Debates of Nov. 27th, 2008

Interparliamentary Delegations

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the reports of two delegations of Canadian Branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie concerning their participation in the Canada-France Symposium, “The legacy of France in Canada after 400 years”. held in Paris on March 7 and 8, 2008, and in the Parliamentary Affairs Commission of the APF held at Andorre-la-Vieille, Principality of Andorra, on May 6 and 7, 2008.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) it is my pleasure to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian parliamentary delegation to the 16th session of the Steering Committee of the Parliamentary Conference on the World Trade Organization held in Geneva, Switzerland on October 3, 2007.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

If I could seek consent to move to petitions, we will come back to motions in a few minutes. Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

CBC Radio Orchestra

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table petitions signed by many residents of greater Vancouver, including a number who live in Burnaby--Douglas.

These petitioners are all fans of the CBC Radio Orchestra. They note that it has played a key role in the cultural life of Canada and Vancouver over its 70 year history and it has been key to the promotion of Canadian musicians and composers.

The petitioners call on the government to ensure continuing funding for the CBC Radio Orchestra and a strong and renewed commitment from CBC/Radio-Canada to classical music in its over the air programming.

I am sure these petitioners believe that it is not too late to save the CBC Radio Orchestra.

Interprovincial Bridge

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, sensing perhaps the need for time, if the House will indulge me, I will read the whereas clauses of the petition and--

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member knows that he cannot do that, but he can give us a brief summary.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I will give a brief summary then, Mr. Speaker.

This is the sixth in a series of petitions. I hope the government will respond positively to them.

The petitions have been signed by people living in the city of Ottawa, the national capital region. They are asking the government to direct the National Capital Commission to proceed to a detailed assessment of an interprovincial bridge linking the Canotek industrial park to the Gatineau airport in the east of the respective cities. This is also known as option seven of the first phase of the interprovincial crossings environmental assessment.

We are waiting for the final report of the consultant. That phase proposes that a bridge be built at a certain location which would essentially cause further problems. This seeks the removal of heavy truck traffic from the core of the nation's capital. Every self-respecting city has a ring road. There is a need to build a bridge, perhaps even two bridges, but in the appropriate location so that eventually there would be a ring road around the national capital region.

The petitioners are asking the government to take the appropriate action in directing the NCC to do the right thing.

Gasoline Prices

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by hundreds of people from the quaint Ontario communities of Finch, Crysler, Apple Hill, Cornwall, Berwick, Monkland, Roxborough, Moose Creek and Maxville.

The petitioners point out that gas prices at the pump are not indicative of the true cost of gas. When gas prices go up, they go up immediately at the pump, but when gas prices go down, they do not go down at the pump.

Considering that there is 5% GST, 10% federal excise tax, and 14.7% provincial tax, the petitioners would like the federal government to reduce federal taxes and put in a mechanism where companies would have to justify a proposed increase in gas prices and also be required to give 30 hours' notice of that increase. The petitioners also indicate that when the price of a barrel of oil goes down, the price at the pump should automatically go down at the close of the stock markets on that day.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Use of Member's Letterhead and Franking Privileges

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The chair has notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Malpeque and I will hear him now.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege relating to a letter that was sent under the franking privileges of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board, the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

The letter, a copy of which I am prepared to table, was sent to a number of individuals, farmers in fact, and organizations in western Canada. The letter is directed to those producers. I would like to quote from the letter:

A change in leadership around the Board of Directors' table would mark a new era of opportunity in Western Canada. Your vote can make that happen.

The member then makes reference to the individuals for whom he is advocating. I will quote again from his letter:

Together, we can bring marketing choice to Western Canada. Time is running out, vote for Sam and Walter today and mail or fax it back to Myers Norris Penny.

I believe this is a very serious breech of parliamentary privilege and a breach of democratic principles in this country. The letter comes from a parliamentary secretary who has access to confidential information of the Canadian Wheat Board. Is he or is he not using that list which should remain confidential to target a political agenda within his own riding? I understand other members of the Conservative Party are also sending out letters.

Mr. Speaker, there are two points here. One, is the parliamentary secretary breaching his oath of office and using confidential lists for political purposes? Two, is the parliamentary secretary breaching the rules of the House and using his franking privileges for political purposes and getting to his ideology in marketing choice?

What would happen if we in the House, in the next provincial election in any province, used our franking privileges day in and day out to mail out and advocate for a certain politician? We do know that the government, that the Minister of Agriculture has lifted third party spending rules and that allows the big grain companies and others to work for their opponents which is against, I believe, individual farmers.

This is a very serious matter. The question, Mr. Speaker, that you must resolve, is whether by using the privileges of a member of Parliament, as has been done by the member, a parliamentary secretary no less, has he not impugned the integrity of an election which is supposed to be independent of government interference and thereby called into question the integrity of the election and the role of all members of the House? The question here is, what will the government and its members not do to achieve their ends?

The misuse of the letterhead of a member of Parliament and the franking privileges to attempt to blatantly influence a democratic process of the Canadian Wheat Board constitutes, I believe, a clear violation of those privileges. Mr. Speaker, I believe that you should find that member in contempt of his parliamentary privileges by what has happened.

I have a last point to make. The recent election for Speaker was all about decorum in this House. In fact, the Prime Minister in his throne speech said that upholding the ideal of democracy that we embody in the world is a responsibility that each of us bears. I believe the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board, has undermined what we are talking about in terms of the ideal of democracy because he has taken away fairness and equal rights in terms of a democratic election for directors of the Canadian Wheat Board. He is undermining the very thrust of what the Prime Minister talked about in the throne speech.

This is an extremely serious issue and cannot be allowed to continue. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule in that way.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the member for Malpeque's question of privilege.

First, I would point out that questions of privilege are designed for one very important reason. If a member's ability to do his or her job has been impeded or thwarted somehow, then that is a question of privilege. That does not hold water in this case whatsoever. I see nothing in the presentation that the hon. member for Malpeque made just a few moments ago that would even suggest remotely that the letter sent out by the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands impeded the ability of the hon. member for Malpeque to do his job.

Second, is the member for Malpeque honestly suggesting that the Speaker of this House should censor members' communications? I hope that is not what he is suggesting, because after all, all members have the ability to communicate with their constituents.

Third, the member for Malpeque seems to be suggesting that somehow the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands used a confidential list. There is no proof of that whatsoever. In fact, all of us as parliamentarians have people we communicate with on a regular basis. We all communicate, advocating our positions as political parties. It is quite evident, and we have made no secret of it, the desire of this government to ensure that western Canadian farmers obtain marketing freedom. That is a position we have not only advocated publicly but we have done it in communications for the last several years, and this seems to be nothing more than a continuation of that.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you respectfully that there is absolutely no question of privilege here whatsoever, and I ask for your considered ruling on that as quickly as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add some comments to the question of privilege put forward by my colleague, the member for Malpeque.

I too have received a copy of the letter from the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands that was sent out to a number of individuals and organizations in western Canada. I too wonder about where the list came from. We have heard about lists that the government has and the abuse of lists in sending communications to members of the community.

After review of the letter, of which I too have a copy, I find it to be in clear violation of members' franking privileges. The member, I should add, is a parliamentary secretary, a member of the government. In the letter in question which has been tabled, the member encourages the recipients to support candidates in the Canadian Wheat Board elections who represent the same views as the government, those who support marketing choice.

The mailing, as you have heard, Mr. Speaker, was sent on members' parliamentary letterhead and was mailed using taxpayers' dollars through the member's franking privileges. This member is clearly using his member's office resources to interfere and influence the Canadian Wheat Board director elections so that his views can be represented at the table.

It is, to my mind, a clear example of political interference. The member has abused his privileges as an MP and, more important, as a parliamentary secretary for the Canadian Wheat Board. Members do not send out endorsements for their provincial colleagues in provincial elections nor for municipal colleagues in municipal elections because it is indeed a violation of our privileges. I would submit that this is no different.

I would also submit that this brings the whole House of Commons into disrepute. Again I ask, where did he get the list? His interference, in my view, is unethical as the member, as I said before, is a parliamentary secretary and has a direct interest in the outcome of the election.

Some members might have noted what was stated in the Winnipeg Free Press this morning, “--so that they can hopefully vote for candidates who will be able to work with the government after the election”.

This is the mindset of the government. Is he saying that the government will not work with members who do not hold the same views as the government on the Wheat Board? The member clearly wants his allies on the board, as he explicitly endorses two candidates, one of whom, as stated in the letter, “--was seen as instrumental in brokering the merger between the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative parties”. This individual is Sam Magnus.

The Conservative government and the parliamentary secretary are continuing their assault on the Wheat Board, trying to dissuade voters against specific candidates. Recently, a group calling itself Market Choice Alliance complained that two unsuccessful Liberal candidates were running in the election, but made no mention of the fact that two Conservatives were running to be on the board.

This does not sound like non-partisan work. They, along with the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, will do anything in their power to get their way. The member has blatantly interfered in the democratic process of the Canadian Wheat Board and I believe he has clearly misused his privileges as a member of Parliament.

Like my colleague, I believe the member should be found in contempt. It is incumbent upon you, Mr. Speaker, to censor the abuse of communications that the member has entered into, and I respectfully ask you to do so.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is shameful that the deputy House leader would become complicit in this activity by trying to defend it. He also suggested it is not within your jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker. However, in your jurisdiction is the cost of running Parliament, and if someone is abusing the franking privileges and the letterhead, which are costs of Parliament, it is definitely within your jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker.

My main point is that I would like you to investigate as well, Mr. Speaker, is whether or not this is breaking a law or within the spirit of a law. When Parliament creates an organization that has democratic elections, then why would someone try to influence those elections at taxpayers' expense? That is hardly within the spirit of the law and maybe breaking the law.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

It is not for the Speaker to investigate breaches of the law. That is for other officials to do. However, I will take this matter under advisement and consider the issue. There may be further submissions later. I am certainly prepared to look at it in detail and come back to the House in due course.

I know the chief government whip spoke to me, and we skipped motions by consent in order to revert. I am prepared to revert now if the chief government whip indicates that he wants to propose a motion to the House at this time.

Committees of the House

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Minister of State and Chief Government Whip]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations between parties and there is general agreement that I present the following motion. I move:

That the Standing Orders be amended as follows:

1. By replacing Standing Order 104(2) with the following:

104(2) The standing committees, which shall consist of the number of Members stipulated below, and for which the lists of members are to be prepared, except as provided in section (1) of this Standing Order, shall be on:

(a) Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development (twelve Members);

(b) Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics (eleven Members);

(c) Agriculture and Agri-Food (twelve Members);

(d) Canadian Heritage (twelve Members);

(e) Citizenship and Immigration (twelve Members);

(f) Environment and Sustainable Development (twelve Members);

(g) Finance (twelve Members);

(h) Fisheries and Oceans (twelve Members);

(i) Foreign Affairs and International Development (twelve Members);

(j) Government Operations and Estimates (eleven Members);

(k) Health (twelve Members);

(l) Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities (twelve Members);

(m) Industry, Science and Technology (twelve Members);

(n) International Trade (twelve Members);

(o) Justice and Human Rights (twelve Members);

(p) National Defence (twelve Members);

(q) Natural Resources (twelve Members);

(r) Official Languages (twelve Members);

(s) Procedure and House Affairs (twelve Members);

(t) Public Accounts (eleven Members);

(u) Public Safety and National Security (twelve Members);

(v) Status of Women (eleven Members);

(w) Transport, Infrastructure and Communities (twelve Members); and,

(x) Veterans Affairs (twelve Members).

2. By replacing Standing Order 108(3)(b) with the following:

108(3)(b) Citizenship and Immigration shall include, among other matters, the monitoring of the implementation of the principles of the federal multiculturalism policy throughout the Government of Canada in order:

(i) to encourage the departments and agencies of the federal government to reflect the multicultural diversity of the nation; and

(ii) to examine existing and new programs and policies of federal departments and agencies to encourage sensitivity to multicultural concerns and to preserve and enhance the multicultural reality of Canada.

3. By replacing Standing Order 108(3)(d) with the following:

108(3)(d) Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities shall include, among other matters, the proposing, promoting, monitoring and assessing of initiatives aimed at the integration and equality of disabled persons in all sectors of Canadian society;

That the Clerk of the House be authorized, where appropriate, to redirect, after consultation, any references to any committees that have already been made at the time of the adoption of this order.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Does the chief government whip have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed from November 26 consideration of the motion for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her speech at the opening of the session.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin if I may with my thanks to all the people of Sherbrooke for showing their confidence in me for the fifth time in a row in this past election. I was re-elected because we have confidence in each other. May I also congratulate all of my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois. I am sure that they, too, continue that relationship of confidence with their fellow citizens, for they are the only ones who really represent the needs and aspirations of Quebec. I also congratulate all the other members, and you, Mr. Speaker, on your election, which means that we know that decorum will reign in this House. Moreover, yesterday we witnessed the Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole ensuring the respect for decorum as well.

That said, an election campaign has just come to an end, and not much has changed. A government has been sworn in, a government which sought to obtain a majority under false pretenses, with a platform which pointed to more of the same—that is a minority government.

Judging by the throne speech, many members of the government did not campaign according to the rules. Obviously, candidates campaign to get re-elected. But they also campaign to meet with people, companies, institutions and community, social and economic organizations. They campaign to talk with people and find out what they want, to acknowledge their needs and, above all, to be able to meet those needs.

When a government does not want to meet people's needs, the best way it can do that is to not acknowledge those needs. It is easier to say that the most pressing needs are high finance and its impact on the economy. It is easier to take that line and forget about all the other needs people have and what they are going through. So it is that the government decided to deal with the economy.

On reading the throne speech, we can also see that the Prime Minister has remained totally insensitive to how the crisis is affecting the people and the economy. The Prime Minister did not learn anything from the election results in Quebec. And as my leader so aptly put it, this throne speech is just like the most recent Conservative convention: ideological. Incidentally, the Conservative ideology is rooted in the western oil sands. To all intents and purposes, its sole concern is the oil industry.

The throne speech is very disappointing. The Prime Minister came up short. We were promised a throne speech that would focus on the economy, with none of the usual irritants, but what we got was just the opposite. Even though the forestry industry is in very dire straits, the government promises to carry on as if nothing were wrong. The speech contains no commitment to improve employment insurance or create a support program for older workers. There is not even one line about providing assistance for retirees affected by the financial crisis, which shows incredible insensitivity.

The many irritants in the throne speech prove that the Prime Minister still knows nothing about Quebec. He is maintaining the cuts to culture and to economic development organizations. He continues to want to impose a repressive young offenders law and dismantle the gun registry.

He persists in wanting to create a federal securities commission. He will not even say the word "Kyoto". He persists in wanting to reduce Quebec's political power. He promises to expand intrusions into areas under Quebec's jurisdiction such as healthcare and education. There is nothing about the fiscal imbalance, but he uses untruths about the education transfer and wants to cap equalization payments. He wants to support the nuclear power industry and continue with unbridled military spending. He is making the same promises about the federal spending power with a formula that has already been rejected by Quebec. This throne speech gives no thought at all to the Quebec nation or to the interests or values of Quebec.

The openness we were expecting is not there. The worst thing is this complete lack of sensitivity to the effects of the crisis on people and the economy. It is simple. We oppose this throne speech.

This statement of intent is fuzzy when it comes to what the government intends to do to support the economy. For one thing, the throne speech is virtually silent on the enormous problems in the manufacturing and forestry sectors, when entire communities are affected and are desperately waiting for the federal government to play its role in getting the economy going again and providing support for workers who have lost their jobs.

We expected the government to do something. When it called the election, it postponed accountability. And yet we knew what might happen to the economy. The government virtually abdicated responsibility, or really, perhaps, demonstrated that it was incapable of acting. Yes, the government should act, and most importantly, it has the resources to act. All that is missing is the will.

The Bloc Québécois proposed a three-part plan this week to get the economy going again and to help people, to help the public.

The government has a lot of leeway; it could have over $27.7 billion in two years. We could keep a reserve and still invest over $23 billion. It is easy to find $6 billion in bureaucratic spending, and to close the tax havens. Why are they called “tax havens”, in fact? What they are is tax hells for taxpayers in Quebec and Canada. They are being indirectly deprived of services. To my eyes, this is really tax evasion, and the government should fix it as quickly possible.

Of course there are still all the hand-outs to the oil companies, and that could amount to $5.9 billion over two years. And there is the possibility of using the CMHC surplus.

There are other approaches for fixing the situation that cost nothing too, to encourage our domestic businesses and provide more help for our people. There is preferential purchasing, of course. We could make regulations for forestry products to be used in federal construction projects. Another thing is to eliminate the employment insurance waiting period.

I am aware of the needs and aspirations of the people of Sherbrooke, and obviously in my last election campaign I was being told important things I already knew about when it comes to people's social and economic situations. Certainly we can talk about employment insurance, an issue that has still not been resolved. It is up to the government to ensure that people at least have decent living conditions. There is also the question of social housing. In the community of Sherbrooke there are more than 1,350 households and families in extreme need of housing.

You are signalling that I have to finish. That is unfortunate, since I could have gone on, because once again the government is not up to the job.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your re-election. I would also like to congratulate the member opposite on his. I listened carefully to his speech. Today, we will have the chance to support a throne speech that will position the Canadian economy. The steps we have been taking for over 30 months have put our country in a better position to face the economic crisis.

One important measure in this speech is to expedite infrastructure investments everywhere in Quebec and Canada. I am thinking not only about projects that would help us ensure that our communities have access to quality drinking water, but also projects that would have an economic impact, which is the case in my riding, Lévis—Bellechasse, with the ecotourism infrastructure in Buckland.

I think that this throne speech makes it possible for our economy to maintain its purchasing power. Members have seen all the measures we took on behalf of seniors, particularly concerning income splitting and the increase in income eligibility for seniors who receive the guaranteed income supplement—those with the lowest income. Unfortunately, the member's party opposed this. Fortunately, members on this side of the House think it is important to give our seniors, our families and our manufacturing companies in Quebec the tools they need to face this potential crisis.

How come the Bloc members will not support the expediting of infrastructure investment, when all the leaders in Quebec politics are calling for expedited infrastructure investment?