Debates of May 1st, 2008

Holocaust Memorial Day

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to remember the millions of innocent victims, survivors and their families on National Holocaust Memorial Day.

The Holocaust is one of the darkest chapters in human history and its horrific crimes against humanity shook the very foundations of modern civilization. We must never forget that every victim had a name.

The Holocaust taught us, painfully, that we cannot remain silent in the face of hate, anti-Semitism and racism. We must speak out and take action against increasing anti-Semitism in Canada.

Last month, a housing development in Vaughan, in my area, was vandalized with anti-Semitic slurs. It is, therefore, imperative that we take a united stance against hate in all its forms and Canada must take a stronger leadership role in the international community to stand firmly against the genocide in Darfur and the egregious threats of Iran's regime.

Today we honour the victims of the Holocaust and strengthen our resolve to not allow any sanctuary for hate in the world.

Biofuels

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our government has a consistent green strategy when it comes to biofuels.

The Conservative government's objective for biofuels is equivalent to taking one million vehicles off the road.

In addition to having a positive impact on the environment, biofuel production helps the economy of our regions and gives farming families a source of income.

Contrary to what some people have recently suggested, biofuel production in Canada has no adverse effect on food production. After all, even when we achieve our targets for biofuel production, 95% of Canadian farmland will continue to produce food.

Above and beyond current biofuel production, Canada must become a leader in producing the next generation of biofuels. That is why the Conservative government invested more than $500 million in the development of these new technologies. That is far more than the Bloc Québécois will ever do.

I encourage my Bloc Québécois colleagues to be consistent for once and support Bill C-33, since, after all—

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.

Petroleum Monitoring

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, less than 10 years ago, Canadians were paying 55.7¢ a litre for gasoline, on average. Oil companies' profits have gone up 1,376% in the past 10 years. Today, people in Acadie—Bathurst and the rest of the country are paying about $1.30 a litre.

Have salaries gone up 1,376% in the past 10 years? No, Mr. Speaker.

Has the cost of living gone up because of higher oil prices? Yes, Mr. Speaker.

While Canadians are being taken advantage of, the Conservative government is continuing to encourage the oil companies by doing nothing to justify or defend price increases. Instead, the government is giving them tax breaks.

It is time Canada had a monitoring agency, which the NDP has been calling for, so that the oil companies can be held to account before they drain us dry.

CBC Radio

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the city of London, I am pleased to stand in support of the proposed expansion of the CBC Radio network in London to serve as the full regional station in southwestern Ontario.

As Canada's 10th largest centre, London is a dynamic community on the move with a solid direction for the future. We are the hub of southwestern Ontario in terms of the economy, education, health care, research and the arts.

Londoners are very fortunate to have the current CBC presence in town as a key component in generating public awareness of local and regional issues, yet there is so much more potential for CBC and our community to work together.

We look forward to the opportunity to serve as home to a full regional CBC station. We would embrace and support the many resulting benefits including economic stimulation, advocacy for the arts, educational partnerships, community dialogue and strengthened emergency planning.

I look forward to more discussion here in Parliament and in committee on this subject in the coming weeks.

International Worker's Day

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is May 1, International Workers' Day, and I would like to point out that there are two categories of workers in Quebec.

Workers in the first category work in French in an environment that respects Bill 101. Workers in the second category are subject to the Canada Labour Code and their employers do not respect the Charter of the French Language. They work in ports, airports, telecommunications companies, interprovincial transportation, railway transportation, banks, etc. There are more than 200,000 of these workers in Quebec.

All too often, they must work in both official languages, or even solely in English. They receive documents in English and get called into meetings held in English when at least one of their colleagues is a unilingual anglophone.

Yet Quebec is a nation. Parliament recognized this. The member for Drummond introduced Bill C-482 to amend the Canada Labour Code to apply the Charter of the French Language to businesses under federal jurisdiction, so that the workers of Quebec can work in French.

Floods in New Brunswick

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, this week New Brunswick has been hit by the most serious flooding it has experienced in more than 30 years, with warnings of high water levels in areas all along the Saint John River.

The spring rains and snow melt runoff have endangered more than 1,300 homes. The forecast looks the worst for the city of Fredericton.

Rising waters threaten to swamp bridges and force closure of dozens of roads. The Red Cross, EMO, fire departments and police forces are all working hard to warn and assist residents.

Many remember the floods of 1973 and 2005 with horror. The good news is that the rain is supposed to ease off today with clear skies for Friday.

I know that I speak on behalf of all the members of the House when I offer my sincerest sympathy to all those in need right now.

I say to New Brunswickers to face this challenge head on with the true maritime strength and determination that they are known for, take care of each other, and know that April showers are almost behind them.

Tackling Violent Crime Act

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the legislative committee on the Tackling Violent Crime Act, I was able to see firsthand this government's commitment to the safety of Canadians.

As a former officer I am proud to announce that this Conservative government has provided our people in uniform with three new critical tools at their disposal. Beginning today, Canadians will see better protection for youth from adult sexual predators by increasing the age of protection from 14 years to 16 years, tough new mandatory jail time for serious gun crimes, and new bail provisions which require those accused of serious gun crimes to show why they should not be kept in jail while awaiting trial.

Dangerous criminals who use guns to commit crimes, and sexual predators who prey on youth will get the penalties they deserve.

The people of Prince Edward—Hastings said they wanted the era of lenient penalties to end and it has. Criminals will not be coddled under this government. They will be dealt with according to law. Finally, victims will have a voice and justice will be served.

Communications Vetting Policy

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General of Canada has been forced to defend her independence from the government's attempt to vet her communications with Canadians.

Why is the Conservative government at war with Canada's democratic institutions?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is in fact not at all the case. The policy in question applies to government departments, not to the independent agents of Parliament, regardless of what those independent agents may conclude. This government has no intention of requiring those independent agents of Parliament to vet their communications through the government in any way.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, why then was the Auditor General forced to raise that question before a parliamentary committee? We have to be sure this is the case.

Will the government table the communication plan in question in the House?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think I indicated quite clearly that the policy in question ensuring that taxpayers' dollars are respected and that money is not spent wastefully is one that applies to government departments. It does not apply to independent officers of Parliament. There is no need for the Auditor General or any other independent officer of Parliament to fear this.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, that is why we want the government to table the communications policy. Why would the Auditor General go so far as to mention it in a committee of the House? Why would she mention that the auditor watchdogs had the same concern if this concern did not exist at the outset?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think I said quite clearly it does not apply, so there is no concern.

But there is something that is concerning Canadians, and that is the hidden agenda of the Liberal leader who has committed $62.5 billion in debt spending, deficit spending, and then there is a raft of dozens of uncosted promises that he will not tell Canadians the cost of. Why will he not come clean and table the costing of his commitments in this House or elsewhere to Canadians? Why will he not tell them his tax and spend plans?

Elections Canada

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Elections Canada is an institution that has earned the respect and confidence of the entire world. It has provided electoral assistance in 100 countries. It has organized missions in over 100 countries, including recent elections in Afghanistan and Haiti. But on Tuesday, we learned that there is one government, this government, that no longer has confidence in Elections Canada.

How can the government possibly explain that to Canadians and to the world?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed important that Elections Canada be seen as a neutral authority respected by all political parties, and recent events have made that difficult.

We recall just last summer when the leader of the Liberal Party spoke out against the interpretation of the Chief Electoral Officer on the question of people showing their faces when they were voting in the byelections. After he challenged that ruling of the Chief Electoral Officer, he was actually joined by the leaders of all the political parties, and after that, a unanimous resolution of a committee of this House of Commons criticizing the interpretation of the Chief Electoral Officer on a law they just passed. It is an example of the problem he is speaking of.

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government obviously does not understand the distinction between questioning a judgment of Elections Canada and expressing confidence in the institution.

We know that this government does not respect Elections Canada. I want a clear answer to this question: why has this government lost its confidence in Elections Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have the exact same problem with Elections Canada that the Liberal member for Toronto Centre had that caused him to take Elections Canada to court over an interpretation the Chief Electoral Officer had applied, with which he disagreed and with which he succeeded. There is that issue. There is the previous issue and there have been numerous other similar challenges.

Our concern is the same: a changing interpretation of Elections Canada, an unfair, unequal application of it to one party only. That is why we took it to court and the response, an issue where we see Elections Canada violating its own manuals, its own rules, its own guidelines--

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member for Laurier--Sainte-Marie.

Election Expenses

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party claims to have shared advertising costs with candidates. For that to be legal, all the party's candidates would have had to participate. However, participants in this scheme were selected based on the room to manoeuvre within their spending limits and not on the benefits they would draw from the advertising. This scheme was implemented when the Conservative Party realized it had gone beyond its spending allowance.

Will the Prime Minister admit that his party violated the Canada Elections Act?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc is the father of in and out. He came up with this term as a way of explaining to Bloc candidates the need to take part in such a scheme to boost their Elections Canada rebates.

In the last election, the Bloc transferred more than $700,000 to its local candidates and then sent them invoices totalling more than $800,000. The leader of the Bloc is not only the father of in and out, but also the expert at in and out.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with experts at lying and hypocrisy. The Bloc has never been under investigation and still is not, while they have been under investigation a number of times and still are.

Their scheme worked so well that they even went looking for candidates in ridings where there were none, like the riding of Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, while the candidate in Westmount—Ville-Marie was not asked to participate in the scheme because they knew she would refuse. There were some candidates who wanted to respect the act while the Prime Minister and his associates did not.

Is this not another example that the Prime Minister's party violated the Canada Elections Act by lying?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc candidates were not allowed to refuse because the leader of the Bloc forced them to participate in his in and out scheme.

In May 2004, the Bloc sent $17,000 in invoices to the candidate for Québec, who is a now a member. A few weeks later, the hon. member for Québec sent a cheque to the Bloc for those invoices. Two days later, the Bloc wrote a cheque for roughly $17,000. And who deposited that cheque? The hon. member for Québec did. I imagine the leader of the Bloc has had an opportunity to talk about this with the hon. member.

Elections Canada

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board told Radio-Canada how the Conservatives would approach the next election: “We will be keeping a close eye on Elections Canada to ensure that it follows the rules—” That is crazy. The independent agency in charge of monitoring political parties will be monitored by the Conservatives. It seems we have quite the democracy.

How can the Conservatives attack the agency that ensures that elections are—

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board.