Debates of Feb. 3rd, 2009

House of Commons

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I invite the House to take note of today's use of the wooden mace.

The wooden mace is traditionally used when the House sits on February 3, to mark the anniversary of the fire that destroyed the original Parliament Buildings on this day in 1916.

Chief Electoral Officer

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I have the honour to lay upon the table the report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada on the 40th general election held on October 14, 2008. This report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Interparliamentary Delegations

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to table, in both official languages, reports of the Canada-United States interparliamentary group on the following meetings that were held last year: the report of the Canadian parliamentary delegation to the Council of State Governments-WEST: 2008 annual meetings; report of the Canadian parliamentary delegation to the Western Governors Association, 2008 annual meeting; the report of the Canadian parliamentary delegation to the 49th annual general meeting; the report of the Canadian parliamentary delegation to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 2008 legislative summit; and the report of the Canadian parliamentary delegation to the Southern Governors Association, 2008 general meeting.

Excise Tax Act

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-282, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act (no GST on carbon offsets).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to introduce a private member's bill for the consideration of this House.

At a time when Canadians are trying to lower the negative impact they have on the environment, it is the role of the House and, I would suggest, the obligation for the government to incentivize people to encourage good behaviour. That is why I, seconded by the member for Random—Burin—St. George's, are calling for an amendment to the Excise Tax Act that would offer an exemption to the goods and services tax on carbon offsets.

I believe this would be a good way of encouraging Canadians to reduce their environmental impact and I hope the House will support the bill.

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

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-283, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act (no GST on bicycles).

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to table my private member's bill which, I should point out, was tabled in the previous Parliament but died on the order paper. I believe the federal government can encourage people to make these good transportation choices by supporting my bill which calls for an amendment to the Excise Tax Act to eliminate the goods and services tax on the sale of bicycles.

By giving people the incentive to choose environmentally friendly modes of transportation, we will be doing the right thing for Canadians and for the environment. I hope the House will support this initiative when it comes before it for debate.

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

Medical Experiments on Animals

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to present about 50 pages of petitions that were collected by members of the Animal Defence and Anti-Vivisection Society of B C.

The petitioners feel very strongly about the issue that they collected the petition on. They urge the Canadian government to end funding of medical experiments on animals in favour of nonviolent, more appropriate, ethical and reliable research methods that are increasingly becoming available. They also call for greater accountability from publicly funded researchers and higher standards of animal treatment more in line with those of European Union members. I am pleased to introduce these petitions today in the House.

Interprovincial Bridge

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition signed by Ottawa citizens. It deals with the construction of a bridge and the eventual elimination of heavy-truck traffic in the downtown core of the nation's capital. These petitioners call upon the government to instruct the National Capital Commission to proceed with a detailed assessment of a bridge linking the Canotek industrial park to the Gatineau airport, which is known as option 7 in the second phase of an environmental assessment regarding an interprovincial crossing in the national capital region.

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.

The House resumed from January 30 consideration of the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Random—Burin—St. George's.

I am very happy to be participating in this debate on behalf of my constituents in Mount Royal, a dynamic, committed, rainbow-like riding.

The Speech from the Throne began as follows:

In these uncertain times, when the world is threatened by a struggling economy, it is imperative that we work together, that we stand beside one another and that we strive for greater solidarity.

This co-operative sentiment, this invitation to work together and stand solidly with each other is a welcomed and changed attitude in marked contrast to the government's stewardship of the last three years.

During those three years, the government ignored the warnings of economists against its tax policies and the admonitions of this party about the largest spending spree in history. It managed to drive a $15 billion budgetary surplus into the ground even before the recession began.

In September, when the recession began and every other G8 country was in fact addressing it, the government continued to insist there was no recession.

In October, when G8 governments began to plan around a necessary budgetary deficit, the government continued to insist that it would never run a deficit.

In November, when the global economic meltdown began, the government's economic update astonishingly promised a surplus in 2009.

When that co-operative leadership, which the government now speaks of was so needed, the government, in its economic update, chose to mock Parliament and the people with a series of divisive and adversarial measures. Those measures were more about partisan politics than they were about the economic well-being of Canadians, such that we lurched from an economic crisis to a political crisis to a national unity crisis. Then there was the proroguing of Parliament, during which period we lost more jobs than in any other comparable period in the last 20 years.

We are pleased not only with the new and necessary co-operative and consultative approach, but that the approach has also included initiatives suggested by, among others, our own party, including the expanding of the working income tax benefit and the child tax benefit, affordable housing initiatives, infrastructure investment, investment in regional development bodies, credit access, investment with respect to the infrastructure for aboriginal peoples and the like.

The budget regrettably remains a flawed document, one in which there is an absence of an overarching vision and strategy, one bereft of the great national projects that not only benefit the economy but help to inspire the nation.

For example, while the budget invests in the physical infrastructure of universities and laboratories, which is clearly welcome and needed, it nonetheless ignores the investment in the sciences, in the research, in the ideas that underpin and inspire the work in those universities and laboratories. At the same time, there is an absence in the budget of any reference to the Genome Canada budget, to the diminution of funding for research granting councils and its lack of support for equitable access to higher education.

What we note in particular is what has been called a manifest disregard for science, as the distinguished science journal, Nature, lamented a year ago. Another distinguished journal, Science, now counsels us, warning about the possible outflow of scientists, researchers and educators from Canada to the United States.

Second, while the budget speaks of a green infrastructure fund, again there is no grand vision of a triple-E initiative of the protection of the economy, of investment in energy technologies and, in particular, with regard to environmental protection. In effect, what we have here, in contrast that of the United States, is a piecemeal approach to environmental protection. What is needed, as we see south of the border, is a grand initiative, yet again another grand project on behalf of our country which reflects the kind of inspiration that Canadians need and wish to engage in.

Third, while the economic meltdown can be expected to adversely affect the most vulnerable among us, especially the poor and children living in poverty, there is no mention at all of poverty and no mention of the plight of the poor in this budget. There is no undertaking in the throne speech, for example, to make poverty history on the international level as best we can. There is no undertaking to address and redress the domestic needs in Canada.

I recall when the leader of the opposition at the time spoke about a national project in which we would have a 50:30 formula, in which we would seek to have one-third of poverty reduced in the next five years and reduced as well by half the number of children living in poverty.

The fourth concerns the health care system. Health care impacts adversely on the population in cases of economic meltdown. Here again we propose, and I recommend again, that there be a massive investment with respect to increasing of the supply of doctors and nurses. If we look at what will happen in an adverse economic situation with regard to primary care, home care, palliative care and emergency care, we will need to enhance the number of health care professionals.

Finally, there is no reference to a justice agenda that speaks to the protection of those most vulnerable in our society. We will recall that the test of a just society is how it treats the most vulnerable among it. How does it treat its aboriginal people? How does it treat its immigrants and refugees? How does it treat its disabled? How does it treat those who need the government's protection and need it in a kind of access to justice and equal justice?

I mention in this regard the importance of having a national comprehensive and sustainable legal aid plan for both civil and criminal purposes. The absence of such a plan impacts adversely on those who are most vulnerable. I mention the importance of equal justice, of restoring the court challenges program. Again, the absence of such a court challenges program impacts adversely on minorities and equality rights seekers.

I mention in particular the plight of aboriginal people whose situation, as we meet, is before the universal periodic review of the United Nations Council on Human Rights, again, disparities in access, in justice and in particular the plight of disappeared aboriginal women.

I close with one particular reference in the budget. The budget calls on us at a time of economic meltdown to mobilize our energies, and it is correct, but it speaks only about the domestic arena. What about the economic meltdown that has occurred in this same period of which the budget speaks of the last three months, not only domestically but internationally? What about what is happening in Africa, in Zimbabwe, in the Congo, in Darfur and in Somali?

We have to turn our attention as well to those less privileged than we are and ensure that do what we can to combat and redress those kinds of imbalances afar as well as at home.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to have a discussion today on the budget.

The hon. member talked a lot about social justice issues. He talked about a lot of important things, everything from aboriginal rights to world rights and Canada's role in those. What I find difficult to accept is the member pretends to be an advocate to those causes, but chooses to do nothing about them. He decides to run down the Conservatives' budget and their philosophy and then supports them in their measures.

Some of his colleagues ironically are going to stand up against the budget. He is not going to apparently do that. Why will the member not do that? If those issues are so important to him and his principles, why does he not do something about it? Why does he not act individually? He can make a choice. He can choose a different path. He chooses not to.

However, he comes to the House and complains about those issues, says that he is an advocate for those causes, but then chooses not to do something. Some of his colleagues are making a difference, why will he not?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thought we were going to, in accordance with the opening statement in the Speech from the Throne, join together, and that is how I began, in a spirit of solidarity and co-operation while we work together with each other.

I contrasted that with what had happened in the last three years. I said that I welcomed that approach. I talked about some of the good measures in the budget and then I talked about those measures in the budget which I thought were flawed and could be improved.

If the hon. member really cares about the people of Canada, if he really cares about the economic well-being of Canadians, then he would not indulge, again, in partisan, divisive politics and he would call us together to work for the good of Canadians.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, I again congratulate my colleague, one of the most eloquent speakers in the House, for his passionate speech in defence of the defenceless, not only in our country but also abroad.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague, who is one of the leaders of human rights in the world, a couple of questions.

First, does he not feel that the government can employ more liberal uses of EI to ensure that those who are impoverished, those who have lost their jobs, are able to get the resources they require during their time of greatest need?

Second, the government has regressed on the part of Canada's traditional and active international forays to help those who are least privileged, those who face the end of a knife or AK-47 in places like the Congo, Zimbabwe and Sudan. Does he not think the government has a huge opportunity that it has so far not grasped to deal with those crises abroad, which Canada is uniquely positioned to address?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague to the effect that we not only have to expand benefits with respect to employment insurance, but we have to expand the pool of eligibility. We have to broaden the access with respect to the employment benefits.

On the matter of those less privileged, particularly those who are so vulnerable internationally, we will join with the government. However, again, this is not a partisan matter. Africa is the forgotten and abandoned continent, where in Zimbabwe alone 80% of the people are in need of food assistance. There is a cholera epidemic. In the Congo thousands are in desperate need of humanitarian protection because of the worst misogynistic mass rape to have ever taken place in the world. In Darfur a genocide by attrition continues.

I could go on, but Africa is tragically a forgotten and abandoned continent. That should be a priority in our foreign policy and it should find expression in our budgetary allocations.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Madam Speaker, when governments bring down budgets, people affected prepare for both good news and bad news, hoping naturally that the good outweighs the bad. No one could have prepared themselves for the bad news inflicted on the people of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We all know there was much more the government could have done to stimulate the economy of the country, like, for example, recognizing the importance of the need to diversify the economy in provinces where traditional industries continue to experience difficulty. The fishery is one of those industries, yet there is no mention of the fishery in the Conservative budget.

While the government was undertaking its budget consultations, I wrote to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the minister responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador, bringing to their attention the need in the riding I represent for infrastructure to grow the aquaculture industry. This was an opportunity for the government to help stimulate the economy in an area of Newfoundland and Labrador that had suffered immensely because of the collapse of the ground fishery.

I now know any optimism I had that the government would look favourably on helping the people of Newfoundland and Labrador was foolhardy.

Not only has the government decided not to help Newfoundland and Labrador weather the recession, but it has done irreparable harm by removing hard fought and hard won benefits under the Atlantic accord. According to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the province will lose $1.5 billion as a consequence of the actions of the Conservative government in the budget.

Such a move will have a devastating impact on the people and the finances of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The loss of $1.5 billion will see the per capita debt per person in the province increase by $3,000. Newfoundland and Labrador already has the highest per capita debt in the country.

The Prime Minister is on record saying that every region of our country has to be treated fairly. Where is the fairness for Newfoundland and Labrador? What would motivate a government to introduce a measure that would be so harmful to one group of Canadians?

Is it possible that the Prime Minister is seeking revenge against a group of people that exercised its right in the last federal election to vote against the government and send six Liberal MPs and one NDP MP to represent them in Ottawa? While that has to be disappointing for a Prime Minister, surely he would not stoop to penalizing those people. The logical approach would be to try and regain the trust of those people, which is why I question the Prime Minister's motives.

Clearly the Prime Minister has underestimated the will of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to come together in a crisis. This move by the government has galvanized Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to the point that their preference today, as a result of the government's actions, would be to take the country into an election.

There is time for the Prime Minister to right this wrong. Acknowledging that a mistake has been made and grievous damage done as a result of that mistake, which he cannot allow to stand, would be the magnanimous thing to do, especially if he is sincere in his comments that every region of the country must be treated fairly.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are proud people who have worked hard for every benefit that has come their way. To ask they accept such an injustice that has been perpetrated on them by the government is simply too much to ask.

Anyone who knows the province's history, the hardships that people have endured and the injustices it has experienced over the years, would have to understand the reaction of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to this decision by the government.

I am calling on the Prime Minister to think of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and how this budgetary decision will impact them. He is the Prime Minister of all Canadians, regardless of how they voted, just as I am the member of Parliament for everyone in the riding of Random—Burin—St. George's, regardless of how they voted.

If I were to follow what appears to be the Prime Minister's example, I would only work on behalf of those who voted for me, and the Prime Minister knows as well as I do that that would be wrong. I am the representative for all the people of Random—Burin—St. George's, just as he is the Prime Minister of all Canadians. The time has come for the Prime Minister to show it.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for talking about Newfoundland in the way she did with respect to its future.

All of us here when looking at the budget think of the future. We do not think of today or six months from now. We do not think of positioning ourselves for an election in the next year. We think about what is good for the future of the country. Certainly this budget, which not only affects Newfoundland this year but for the next three years with the change in equalization, is a very serious blow to that region of the country.

The previous Liberal speaker indicated that somehow we are not standing up for Canada in that we do not support the budget. To me, standing up for Canada means that I think of the future of this country, not of political expediency. I was willing to go into a coalition with another group in this Parliament and work together for the future of this country.

I do not see that right now from the Liberal Party. I see the Liberal Party accepting expediency once again as the way it works in this Parliament. I would like to know how my hon. colleague feels about this.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Madam Speaker, this is a serious situation for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, one with which I am not about to play politics. People need to realize that if we do not stand up to be counted as a province now, then the Prime Minister will, I fear, continue to wreak havoc on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

No matter what political stripe, anyone would have to look at the measures contained in this budget as they impact the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and agree that they are simply wrong.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have suffered too long. The province has been at the risk of not being able to deliver for its own people. Here the government had an opportunity to provide those programs that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians need, just as all Canadians need. What is happening with this particular measure is that the government of Newfoundland and Labrador will be put in a position where those programs are at risk and that is simply not right.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her excellent speech.

We are dealing with a huge economic challenge before us. One of the problems is that the government has not invested in one of the key drivers of the economy, which is research and development. Our former leader wanted a huge investment in greening our economy. He articulated the challenges in greening our economy and provided a lot of constructive solutions.

I would like to ask my colleague how she feels the government should make strategic investments in research and development to enable the Canadian economy to maximize future opportunities that present themselves to our nation.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Madam Speaker, interestingly enough, one of the areas in which we would like to see a lot more in terms of research and development would be the fishery, which is paramount in terms of the future of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We talk about diversifying the economy. As I said in my remarks, one of the areas in which we would like to do that would be aquaculture. If the government were to look at opportunities that exist where more research and development could be carried out, aquaculture certainly would be one of those areas.

There are many areas in a province such as Newfoundland and Labrador and in all of Canada where much more could be happening in terms of employment opportunities. We could do more in terms of research and development. That would also apply to our green industries. We should be doing everything we can to move them forward.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Red Deer for sharing his time with me today.

I am pleased to stand in the House to speak in support of the economic action plan that was presented by the Minister of Finance last Tuesday.

Before I do that, however, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the people of the riding of Newmarket—Aurora for the privilege of representing them in the House of Commons. It is an awesome privilege and an awesome responsibility. I hope that I never lose the sense of amazement I feel when I take this seat that represents the voices and the votes of the over 80,000 voters of Newmarket—Aurora.

The people of Newmarket—Aurora, like the people in other communities across this country, are diverse in ethnic origins. However, my constituents are united in their aspirations to work hard to accomplish their goals and dreams and to provide opportunities for their families. The residents of Newmarket—Aurora want Canada to be the best place to live, to work and to play.

This action plan is for the future of this country. Many of my colleagues have spoken at great length over the past week about the broad brush strokes of this economic plan. They have outlined the positive influence of the infrastructure investments, the tax relief for individuals and businesses, the action to stimulate housing construction, and the support to businesses and communities.

I met with members of Newmarket—Aurora in our own prebudget consultations and I am pleased to say that over and over I heard from my constituents that home renovations would stimulate the local economy. The contractors in my riding, the window and door manufacturers, the deck builders, the hardwood floor suppliers and installers know that they can sign contracts this spring and that they will have solid employment.

On January 15, I met with members of the Newmarket Chamber of Commerce. I heard from them that tax reductions for their businesses would allow them to purchase new equipment and to hire more employees. Our government has responded by providing a stimulus to businesses through tax relief, including a temporary 100% capital cost allowance rate for computers, extending the temporary 50% straight-line accelerated capital cost rate to investments in manufacturing or processing machinery and equipment undertaken in 2010 and 2011, and providing over $440 million in savings for Canadian industry over the next five years by permanently eliminating tariffs on a range of machinery and equipment. Other business investments are targeted to help our businesses and industries. With the infrastructure dollars also outlined in this budget, our businesses will bid for the projects in our local communities and have the cashflow required to acquire new equipment and to pay their employees.

Many other measures are outlined in our economic action plan which will stimulate our economy and I am pleased that my colleagues have spoken about them. My colleague, the member for Brant, spoke at length last week about the impact the home renovation dollars will bring to his riding. His expertise and experience in that industry are a welcome affirmation that this measure will benefit all Canadians. My colleague, the hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga, praised the investments we are making in post-secondary education.

Rather than review those measures again, I would like to highlight another initiative to which our government has committed resources.

As part of the investment in infrastructure, the economic action plan has a commitment to the knowledge infrastructure. These investments will modernize universities and colleges, build world-class research infrastructure, expand health information systems and improve broadband services in rural Canada.

The health infoway is critical to achieving an efficient and effective health care system. Health care is identified by a majority of Canadians as an area which should receive priority spending.

From my work in the past in a disability management firm owned by my husband and me, we have worked closely with the medical profession. We often have been told by these front-line health care providers that the delay in receiving test results, be they MRI reports, CAT scans or even X-rays, delays the report which the medical professional can provide. Should a patient require a second opinion, which is his or her right and which a patient can request at any time, it is easier for the physician to order a second set of tests rather than wait for the transfer of the information from the first request. This creates delay in treatment, incurs costs and stress for the patient, higher costs for the health care system and subsequently to employers, employees and our economy in lost productive time. My own physician concurs with the electronic records initiative and commends our government for being proactive on this project.

The initial investment in budget 2007 of $467 million is complemented in the action plan with $500 million to support the goal of having 50% of Canadians with an electronic health record by 2010. I applaud our government for this proactive initiative. It will not only enhance the safety, the quality and the efficiency of our health care system, but will also result in a significant positive contribution to Canada's economy, including the creation of thousands of sustainable knowledge-based jobs throughout Canada.

With initiatives of this nature in the economic action plan which are designed to benefit all Canadians, I encourage all members of the House to support the economic action plan. It is good for the economy. It is good for Canadians, and it is good for the constituents of Newmarket—Aurora.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the new member for Newmarket—Aurora on her election. She said that it is an awesome responsibility. I am wondering if she is actually aware of the awesome disappointment that people across this country, especially among the women of Canada, are feeling in terms of her government's budget.

Twenty-five years ago I was part of the Manitoba NDP government which brought in the first equal pay legislation in this country, legislation that was founded on the concept of equal pay for work of equal value, something that was hailed by women across this country as an important breakthrough. Imagine our horror when we saw at the last Conservative convention, held in my own province of Manitoba, the government stand up with a resolution sponsored by its own caucus changing the concept of pay equity from equal pay for work of equal value to equal pay for equal work. That was followed by the economic statement which saw the gutting by the Conservative government of that fundamental concept.

Does the member believe in the concept of equal pay for work of equal value, not equal pay for equal work? Will she join with us in convincing her government to change this most regressive move that will set back by many decades the women's movement and equality for women in this country?

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, as a woman who has worked all her adult life in careers that have often been in areas in which men have generally worked, I have to say that I have never in my lifetime felt discriminated against. I have always been able to work as a woman and prove my merit.

I do believe that the things we have put forward in the budget are good for all Canadians. As we move forward on the budget and see it passed, I would encourage all the members of the House to do so as well, because it is good for the women in their ridings as well.

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Mount Royal has penned comments to the effect that there are no human rights that do not include women's rights.

I am astounded at the answer that was just given in response to a question from the NDP member, that because the hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora has not experienced discrimination as a woman working in a profession, somehow that makes it all right. The statistics indicate that 71¢ is what women earn for every dollar that men earn.

This is not up for debate. This is a chamber of debate. What is up for debate is how that member can stand there and say that the government has addressed pay equity in a reasonable fashion. Maybe she misunderstood the question. Maybe she could answer it in the vein that I know my friend from Mount Royal would have answered it had he been given the opportunity.