Debates of May 28th, 2007

Summer Career Placements Program

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, when we laid out our approach regarding labour market agreements in the budget, we did talk about the need to have a conversation with provinces regarding the future of different programs that currently fall under the rubric of the federal government. We intend to have that conversation.

Ministerial Expenses

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after he tried to conceal his travel expenditures, we learn today that the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec awarded a contract to a permanent employee in his riding office. In keeping with his usual style, he insists once again that all the rules were followed.

If the minister maintains that all the rules were followed, how can he explain forgetting the House rule that permanent employees of a member cannot get departmental contracts at the same time?

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is only natural that someone who performs a professional service would be paid for it.

Mr. Giguère was the senior assistant in my riding office in Jonquière-Alma, he was the mayor of Jonquière, he was the director of public relations for Hydro-Québec, and he was also a former Liberal candidate and a former candidate for our party. This man, who is well known in our community, divided his time between two kinds of work: taking care of the needs of the riding office and taking care of cabinet needs. He was paid for each kind of work out of the envelopes provided for each.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister says that all the rules were followed but admits he wanted to increase his employee’s salary, not hesitating thereby to endorse double dipping.

After the travel expenses and contracts to raise a friend’s salary, how can a minister in a government that preaches transparency defend the kind of double dipping he denounced in the Liberals?

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that there was no double dipping. The work that Mr. Giguère did was divided in two: one part was for the needs of the riding office and the other was for the cabinet. I have to go all over the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, as well as elsewhere, and there are speeches I need.

Mr. Giguère had a perfectly valid contract. His work was completed and delivered and is available on the Internet under the Access to Information Act. It was duly approved by the department’s financial controller.

Firearms Advisory Committee

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives were so proud of their new firearms advisory committee they kept it absolutely secret, as they turned the committee into a gun-loving, secret society. That is until the muzzle slipped and the member for Yorkton—Melville boasted that the Conservative faction was stacked with pro-gun activists opposed to gun control.

Did the secretive government deliberately keep this under wraps because it knew how offensive it would be to the moderate voters the Prime Minister so desperately wants?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, the firearms advisory committee was set up along criteria that was put in place in 2003-04 by my predecessor, the minister of public safety at the time, and we have continued to follow that criteria.

I am also happy to say that this particular committee, very qualified people on the technical areas related to firearms, is one of about 500 individuals and organizations advising me on how we should be moving ahead with a more efficient gun system.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Clearly, no one believes the minister, Mr. Speaker. He was so proud of the firearms secret society that there was no announcement, no biographies released and no press conference.

Does the minister agree with the member for Yorkton—Melville when he says, “The difference between the Liberal government and the [conservists] is obvious by the people who make up the committee?”

Why did the government change it from the firearms advisory committee to the firearms advocacy committee?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure who the “conservists” are, but I think she is serious about her concern, and I share that concern.

Not only are the names of the people on that particular committee available, but is she asking that we put the names out of all the 500 different organizations and individuals we consult? We could do that; it is not an issue. We have nothing to hide.

We want to see an effective firearms system that will lead to a reduction in crimes with firearms. We think we can accomplish that by doing it in a common sense way.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the secret society for firearms is the latest salvo in the Conservative plan to eviscerate gun control laws.

One Conservative appointee said that the Virginia Tech shooting could have been stopped if the students were armed. Another said that the weapon used at the Dawson College shooting was “fun”.

If the government really supports the police, why was the Canadian Police Association left off this list? Could it be because it dared to support the gun registry?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, this specious attempt to try to take some fragmented quotes from people and tag them on to our policy is ridiculous. I just wish the opposition would get onside with us.

We want to see more dollars going into an increased number of officers on the street, especially directed toward the smuggling of firearms. We want to see the very strict control of handguns. We want to see that dealt with in an even stricter fashion. We want to see prohibition orders that are applied to people who have lost the right to have firearms maintained and not done away with as the Liberals allowed to happen. We want to see firearm control that works. We wish they would support us on that.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

It is strange, Mr. Speaker. An email from the office of the member for Barrie dictates how to respond if pressed on the bias of the Canadian firearms advisory committee. Even the government was afraid to publish the list of members when the appointments were made.

Why does the advisory committee only hear the voices of the pro-gun lobby? Where is the balance now, as we had when we were in government?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I think she will want to rethink those comments. If she thinks balance is taking $1 billion and wasting it on a firearms system that does not work, then that is a pretty scary view of balance.

We wish the opposition would support what we are doing, which is going to see a reduction in crimes with firearms. She might want to reflect on the comments of her own members. One recently talked about a ban on handguns. There already is a ban on the use of those handguns to many citizens. We want to make that more strict.

Members of the Liberal Party, for instance, the member for Huron—Bruce, said that he would vote against his own government if it brought in the ridiculous kinds of things about which she has talked.

Health

[Bill Casey, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, cancer is a disease that touches millions of Canadians every day. In the last election, this party made a commitment to Canadians to establish a Canadian cancer strategy.

Could the Minister of Health inform the House on the progress the Conservative government has made to support Canadian families dealing with cancer?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, last November the Prime Minister and I announced the creation of the new Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, which is an agency designed to work on surveillance, on research and on the prevention and treatment of cancer across the whole country.

This morning I met with the board of directors of this new agency, including Mr. Lozen, who is the chair of this agency. I am pleased to announce that this new agency is up and running. I am certainly looking forward to its pan-Canadian efforts to lead the fight against cancer, something this government has stood for and in fact acted on. We are very proud that we did.

Government Policies

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday last week people were asking why the Conservative government would not let Parliament work. Hard-working families are frustrated about job loss and foreign takeovers. They are frustrated that this House is not fixing climate change. However, the government makes it a priority to produce a 200 page manual on obstructing parliament, which has nothing to do with these priorities.

Has the Prime Minister decided that obstruction of Parliament is more important than working on the priorities of Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we have been trying to get legislation through this Parliament. The difficulty is that with the opposition, in particular the Liberal Party, it is very difficult to do so.

Bill C-10, the mandatory penalties for gun crime, something that I know Canadians care about a great deal right now, was held up at committee for 252 days and then all the relevant portions of it were gutted by the Liberals. We had to rely on the hon. members of the NDP to restore those provisions. I could go through justice bill after justice bill where that has been the case.

What is more, they have used other devices, like concurrence motions, to take up, on 20 occasions, three weeks of House time with delay and obstruction tactics.

We are the ones who are trying to get the job done. It is the opposition parties that have been obstructing.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government House leader knows the difference between parliamentary debate and amending bills and the straight-out filibustering and foolish behaviour in which the Conservative MPs are engaged.

It would be nice if just once the government House leader treated the House with the respect it deserves. He is not fooling anyone. We all know that the Conservatives are trying very hard to get an early summer break to try to escape public scrutiny.

Again, does the government have any respect for the House? Does it have any respect for ordinary Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, we came here with five clear priorities and we have been delivering on those priorities, or we have been trying to, except for one thing. The opposition parties continue to stand in front of our priority on getting tough on crime, on making our streets and communities safer.

I talked about mandatory penalties for gun crimes. I know that is heavy on the minds of Canadians. It was held up just at committee, not in the House, 232 days.

Let me talk about Bill C-23, the Criminal Code, 224 days and counting at committee; age of protection, 175 days at committee.

Canada Summer Jobs

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, since the House last met, the summer grants program has continued to spin out of control. We have Conservative MPs making up policy on the fly, ministers announcing different solutions and one who even blamed the bureaucrats.

Conflicting stories add to the incompetence of killing a program that worked and bringing in one that has demoralized students and left non-profit organizations sitting by the phone hoping for good news.

Will the minister accept responsibility for this bungling, or does he share the view of the Minister of Foreign Affairs that it was the fault of our hard-working public servants?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, Canada summer jobs provides thousands of great paying jobs to students who are getting the best work experience they have ever had. That is a big improvement over the old program.

Under the old program, which the member refers to, big companies like Wal-Mart, Canada Safeway, Bacardi and Ford got thousands and thousands of dollars. We do not want to go back to that.

We are responding to the needs of the not for profit sector. That is important. We are getting things done for people who are really making a difference in their communities.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is the government killed a successful program simply because it was a Liberal program, no other reason, just politics. Piecemeal solutions and on the fly policy adjustments simply add to the confusion.

The minister could provide some clarity. Tell us the details. What was the original budget? What is the budget now? What are the new criteria for funding as of last week? Could he assure the House that the bungled operation will be a one year experiment only, one that went horribly wrong? Maybe he should go back to the Liberal program that had worked successfully since 1994.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I know Wal-Mart would love it if we went back to the old program. Ford would think it was terrific. Bacardi would probably pour a stiff drink and celebrate, but we do not want to go there.

What we are doing is ensuring that jobs are going to students and that they are the best quality jobs we can find. That is what is important. This is part of the youth employment strategy. It really is about the students, not about the member.

Corporate Takeovers

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the global economy has changed massively, yet Canada's guidelines for foreign investment just have not changed with it.

Will the government appoint a panel of experts to review the Investment Canada Act, given the spate of foreign takeovers and will the government hold back any decisions on major foreign acquisitions and any changes to foreign ownership rules until that process has been completed?

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised that the member opposite did not read the budget. It was in the budget. We said in the budget a couple of weeks ago that we are going set up a competition panel to review all the competition policy in this country. So I am very surprised at this question.

We have the Investment Canada Act and we will respect the act.