including support from every finance minister in the country and the preponderance of evidence that we heard before the committee.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the parliamentary secretary, just like the minister, stands up grinning like a Cheshire cat when, because of the government's totally incompetent policy and its broken promise, hundreds of thousands of hard-working Canadians, who took the Prime Minister at his word, have lost $25 billion of their life savings.

Why, when they stand up to answer a serious question, do the parliamentary secretary and the Minister of Finance stand grinning like Cheshire cats when in fact--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I think one only descends to personal attacks when one has nothing better to say, which is what we have seen happen far too often.

What the member himself said about the government's tax fairness plan is “It was absolutely the right thing”. However, if he does not want to listen to himself, maybe he wants to listen to the former deputy prime minister of the Liberal Party who said that reversing the income trust decision would:

--run afoul of espoused Liberal principles, by promoting a tax loophole for a select few, financed by the rest of us. As finance minister, [the member for Wascana] was warned that tax revenue losses on income trusts were too great to ignore.

I think the Liberal Party should show a little honesty about this difficult issue.

Finance

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after only a year of this neo-con government, we appear to be into another round of Mulroney economics due to the government's fiscal irresponsibility.

This morning's The Globe and Mail says that the Canadian economy limped to its slowest pace in three years.

Instead of more tax increases, will the Minister of Finance use his budget to take the basic tax rate down to 15% where it was before he started all this silly social engineering?

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

My goodness, Mr. Speaker, Liberals against social engineering. This is a new mark in Canadian politics.

I know the Liberals did not get done what needed to be done even though they were in office for 13 long years. They rightly say that there is more that needs to be done to fix the Canadian tax system.

We gave $20 billion in tax relief in the last budget to individual Canadians. There will be more tax relief in this coming budget. I am sure we can expect strong support from the Liberal Party for budget 2007.