Debates of Jan. 28th, 2009

Indian Oil and Gas Act

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Indian Oil and Gas Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Interprovincial Bridge

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition signed by citizens living on both sides of the river in the National Capital Region. This petition concerns the construction of an interprovincial bridge and the flow of commercial traffic through the heart of the national capital.

The petitioners are asking the National Capital Commission to proceed with an in-depth study of a bridge connecting the Canotek industrial park and the Gatineau airport, which was option no. 7 in the first phase of the environmental study of interprovincial crossings.

Darfur

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today on behalf of the citizens of Darfur. As many people know, the genocide that has taken place in Darfur has meant that approximately 300,000 people have been killed and two million more have been displaced. The Sudanese government has delayed the deployment of 26,000 peacekeeping troops.

There are a number of requests in this petition, but essentially the petitioners are asking for a peacekeeping force in this region to help deal with this very serious situation.

Employment Insurance

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from residents of my riding of Langley,

The petitioners say that there are number of life-threatening conditions that do not qualify for disability programs and that the current medical EI benefits of 15 weeks do not adequately address the problem.

The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to enact legislation to provide additional medical EI benefits to at least, if not better than, maternity benefits.

Impaired Driving Offences

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of presenting a petition predominantly from students of Hampton High School in my riding that recognizes the severe impact of impaired driving on our communities.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to implement tougher sentences for impaired-driving-related offences.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

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

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions for Papers

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Ottawa Transit Strike

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The Chair has received notice of a request for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier.

I will hear him now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am asking that you consider allowing us to hold an emergency debate in this House—today or tomorrow, at the latest—to discuss the strike in the national capital region, which began on December 10.

This is the 50th day of a strike that has paralyzed our community and had a negative impact on hundreds of thousands of our citizens. From the beginning of this strike, all members of this House representing an affected riding, no matter their political affiliation, have received hundreds of comments from individuals in truly deplorable situations: students forced to consider quitting school, seniors practically shut in because they no longer have access to public transportation and cannot go anywhere, and small businesses in our community that are suffering greatly.

We believe that it is very important for the government to be fully aware of this rather urgent situation .

The role of the government is twofold. The government has jurisdiction in this instance because this is an interprovincial service that is being offered by OC Transpo. Because it crosses into Quebec, the jurisdiction falls onto the federal government. The government has intervened in this in the sense of forcing a vote but it is important for people to know what the intentions of the government are, if any, in pursuing this matter. People need to know whether there is to be any hope from those where the jurisdiction lies.

The second important reason, which is the one I raised yesterday in the House and which the President of the Treasury Board did not even answer but referred it to a colleague, is that the government is also the employer of tens of thousands of people who are finding it extremely difficult in these circumstances. If we have a day like today, where we have a snowfall, it is almost a permanent gridlock out there and it is affecting everybody.

I believe we should address this and consider options available to the government and consider options that may be brought forward to put pressure on both parties, not taking sides here but taking the side of the population. It would be an important occasion for members of this House, who are concerned and who represent over a million people affected by this, to have the opportunity of putting to the government and for the government to respond, to figure a way out of this situation and figure a way forward for the betterment of conditions for our fellow citizens.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The Chair wishes to thank the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier for raising this matter. I have listened carefully to the arguments that he has advanced in support of his argument and, of course, read his letter concerning the matter.

In my view the matter does warrant an urgent debate but I note that the weather today is particularly difficult and makes it awkward for the staff at the House to be here, to get home and so on. Therefore, I will defer the debate on this until tomorrow evening, which I believe will be satisfactory in light of the circumstances. I hope that is okay with the hon. member.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in light of the favourable ruling that you have just made with respect to the emergency debate about transit, I would invite my fellow House leaders to consider consenting to the following motion. I move:

That during this debate, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be entertained by the Speaker.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Is the member for Wascana asking that I put this motion now or is he going to discuss this with the House leaders and then come back? It was not clear from his submission that he wanted me to put the matter to the House at this point.

Perhaps the government House leader will clarify it for us all.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, of course we are all waiting with great anticipation for the speeches that are about to come, and I do not want to delay that any further, but I have no problem agreeing with that particular motion. That has become the norm for how we deal with these urgent debates.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Is the motion, as put forward by the hon. member for Wascana, satisfactory to all hon. members?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed from January 27 consideration of the motion that the House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, as I rise in this House, I would like to begin by thanking the hon. members for Kings—Hants and Markham—Unionville for their exemplary work during the meetings we held nationwide. They travelled with me across the country and listened to what Canadians had to say about their hopes for a better future. I would like to congratulate them, along with the other members of the Liberal caucus, for having given the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance the constructive ideas that appear in their budget.

I would also like to thank the leaders of the NDP and the Bloc Québécois for their thoughtful, constructive contributions over the past few months. Unlike the government, these two leaders have understood for a long time now that the recession is serious and far-reaching. They have worked hard on behalf of the people of Canada.

Canada's ship of state has entered some very rough and turbulent water and the captain's steering through this storm has been erratic. He misjudged, misled and misguided. At first he failed to act and then he acted irresponsibly. Now, finally he recognizes that we are in real danger. Finally, he is taking some measures to head for safety, but it has been a long time coming.

For three years, the Conservatives have chosen reckless spending and irresponsible tax policy over prudence and fiscal discipline. They drove Canada toward a deficit long before this recession began and they harmed the federal Government of Canada's capacity to act in the face of crisis.

For that failure, the failure to plan and act as a government, we hold them responsible. We hold them responsible for telling us that there would be no recession when we were already entering one. We hold them responsible for their disastrous fall economic statement with its fanciful forecasts of surplus and its arrogant and divisive partisanship. We hold them responsible for proroguing Parliament at a time when Canadians wanted this House to work.

The government has already made Canadians wait too long for help.

Because of the Prime Minister's actions, the recession will be longer, deeper and more painful than necessary. He spent like crazy during the good years. He said that the economy was fine, but it was not. He said that there would be no recession, but there is one. He made announcements, over and over again, about infrastructure measures, but we are still waiting for new jobs. He made announcements, over and over again, about training and skills development programs, but he did not keep those promises either.

This budget is a hodge-podge of last-minute measures. What is even more disturbing is the news of an $85 billion deficit. The Minister of Finance has predicted where this country will be in six years. He has talked about long-term plans and forecasts, but the government cannot even see as far ahead as the next six weeks. Now he is talking about the next six years.

We have a government, which cannot manage spending or programs, daring to tell us today how it will manage the economy six years from now. The reality is simple and stark. It is now the end of January. To say that action is overdue would be an understatement.

Yesterday's budget is a flawed document. However, the impact of a united opposition has been clear. The budget includes measures that we called for during the last election and which the Prime Minister said that he would never do: affordable housing; skills development; expansion of the working income tax benefit and the child tax benefit; investment in regional development agencies throughout the country; measures to make credit available to business; and investments in colleges and universities, the incubators of the jobs of tomorrow. These measures stand to offer actual hope for actual Canadians and they are only in the budget because the opposition parties did their job.

At a time when Canadians raise questions about whether our political system could work, the political system did work, and the Liberal Party, in particular, remained resolved to hold the Conservative government to account.

The budget falls short on many counts. Why does the budget open the door for attacks on pay equity for women? Why does it not propose the improvements to employment insurance that Canadians who have lost their jobs were waiting for? Why does it break their promise to all provinces from only two years ago on equalization? Why does it attach strings to infrastructure dollars that may delay projects and delay jobs? Where is the Conservative plan to guarantee Canada's productivity, competitiveness and prosperity in the future? Where is their plan for a green and sustainable economy? Where is their plan to get us out of deficit? Why are they still counting on the sale of government assets to fill the coffers, without saying which assets and at what price?

This is not a government, to say the least, that has proven good at planning. It has also not proven to be very good at keeping its promises. Yet the Prime Minister has never held himself to account the way Canadians expect him to. If he is asking the House for its confidence, then he will have to earn it. He will have to work to keep it as long as he sits in that chair.

That is why we will move to amend the budget to include new measures to ensure the government is held accountable for its promises.

We will require regular reports to Parliament on the budget's implementation and its costs, one in March, one in June and one in December. Let it be clear that each of these reports will be an opportunity to withdraw our confidence should the government fail Canadians.

We will vigilantly monitor the budget's effects on our economy and on every region of the country. If the Prime Minister fails, we will be ready to defeat him.

Let me be very clear that our support for this budget is conditional upon adopting the Liberal amendment. Let me say it another way. Without this amendment, we will not support the budget and the government will fall.

Canadians do not want another election and they are tired of political games. They have waited too long for action on the economy for us to fail them now because of partisan interests. The Liberal Party is not giving the Prime Minister of Canada a green light. We are giving him a flashing yellow light: proceed with extreme caution.

The Prime Minister does not have a free pass. He can no longer use “take it or leave it, my way or the highway” as his way of dealing with Parliament.

He is under the watchful eye of this Parliament. We will be demanding much more and much better from the government to better serve Canadians.

It has finally put forward a plan for our consideration. Now the question is whether the money starts flowing. We take nothing for granted from the Prime Minister and the government. We will be watching them like hawks.

I repeat this for the Prime Minister. Proceed with the very greatest caution. With that, I move:

That the motion be amended by changing the period to a comma and adding the following:

“on condition that the government table reports in Parliament no later than five sitting days before the last allotted day in each of the supply periods ending March 26, June 23 and December 10:

(a) to provide on-going economic and fiscal updates;

(b) to detail the actual implementation of the budget;

(c) to itemize the actual effects of the budget with respect to:

the protection of the most vulnerable in Canadian society,

the minimizing of existing job losses,

the creation of the employment opportunities of tomorrow,

the provision of economic stimulus in a manner fair to all regions of Canada, and

the assurance that the government's deficit is not a burden to future generations or a detriment to economic recovery and;

(d) to provide details on any adjustments or new measures as may be required to benefit the Canadian economy”.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member opposite for his appointment as Leader of the Opposition.

I appreciate his comments regarding the good things in the economic plan put forward by us, but I have a specific question about the dates in his amendment.

I am a Conservative member of the finance committee. One of the dates he has indicated for the last allotted day in each supply period is March 26.

Could I assume then that, based upon March 26 coming relatively quickly, we will get the same support at committee from Liberal committee members to ensure the budget bill gets through committee quickly and back to the House, so we can meet the dates he looks for in the amendment?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have not seen the measure he proposes, so it is premature to ask me to answer. However, we would want to be assured that the ministers appear before the committee and give us the evidence, the facts and the figures that we need in order to make an appropriate judgment.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we received some rather disappointing news today from the Liberal Party of Canada, which has turned its back on the plan to form a coalition. That plan hinged primarily—for Quebec, for example—on a unanimous motion by the Quebec National Assembly. Now the Liberal Party of Canada has decided to flout that motion. It decided to put the interests of Ontario ahead of the interests of Quebec.

Can the hon. Leader of the Opposition explain how he can justify such a position?