House of Commons Hansard #122 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was farmers.
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Mr. Speaker, today's families are working longer hours but not getting ahead. Working mothers are juggling jobs, trying to find child care, worrying about who is going to take care of their parents when they get sick, and worrying about the cost of drugs and dental care.
To make it worse, working parents are about to pay taxes on their family allowance.
When is the government going to start providing the services that ordinary Canadians desperately need and deserve?
Monte Solberg ConservativeMinister of Human Resources and Social Development
Mr. Speaker, in fact this government has moved to provide all kinds of new services, including the universal child care benefit that goes to 1.4 million families on behalf of 1.9 million children. That is a tremendous help to many, many families, and that comes on top of a universal reduction of the GST, which puts money in the pockets of every Canadian.
Even today we were to be debating Bill C-36, which extends benefits to the disabled and helps seniors. This government is moving to help Canadians of all kinds while the previous government failed on every front to do that.
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Mr. Speaker, top executives in this country earn 200 times more than the average employee. The richest of the rich got 30% richer while working families are feeling left behind, being squeezed, paying more, getting less and not getting ahead. It is grossly unfair.
Why is the government using the money of hard-working families to subsidize the richest and the oil companies instead of helping working families find child care and pay tuition fees?
Monte Solberg ConservativeMinister of Human Resources and Social Development
Mr. Speaker, the member has it exactly wrong. In fact, what we are doing is taking all the taxes that come from big corporations and from wealthy Canadians and we are using them to provide a $10 billion benefit, the universal child care benefit, to Canadians to help them raise their children.
We have reduced the GST, which helps all Canadians. In fact, it helps Canadians who do not pay income tax, and that is 30% of people.
We are moving to help vulnerable Canadians on many, many fronts. We are acting where the previous government failed to get the job done.
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been shocked to learn that nine-year-old Kevin, a Canadian citizen, is being held with his parents at a detention centre in Texas criticized for its deplorable conditions, abusive behaviour towards detainees, lack of privacy and inadequate health care.
Like Kevin, over 170 children and their parents are currently detained under such deplorable prison-like conditions in what has been described as a draconian system. This is not the way young Kevin, a Canadian citizen, should be treated.
Could the Prime Minister tell us what the government is doing to help this Canadian boy and his parents?
Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform
Mr. Speaker, this government takes very seriously its responsibility for all Canadians. Canadian consular officials are providing consular services to the child in question. The Canadian government does provide consular services to all Canadians who need help abroad.
This is, however, a sensitive, private matter. For reasons of confidentiality, I cannot comment any further, except to say that the family has explicitly requested that their privacy be respected.
Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON
Mr. Speaker, once again Canadians can be very proud of their new government for the leadership role we have assumed in protecting Canada's environment and the health of northerners.
Yesterday the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the parliamentary secretary and the Minister of the Environment participated in the launch of International Polar Year.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development give the House more details on this program and Canada's contribution to it?
Rod Bruinooge ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I am very proud. Yesterday was the official launch of International Polar Year, the largest ever international research program focused on the earth's polar regions, with $150 million in federal funding, 44 Canadian research projects, including one from my alma mater, the University of Manitoba, and thousands of scientists participating in more than 60 nations.
Two major priorities, of course, are climate change impacts and the health and well-being of northern communities.
Canada's new government demonstrates leadership once again. We are getting things done.
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Yesterday in the House the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism used the cover of parliamentary privilege to slander my reputation by stating that I uttered, in his words, “a complete, blatant and I believe deliberate falsehood” after I questioned him about the Conservative cancellation of an historic $12.5 million acknowledgement, commemoration and education agreement signed by the previous Liberal government and the Ukrainian Canadian community.
Parliamentary privilege is a right that members use to assist them in getting at the truth and should not be used as cover to slander other members. I will give the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism the benefit of the doubt that he really is not aware that $12.5 million from the ACE program, which was cancelled by the Conservatives, was dedicated to the issue of internment of Ukrainian Canadians. If he tables in this House page 4 of the “Sources and Uses Table” from the Department of Finance, dated November 24, 2005, he will see that the funding was budgeted.
I request that the member fully retract his slanderous statement so as not to further sully this House with his verbal vulgarities and to salvage his own reputation.
Response by Member for Calgary Southeast to Oral QuestionPrivilegeOral Questions
Calgary Southeast Alberta
Conservative
Jason Kenney ConservativeSecretary of State (Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity)
Mr. Speaker, I am confident the Speaker will find that this is not a question of privilege. Perhaps the member could have raised this as a point of order yesterday following question period. He chose not to. It is clearly not a question of privilege. I think that in fact it is a point of debate.
In that respect, I stand by my remark yesterday in this place. The member said at page 7506 of Hansard that:
--the Liberal government signed an historic agreement for $12.5 million with the Ukrainian Canadian community....
I have that agreement in my hand and I quote from page 2 of that agreement:
The Government of Canada plans to provide an initial amount of $2.5 million to the Shevchenko Foundation....
This agreement in principle does not mention $12.5 million. The budget does not mention $12.5 million. None of the three Liberal budgets in the year 2005 mentioned $12.5 million for Ukrainian redress with respect to wartime measures.
Yesterday the member said that there was a $12.5 million agreement. This is the agreement. It says $2.5 million. He was wrong by 500%. Perhaps he could explain to the community why he is not telling the truth.
The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie
If there are no more interventions, the two members have had an interesting debate as to the facts of the case, but nevertheless the fact of the matter is that the hon. secretary of state is recorded in Hansard as accusing the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre of “a complete, blatant, and...deliberate falsehood”, which the hon. member knows is not parliamentary language.
He may want to continue to argue about the facts with the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre, but accusing another hon. member of a deliberate falsehood is a no-go zone and I offer the hon. member an opportunity to retract.
The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie
I heard the hon. member retract the words that I asked him to retract. He has done so. The matter is closed. The hon. members can continue to argue about the facts.
The hon. member for Wascana.
Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK
Mr. Speaker, I have a different example of the same sort of problem. Yesterday the Prime Minister personally attacked another member of Parliament and her spouse, but today we learn that the Conservative member for Medicine Hat, in his previous capacity as minister of citizenship and immigration, wrote to that very spouse on his departure from the IRB and said this:
—I am writing to express my appreciation for your years of service...I was always able to count on your hard work and your dedication.
You can certainly take enormous satisfaction in and be extremely proud of the contribution you made while acting in the best interests of Canada and the individuals you represented.
I wonder if the Prime Minister would now withdraw his attack against the member of Parliament and that particular spouse. I wonder if the member for Medicine Hat remembers signing that letter.
Response by Prime Minister during Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions
York—Simcoe Ontario
Conservative
Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform
Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged that fine correspondence has taken place. However, I did not hear any attack by the Prime Minister yesterday. I heard a statement of fact that the individual who had a relationship as a spouse was appointed by the Liberal government to that position.
I do not know what his view of accountability is. There are very competent people who are related to me. However, we all know that under the rules we have in place right now, I cannot appoint them, regardless of their merits, regardless of their quality, regardless of their talents. That is what conflict of interest is.
There was no attack in question; it was simply a question of fact, that the previous Liberal government had regularly engaged in appointments of family members to government posts.
The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie
I hesitate to allow this to go on because really nobody is being accused of saying anything unparliamentary. People are being accused of saying things which are untrue, which is different than unparliamentary. Therefore, I do not see any profit in the House to continue on this particular point of order.
The opposition House leader is free to contend both in the House and outside the House with the facts of the matter as presented by the government and vice versa. I do not see any point of order here. Therefore, I would ask the hon. member to move on unless he has another point of order.
Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK
Mr. Speaker, in light of what the government House leader just said moments ago, I simply want to confirm with him that he is now confirming to the House that the appointment process to which he is referring was perfectly in order and 100% proper.
The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie
I am absolutely sure that was not a point of order, but he did manage to sneak it in.
Does the government House leader have something he would like to sneak in on a point of order?
Response by Prime Minister during Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions
Conservative
Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am quite happy to say that the appointment process that was in place at the time was the appointment process in place at the time. We obviously think it was not perfect because we are changing it.
Government Response to PetitionsRoutine 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, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(b) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to eight petitions
Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-47, An Act respecting the protection of marks related to the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games and protection against certain misleading business associations and making a related amendment to the Trade-marks Act.
Mr. Speaker, as a new minister, this is the first occasion I have had to introduce a government bill on behalf of a cabinet colleague. Therefore, it is a great pleasure for me to rise today to introduce the Olympic and Paralympic marks act, an act to protect marks related to the Olympic and Paralympic Games.
This bill will help to ensure that the 2010 winter games in Vancouver-Whistler will leave lasting memories for all Canadians and an enduring legacy for our athletes.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 4, 2006, your committee has considered Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to DNA identification and agreed, on Thursday, March 1, 2007, to report it without amendment.
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, entitled “Question of Privilege”.
The committee has reason to believe that a potential breach of privilege has occurred and has asked the House to investigate.
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-410, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (victim — trafficking in persons).
Mr. Speaker, I must admit that it is truly a great honour for me to introduce this bill to amend section 24 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act by adding subsection (3).
It is important to underscore one aspect of this subsection: an immigration officer will no longer be able to take into account the possible participation of a victim of trafficking in persons in a criminal investigation or proceedings in respect of the criminal offence.
Allow me to take a few moments to explain what this means: currently, under the legislation, when a person claims to be a victim of human trafficking, the immigration officer takes into account whether the alleged victim will collaborate or not in a criminal investigation into the criminal offence. The problem is that these victims are so traumatized that often they do not have the physical, psychological or mental ability to participate in an investigation or possible criminal proceedings.
I have already submitted petitions with thousands of signatures by Canadians and Quebeckers, calling on the government to amend this legislation. The government has not taken any action, hence my bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
moved for leave to introduce C-411, An Act to amend the Special Import Measures Act (domestic prices).
Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to table a bill to amend the Special Import Measures Act.
Canadian trade legislation is outdated, and it does not adequately protect manufacturing companies when they are victims of unfair competition. The proposed legislation will set out the conditions required for deeming whether domestic prices in a country are substantially determined by the government of that country and there is sufficient reason to believe that they are not substantially the same as they would be if they were determined in a competitive market.
We know that among the prohibited activities is dumping, or selling a product for less than its fair value. The passing of this bill will help set out what exactly is dumping, and how to calculate it.
By passing this bill, the Canadian parliament will update trade legislation, give a helping hand to companies suffering from the explosion of imports from emerging economies, help limit the damage caused by the laissez-faire attitude of the government, which has abandoned our manufacturing industry, and surely help save a number of jobs.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)