Debates of March 5th, 2010

Documents regarding Afghan detainees

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order related to a motion adopted by this House on December 10 relating to the access to documents.

The government acknowledges that it is appropriate that decisions on the disclosure of information in these circumstances be reviewed independently from government. This will ensure that parliamentarians will have as full and complete access to government information as is necessary to perform the function of holding the government to account, but no one wants to cause injury to Canada's national defence, international relations or national security.

The security of the nation and the conduct of international relations are fundamental to the constitutional duties of the Government of Canada.

Members will understand that there are matters which governments must keep confidential in order to protect the public interest, even in the freest and most open of societies.

Nonetheless, as I have stated, the government acknowledges that it is appropriate that decisions made by officials on the disclosure of information in these circumstances be reviewed independently from government.

I am pleased to inform the House that the government has engaged an eminent jurist and legal expert to undertake an independent, comprehensive and proper review of the documents at issue, including the information that was proposed to be withheld from release.

The Hon. Frank Iacobucci, former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, needs of course no introduction to the members of this House. He is one of the country's pre-eminent jurists; his integrity is above reproach; and he possesses specific experience and expertise in adjudicating document disclosure in national security cases.

Mr. Iacobucci will report to me on the proposed redactions. He will report on whether proposed redactions genuinely relate to information that would be injurious to Canada's national security, national defence or international interests.

In the case of injurious information, he will report to me on whether the information or a summary of it can be disclosed, and report on the form of disclosure or any conditions on disclosure.

Mr. Iacobucci will prepare a report, in both official languages, that I will table in this House. That report will include a description of his methodology and general findings.

I am sure that all members of the House will join me in welcoming this independent, comprehensive review by such an eminent jurist.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, obviously from the perspective of the official opposition, we welcome the remarks that the Minister of Justice has just made. We will obviously want to take some time to consider the content of his statement.

I wonder if the minister is in a position to make available to the House the correspondence between him and Mr. Justice Iacobucci so that we can understand the full formal legal terms of his engagement and the assignment that he has been asked to undertake. The minister has summarized those matters. It would be important for us to know the detail and exactly when the review will be undertaken, and when we can expect the report the minister has referred to.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have with me all the details of this. We are putting this together in our discussions with Mr. Iacobucci. This is something that has just come together in the last little while. I will continue to report to the House and make available any information that I can as quickly as possible.

I welcome the hon. member's comments and I will get back to him.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the minister has addressed the subject in the House today; had he not, someone else might have.

There are two or three things missing and I think the House should be aware of them. I realize we are not in a debate, but I want to point out to the minister and the government that at no point in his remarks today, as far as I could tell, has the minister acknowledged the power of the House to subpoena these documents, to send for persons, papers, and records. At no point did the minister acknowledge that.

Second, in asking a third party to do the government's work, no one could take objection to that, but I would have thought the government would already have people capable of determining which documents needed protection before or after a parliamentary procedure.

The government has not asked Parliament to do this. The government has not asked Parliament to ask Mr. Iacobucci to do this work. There is a very important element missing in this. I invite the government to come forward with something that has a bit more permanence and is more parliamentary.

From my point of view, the minister's statement this morning does not address the fundamental problem of the government having failed totally to acknowledge the power of the House and its committees. If the third party doing this administrative review of the documents that are in need of protection is not informed of this, and it is not made part of his mandate, members will end up having the same problem during and after the exercise.

I invite the minister even now to rise and acknowledge the full, unabridged power of this House to send for persons, papers, and records, the way it has always been for over 300 years.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the interest the hon. member has taken in this subject. As a matter of fact, it goes back many years. For a couple of decades the hon. member has taken on this challenge. I have read with interest a number of the comments he has made.

One of the things all members agree on is that nobody wants to do anything that would in any way endanger public security or indeed put in danger individuals who are serving our country, be they in Afghanistan or in another place.

I did rise on the point of order. As I indicated to the hon. member for Wascana with respect to the terms and parameters, I will make those available as quickly as possible.

Again, I believe I am among those who have a clear understanding of the power of Parliament and the responsibilities members have. I believe the hon. member and other members of the House will look at what the government is trying to do.

The government is trying to make information available, but at the same time it recognizes the legitimate interest we all have in the protection of the men and women who serve Canada in Afghanistan and also serve the public interests of the country.

I hope that is of some help to the hon. member.

The House resumed from March 4 consideration of the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to take note of the remarks made by the hon. member opposite. Members will wait to see the terms of reference. The devil is always in the details and it appears that the government is at this moment working those out; that is, it appears to be improvising.

The Liberal Party notes with interest and with approval the nomination of a man who commands the respect of every member of the House, Justice Iacobucci. We hope that he will be given the terms of reference necessary to do the job, to re-establish the just authority of the House of Commons, which was referred to by my hon. colleague, and that we will get to the bottom of an affair in which the government's behaviour has displayed no credit at all.

The Prime Minister gave Her Excellency the Governor General some 6,000 words. I assure you that I will be briefer today.

We have seen a throne speech and budget that make up in length what they lack in vision.

There is nothing in this budget or in the throne speech that justifies the Prime Minister's decision to shut down Parliament for six weeks. Nothing.

Canadians are not fools. The Prime Minister bet on Canadians' disillusionment and lost. For Canadians, the reasons for the prorogation were clear from the start. The Prime Minister shut down Parliament so that he would no longer have to listen to questions about the Afghan detainee scandal. The minister just acknowledged that he is in an untenable position.

The Prime Minister shut down Parliament to skirt blame for a year of wilful blindness when the Conservatives had credible reports of torture in Afghan jails but did nothing.

We have called on the government to hold a full, independent, public inquiry into the detainee issue with a mandate to examine the whole length of the mission in Afghanistan. We will examine the terms of this proposed inquiry by Justice Iacobucci with interest to see whether it even begins to approximate what is necessary to get to the bottom of this sorry affair. However, the Conservatives had refused up to this moment, and then they shut down Parliament.

It was more than a cover-up; it was an attack on our democracy.

This Parliament is not the Prime Minister's house. It is the people's house. In shutting down Parliament, the Prime Minister threw Canadians out of their house. Canadians did not like that. They know that any prime minister is accountable to Parliament, and not the reverse.

We have put forward concrete reforms to limit the power to prorogue Parliament.

On Wednesday afternoon we asked for unanimous consent to establish a special committee to reform prorogation and prevent future abuse. That motion, which was a modest first step seeking common ground, was shouted down by Conservative members opposite. Shame on them.

The issue here is credibility. Canadians expect it; the government lacks it. It has no credibility on detainees, no credibility on prorogation, and no credibility on its own agenda. The throne speech and the budget let Canadians down. They expected vision and they got gimmicks. They deserved ambition and they got drift. This is a tired government, falling back on its laissez-faire instincts. It has left Canadians to fend for themselves.

Take pensions, an important issue. This budget has nothing to offer Canadians on the pensions crisis. Canada is already in a pensions crisis and it is not just a matter of catastrophic bankruptcies like Nortel.

One third of Canadians do not have enough retirement savings to maintain their standard of living when they stop working. Another third of Canadians have no retirement savings at all and will be totally dependent on what they receive from the government. Too many Canadians have too little savings to retire with dignity. Too often, the savings of those who have managed to save money are not secure. We saw proof of that last year.

Last year this party put forward specific proposals to improve retirement security for middle class families. We called for a supplementary CPP, for the use of the CPP as a pension fund manager of last resort, and for changes to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to protect the most vulnerable pensioners. We called for action. Canadians expected action. What did the Conservatives deliver? They delivered us seniors day. Seniors day will not be much fun and will not have much point if seniors cannot afford to take the day off.

It is not this side of the House that mocks seniors; it is the other side of the House that has done nothing for them.

The same gimmickry is in play in their treatment of veterans.

At the end of January, we organized a round table on veterans. We heard disturbing testimony about the difficulty they have in getting care or assistance to overcome a disability.

One in five veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder will attempt suicide. This is a troubling, deeply disturbing statistic and these great Canadians need our help. What do the Conservatives offer? They offer community memorials and Vimy Ridge Day. I am a firm proponent of Vimy Ridge Day but it is no substitute for concrete help for our veterans. Our families, seniors and veterans cannot live on symbols and gimmicks.

Five weeks ago, the Liberal Party put forward three specific proposals to create jobs and promote innovation and entrepreneurship. We urged the government to offer cash advances to make the accelerated capital cost allowance more effective. This would have helped manufacturers modernize, create jobs and improve productivity.

We proposed temporary financial incentives to make it easier to hire young workers. And we called for new tax incentives to better support our entrepreneurs and innovators in emerging sectors such as clean energy and life sciences.

However, instead of measures to create jobs, this budget has only freezes, cuts and gimmicks.

The Conservatives are also cutting $4.5 billion in planned foreign aid right when our focus in Afghanistan is shifting from military to humanitarian engagement. The government is making superficial tax changes to the universal child care benefit but they are changes that will not help low income families or single parents get the child care they need.

The Conservatives are ignoring the major issues that matter to Canadians. There is nothing for pensions or health care.

Climate change, nothing.

Culture, nothing.

The Conservatives also will try to claim that they are not raising taxes but everyone in the House knows that is false. The Conservatives are raising payroll taxes by $13 billion, a tax hike that will kill more than 200,000 jobs and hurt small businesses when they need help the most.

The government talks a fine game about innovation but it is not credible. It was not credible when it cut $148 million from the research councils last year. It was not credible when it let $160 million in approved spending for the Canadian Space Agency lapse, when it shut down the national science advisor and when it walked away from 50 years of Canadian leadership in nuclear medicine.

Investments in research and development as a percentage of GDP have been consistently going down since this government took power.

We have taken a step back in terms of productivity, Internet connectivity and innovation. And a significant number of government members continue to question the scientific evidence of climate change.

How can we believe this government when it talks about creating the jobs of tomorrow? Last fall, it scrapped the ecoENERGY program, the best Canadian program for promoting renewable energies.

The Conservatives are not credible on job creation because they are not credible on clean energies. Investing in clean energy is key to creating a future for our country's youth.

The Conservatives spend, but they do not invest.

The Conservatives have spent more than $56 billion into the hole but what did Canadians get? What is the return on investment?

If we start counting back, in October 2008, back when the Prime Minister was saying that there would not be a recession in Canada, we find that more than 300,000 Canadians have lost their jobs and are still out of work. Job creation is down, productivity is down, youth unemployment is double the national average and even the jobs the Conservatives promised in this budget will not make up for the ones we have lost.

It did not have to be this way. Where are the landmark investments in clean energy? Where are the investments in green infrastructure that would create jobs for our kids? Canada missed those opportunities because the government chose to ignore them.

The Prime Minister's spending came without a vision. It came with a whole lot of zeros and this budget does not make up the difference. The government, above all, is not credible on getting its record deficit under control. Let us roll the tape back and remember the real story.

The Conservatives make a claim to fiscal competence, which is entirely undeserved. They inherited a $13 billion surplus from this side of the House and what did they do with it? They spent it at record levels through 2006, 2007 and 2008 and they were on the edge of deficit before the recession started. Then they said that there would be no recession. Then they said that there would be no deficit. Then, suddenly, presto the deficit was at $32 billion and then at $50 billion and then at $56 billion. They cannot run a country if they cannot count.

The numbers are not the only problem. The government lacks a coherent plan to regain control over government spending.

The government says that it will freeze departmental spending beginning in 2011 but that is it. It will not tell us which programs it will cut, which services Canadians will lose and where it will find the necessary savings. That is not a plan. It is an empty promise.

The Conservatives say that they will freeze our salaries. Fine, they can freeze my salary but it is not a plan for deficit reduction. It is a gimmick. If the Prime Minister were serious about leading by example, he would start by cutting the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars that he is wasting on partisan advertising and polling. He would cut management consultants instead of siding through the hard-working public service of the country. He would cut the size of cabinet. He would ban those ten-percenter mailings outside of MPs' own ridings, as we have called for, and he would stop increasing spending in the Prime Minister's own department.

Canadians and Canadian families are saving money wherever they can. The government should be doing the same thing, and that is the real issue, because the government does not listen to Canadian families. Reading a survey is not listening to Canadians. Dividing Canadians to gain a political advantage is not listening to Canadians.

I spent weeks, over the course of a year, on the road, visiting universities and colleges across Canada and speaking with Canadian families. I listened to young people talk about their worries and their hopes. They told me of their concerns about unemployment, and spoke about the need to protect the environment and fight climate change. I listened to a generation of young Canadians who are prepared to step up, but who have not gotten a chance to do so.

Among their various excuses for shutting down Parliament, the Conservatives said that they were consulting with Canadians. Who did the Prime Minister consult? When was the last time he actually took unscripted, uncontrolled questions from any Canadian at all?

That is what listening is. One cannot lead if one will not listen and the Prime Minister does not listen.

When I listen, this is what I hear. Middle class families are worried about looking after their parents when they retire. They are worried about getting their kids through school and about the jobs that will be waiting for them at the other end.

Canadian families want to know that their government is in tune with the challenges of tomorrow and that it has a real plan to make Canada successful. This budget fails the tests of credibility, vision and ambition. We cannot support this budget.

This budget fails the test of Canada's potential and therefore we cannot support it. We will vote against the budget motion now before us but we, unlike other parties in the House, will do so responsibly. We will not cause an election. Canadians do not want an election. What they are looking for is an alternative and we will provide them with that alternative.

The Liberal Party is taking part in the most open, transparent, inclusive and comprehensive process of public policy renewal of any Canadian party in the history of this country and one that will continue through the conference in Montreal later this month. We are engaging Canadians in a national conversation about the Canada we want and they want in 2017, the 150th anniversary of our federation. I invite all members to join us in that dialogue.

The alternatives in the Canadian political system are becoming clearer by the hour. The alternative the Conservatives offer the country is now very clear: year after year of austerity, cuts and freezes. The message they are sending Canadians is equally clear, “You are on your own, Canadians. Your government will not help you”.

Our vision in the Liberal Party is clear: using a positive, fiscally responsible vision of government to make Canada the best educated, the healthiest, the greenest and the most international society on earth. Those are goals worthy of a great people. Those are goals we can achieve.

We have done it before. I stand on a side of the House proud of the traditions that our party has represented since Wilfrid Laurier. We have done it before and we will do it again.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the comments by the Leader of the Opposition, I am astonished at the hypocrisy that the Liberal Party is showing.

The Leader of the Opposition can be forgiven a little because he spent more than 30 years outside of Canada and perhaps he does not know the legacy of the 13 years of Liberal government, a majority government I might add. When the Liberals had 13 years to do every one of the things that the Leader of the Opposition just said that we should be doing, what did they do? They did none of those things. They did nothing to return security to seniors and did nothing to expand the CPP.

This government has made the largest investment in infrastructure in this country in the history of any government. We have made the largest investment in the history of this country in young people so they can learn, get an education and job training, and in helping youth at risk obtain the skills to get jobs.

We have given the largest tax reductions in the history of any government to working Canadians all across this country. We have taken more people off the tax rolls in the history of any government of this country.

What are the Liberals talking about? It is too bad the Leader of the Opposition was away so long because maybe he would know a little about this.

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

Mr. Speaker, as someone behind me was saying, “Is that the best they have?”

I was amused by the member's account of my biography. He wants me to apologize for my biography. Perhaps he should ask Michael Fox, Wayne Gretzky or Sidney Crosby to apologize for their biographies. I am proud of my biography as those distinguished people are proud of their biography. The minute we start to question whether someone is a Canadian because he or she lives overseas, our country is in big trouble.

As for the record of the previous Liberal government on the issue that I raised at the beginning of my speech, pensions, he should think about what the former government did on pensions. Facing a very serious structural crisis in the future of Canada's pension plan, the previous Liberal government stood up and did what the present government has not done, which is face the future, re-invest, re-create and put the pensions of Canadians on a sound footing for the next generation. That is the kind of leadership we expected from the government but that is the kind of leadership we did not get.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the Leader of the Opposition said that he wanted to hold extensive consultations in Quebec. We saw how Quebeckers reacted to plans for the forestry industry. The government will be investing next to nothing, just $100 million in contrast to the $10 billion given to the auto industry last year.

The Conservative government decided to invest a portion of the money collected from Quebeckers in developing the nuclear industry. It wants to create an electricity provider that will compete with Hydro-Québec. Quebeckers are not happy about a lot of these measures. Columnist Jean Lapierre said that this Liberal Party leader is going to end up doing exactly what the former Liberal Party leader did: sit on his hands and do nothing. That is the truth of the matter.

I would like the Leader of the Opposition to convince me that he really is against the budget even though he and many of his fellow Liberals will once again remain seated and allow this budget to pass despite the fact that it is not in Quebec's best interest.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. However, I did not think as highly of his comments.

He is standing up for Quebec alone while I am standing up for a different vision of this country. That means a Canada that includes Quebec and wants Quebec to make a major and integral contribution to Canada, just as Quebec athletes did during the Olympic Games.

Our vision is of an optimistic and inclusive nation with Quebec and its courageous people anchoring team Canada. That is the Canada I am so proud of, and that is the Canada I want the world to know.

My colleague asked about our stance on various issues. I was perfectly clear when I said that his political party does not have the same responsibilities as mine. Bloc members will always be in the opposition because the Bloc Québécois will never be Canada's governing party.

We, the Liberals, have been Canada's governing party, and we will be again. As such, we have some serious responsibilities.

We will create an inclusive alternative that places Quebec at the centre of our vision for a renewed Canada. I am dedicating myself to the task of creating an alternative that Quebeckers can get on board with, that will get them out of the opposition and free them from a party that has nothing to offer them. We will offer them a vision of Quebec at the heart of Canada. When that happens, they will come over to our side.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the leader of the Liberal Party, for his rendition on the budget.

He said that there were two distinct visions in this Parliament. That suggests to me that he may be changing the fiscal policy of the Liberal Party as well. We see what the Conservatives are doing by continuing the corporate tax breaks, continuing the change in the basic revenue-generating capacity of the government onto the people, moving it away from the corporations, the banks and the people who are exploiting our natural resources that create profit.

Does this mean the Liberal leader's vision of the fiscal development of our country is somehow different than the Conservatives, that on the largest item within this budget the greatest difference between those two parties is no difference at all? Is that correct?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the differences are very clear.

We are faced now, it seems to me, with an increasingly clear alternative: a Conservative government that offers us and Canadians nothing but years of austerity, years of repentance for its own errors. Who got the country into this mess? We have seen this movie before.

The previous so-called Progressive Conservatives dropped us into a $42 billion deficit. The current government has dropped us into an even deeper hole of $56 billion. It has done so before the recession began, with imprudent spending that left us no reserve when the rains came, and the rains came. It did not expect nor predict the rains would come. It did not know the weather would change, then the rains came and it was not prepared.

We are now in a $56 billion hole. The investment did not even make us more productive, more competitive, it did not create employment, and we are where we are.

The other party does not have the responsibilities that we have. It does not have the experience of government that we have. It has never run a government at the federal level.

We have cleaned up the deficit left behind by the Mulroney failure. We will clean up the deficit left behind by the Harper failure.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

A little bit of class.

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

Class, I need lessons in class from the other side of the House?

The choices before this country are clear. They are the choices between a party that has had the responsibility of government, two other parties on the other side that have had no responsibility of government at the federal level and a Conservative Party that offers us a dark and endless downward spiral into austerity cuts, freezes and gimmicks.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in opening this debate, the leader of the official opposition mentioned the Olympic Games. In keeping with the spirit of the opening ceremonies of those games, we see that Quebec is absent from the budget. Quebec was not present; Quebec does not exist and this is just like the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games.

We went on a major tour, a real tour. My colleague from Alfred-Pellan and all the other Bloc Québécois colleagues and I talked to Quebeckers face to face. We did not invite them to meeting rooms or round tables here in Ottawa. We went to see them and not just at chambers of commerce, but at FADOQ, youth groups, unions, community agencies and cooperatives. They gave us their thoughts on a budget that would have helped Quebec.

For example, we realize today that Mr. Dubuc was right when he said in yesterday's La Presse that this government merely showed its lack of talent and interest in innovation, research, development and helping to improve the competitiveness of Quebec companies.

After reading the budget, we must say that Alain Dubuc was right yesterday. Today Alain Dubuc says:

This budget is not very credible at all.

And he goes on to say:

What is more, despite the financial situation, he did not resist the temptation... to distribute a catalogue full of goodies.

For two days in a row, we have agreed with Alain Dubuc. I think that is a first for the Bloc Québécois.

What did we see in social terms? Nothing. Regarding the social aspect, I met with people from FRAPRU. Just like François Saillant, these people are disappointed today that the end of the investments will leave nothing but crumbs for the poorly-housed and the homeless, whose numbers have increased as a result of the economic crisis.

Something incredible is happening with respect to cooperative housing. The end of the agreements between CMHC and cooperative housing is such that those who manage cooperative homes are being more selective in terms of their new tenants. They are saying, but not in writing, of course, that they have to be careful and try to rent to people with higher rather than lower incomes. This goes against the purpose of social housing and cooperative housing. The absence of the CMHC from these agreements will distort social housing in Quebec and elsewhere.

As we have heard, there is nothing for homelessness. As we said yesterday and we are explaining again here today, the problem of homelessness is increasing right now. It does not appear at the beginning of a recession. At first, people start losing hours of work. Then they turn to EI benefits and welfare. This drives up provincial deficits. It is not until later that people find themselves on the street or forced to spend 125% of their income for housing, because they no longer have an income or a place to live.

What did we see yesterday? Nothing. Nothing for the programs to fight homelessness.

As for employment insurance, we submitted our document to the Minister of Finance's office, not just once, but twice, three times even—first by mail, then in person, and a third time at the end of our tour—asking him to improve the EI system. Employment insurance involves a presumption of good faith; increasing the maximum insurable earnings to 60%; eliminating the waiting period; and standardizing the eligibility threshold at 360 hours. It is false to say that two unemployed workers from the same company are different because they live in two different towns. We proposed all of this to the finance minister. Yet, the budget contains nothing for employment insurance.

As for income security, for example, an increase in the guaranteed income supplement, once again there was nothing. Some people in Quebec are being left out in the cold again.

Regarding forestry, on page 259 of this magnificent volume—the government has certainly shown foresight—we see that $9.718 billion was granted to the auto sector, while just $170 million is being spent on marketing and innovation in the forestry sector.

It is shameful. This is like giving $9,718 to workers in the auto sector and $160 to forestry workers. That is how the math works. This situation is unacceptable. I say bravo to the Quebec caucus of the Conservative Party, bravo to the minister from Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean: they obtained 57 times less than the ministers from Ontario in this budget. Bravo to the Conservative members of Parliament.

As for tackling the deficit, on page 174, it clearly states that the deficit should shrink to $1.8 billion by 2014-15. That seems clear, but what is less clear is where the government is going to find that money.

On page 180, a table illustrates very well what employment insurance benefits will be. For last year, benefits total $18.4 billion, while on page 176, the employment insurance premium revenues indicated are $26.6 billion. This boils down to stealing $8.2 billion out of the EI account to finance a $1.8 billion expenditure. That is not made clear in the budget. One has to cross-check the information on various pages. In terms of disclosure, the Conservative government scores a big fat zero.

Regarding income tax, the tax reductions are very well illustrated. It would appear that some of last year's tax reductions for Canadians apply this year. Let us take a look at what these tax reductions represent. A family with an income between $100,000 and $150,000 will benefit from tax relief of $1.96 per day, as compared to $0.67 per day for a family with an income between $30,000 and $45,000. And this, at a cost of $3.2 billion to the public purse.

Yesterday, much was made of the universal child care benefit. A very nice table was published in La Presse today, which shows that families with an income of $150,000 or more will receive $140, or 38¢ per day, those with an income of $50,000 will receive $70, or 19¢ per day, and those whose income is less than $30,000 will receive 0¢ per day. This whole thing is a waste of $3.2 billion.

We have suggested that the Minister of Finance check his own statistics. He would see that 324,160 Canadians have a taxable income of more than $150,000. Together, they have earned $52 billion. We have asked him to collect 2% on that income. That would represent $1.56 billion.

Also, there are 189,450 Canadians with a taxable income of more than $250,000. Let the Minister of Finance collect 3% from individuals whose taxable income is greater than $250,000. That would represent $3.1 billion.

Basically, what we are suggesting is that, instead of giving $1.50 to wealthy people, more money should be collected from those who have the most money. This way, $4.2 billion in revenue could be generated, instead of wasting $3.2 billion.

That is the difference between the strategy for distributing wealth put forward by the members of the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party's strategy, which distributes wealth among the wealthy.

Why was nothing done yesterday about the outrageous tax bills sent to seniors who had entrusted their savings to criminals? Why was nothing done about that?

The Minister of National Revenue said that he could not change the Income Tax Act. Unfortunately, he was right. Only the Minister of Finance can. Yesterday, no changes were made to the tax position of those poor people who have been fleeced by the Earl Joneses of this world. They could have been allowed to deduct the fraud losses from their income, but there was nothing about that.

A small effort has been made with regard to tax havens. Yesterday, we saw that the government is capable of making small changes with regard to high-income earners who are given stock options. We know very well that someone who receives options cashes them in at some point and the capital gain realized is taxed at 50%.

In the private sector, many people are paid in cash. Therefore, there was a tax loophole and the minister filled that, which is perfect. He showed a certain flexibility but we are asking him to do more.

Corporations have $3 billion in tax havens and banks have $2.3 billion. The minister has all the information. Nothing was done about that. They are going to sign an agreement with Panama to increase the number of foreign subsidiaries and take advantage of the resulting tax haven.

That is shameful.

As for the Quebec securities commission and the Autorité des marchés financiers, why interfere with something that is within the jurisdiction of Quebec, its government and Quebeckers? It affects not only those working for the AMF but also all those professionals who have been trained and who work in lawyer's offices or in consulting offices, as well as all those working in SMEs. Quebec is a hot spot for SMEs.

If the Conservative project goes ahead, what will all those who do business with the AMF do? They will be forced to send emails in English somewhere else in Canada. And yet it is within Quebec's jurisdiction. What is the Conservative government doing? It is ignoring this jurisdiction, it does not care.

The government is going to be hearing from us about to the AMF and the securities commission.

Another example of the government's lack of respect has to do with Hydro-Québec. Hydro-Québec is a subsidiary of the Government of Quebec, and Hydro One is a subsidiary of the Government of Ontario. Why are these two companies treated differently?

In a long letter, the former Minister of Finance of Quebec explained this very clearly to the current Minister of Finance of Canada. Why is Hydro One not treated the same way as Hydro-Québec? Why does this benefit the Government of Ontario and disadvantage the Government of Quebec to the tune of $250 million a year?

Let us turn our attention now to tax harmonization. Yesterday, the Premier of Quebec was a bit embarrassed to say that he was disappointed. I understand how he feels. He is negotiating with someone who has a sledgehammer. The Finance Minister and the Premier of Quebec were being polite yesterday, because Quebec is supposed to be receiving $2.2 billion, but deep down, they are fed up because Quebec has been waiting for the money for 18 years. There is no respect for tax harmonization.

People are asking themselves for whom, how and why this budget was prepared. They should be saying against whom, against what.

We on this side of the House have had it with the government's incompetence when it comes to recognizing Quebec. We do not know where the government is coming from or where it is going, but we know where we are going.

The budget excludes Quebec and treats Quebec as if it does not exist, but Quebec does exist. Quebeckers are not fools, and that is why most of the members from Quebec are sovereignists from the Bloc Québécois. We will not deceive Quebeckers. We will not hide when it comes time to vote. We will not be absent from this side of the House on the day of the vote. We will vote against the budget. We will do that, unless—and I would like to move a motion, seconded by the member for Joliette:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after “That” and substituting the following:

“this House shall not support the government’s budgetary policy unless the government eliminates the tax benefits given to the oil industry, thereby enabling it to compensate Quebec for harmonizing the QST and GST, enhance the Employment Insurance Plan, strengthen the Guaranteed Income Supplement and establish a credible assistance plan for the forestry industry, and unless the government abandons the idea of establishing a national securities commission”.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member's speech should be followed by a 10-minute question and comment period. It being almost 11 o'clock, it may be a good idea to postpone the vote until after oral questions.

Victory in Europe Student Tour

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to honour 58 individuals from Huron Park Secondary School in Woodstock. They will be participating in the victory in Europe student tour taking place this May in the Netherlands. This group is the largest custom tour group in Canada attending the 65th anniversary of the victory in Europe and the liberation of the Netherlands.

As part of the program, students will each be representing a soldier from Oxford who fought and died during the liberation of the Netherlands. Each student has undertaken extensive research to learn more about each soldier's life and will be representing them at a candlelight vigil ceremony in Amsterdam.

Together with thousands of Canadian and Dutch high school students, veterans, dignitaries and local citizens, they will celebrate, remember and pay tribute to those who fought for our freedom.

I would like to compliment Melissa McKibbin, a teacher from Huron Park Secondary School, on her work in arranging this trip and working with the students.

Please join me in wishing the students, staff and friends of Huron Park Secondary School a safe and memorable trip.

Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympic Games

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, nearly a week has passed since the wrap-up of the Vancouver Winter Olympic Games and yet Canadians are still feeling that exhilaration and pride.

Our athletes represented us with more patriotism, grace and sportsmanship than we could have ever imagined. Their performances, whether on the podium or not, were truly world-class.

The games were not just about sports. They represented something even bigger than the new gold medal world record they set. The 2010 Olympics brought our country together in unprecedented ways. The national pride we demonstrated every day and the way we welcomed the world with open arms and our big Canadian hearts will forever be remembered by all.

To the entire Olympic family, the volunteers and everyone else, congratulations for a job well done. To our athletes, congratulations. They are all winners in our eyes for they made us proud. Their efforts gave us a record golden Canada for so many golden moments. We thank them. Merci.

Roland Janelle

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the performing arts community awarded Mr. Roland Janelle the RIDEAU “Reconnaissance” prize for his work as a passionate networker displaying enlightened leadership within his community and professional environment, an efficient manager, a good communicator, a skilful negotiator, a project designer, and even a society builder.

Mr. Janelle's career has been absolutely remarkable. His talent, determination and leadership have allowed Drummondville to become a key stop on Quebec's presentation circuit. It will be even more so after the cultural centre facilities have been expanded and modernized in the next few months.

Obviously, this honour bestowed on him by his peers is reflected on the entire region. What a great opportunity to draw attention to his significant contribution to the development and promotion of our community.

Congratulations to Mr. Roland Janelle.

Aviation Safety

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canadians learned that the government has secretly agreed to participate in the U.S. secure flight program. So, before Canadians can board an aircraft in Canada, even if they are flying to another Canadian destination, their private and personal information will be shared with the United States and that country will determine if Canadians can fly on Canadian flights.

In November 2008, just before they prorogued for the first time, the Conservatives assured the House that the secure flight program would not apply to Canadian domestic flights. The government then told the House that the U.S. had indicated the secure flight program would be exempt for countries with a comparable security system. This was in response to a tame question from the government's own benches.

I am not going to suggest there is anything really fishy going on here, but I can assure Canadians that our aviation security system is as good as the one in the U.S. Why the flip-flop? Why was this never brought before the House for debate?

Is the government as contemptuous for the privacy rights of Canadians as it has shown contempt for democracy? Why are Conservatives hiding?

Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympic Games

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Richmond, I would like to thank all the Olympic volunteers who guided us through the games. Whether at the Richmond Oval, the Canada Line stations or in the O Zone, their role contributed enormously to the success of these Olympic winter games.

The torch relay alone drew over 35,000 people at Steveston. Another 25,000 welcomed Rick Hansen, a proud Richmondite, as he carried the torch through Minoru Park. During the games, Richmond was packed with athletes, visitors and local residents.

I would also like to congratulate all the Canadian athletes who made it to the podium, as well as all the other Olympians who participated in true Canadian spirit, including Alexa Loo, a Richmond constituent who represented Canada in the snowboard cross event.

As the Paralympics begin next week, I want to extend my best wishes to all who will participate in these games and wish team Canada every success. Go Canada go.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Vancouver was transformed by the electricity of the 2010 Winter Olympic Games. We enthusiastically welcomed athletes, crowds and the foreign languages heard in the streets. We celebrated our host first nations with pride. With all of Canada, we waved our flags and sometimes shed a few tears, touched by the display of human bravery, dashed hopes and triumphs.

And now, the outpouring of passion we saw in Vancouver has been revived by the Paralympic flame, which has started its journey west. It is now shining the spotlight on the Paralympic athletes, and highlighting their extraordinary courage and their achievements.

Sadly, the Prime Minister has moved to eliminate the break week scheduled during the Paralympics. However, I know my colleagues will strive to equally honour our Paralympians so they do feel recognized as they truly are: first-class athletes and a source of inspiration for all.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the 2010 games have ushered in Canada's century, bringing together the greatest display of athletic excellence, volunteer spirit and patriotism our country has ever seen.

I am honoured that so many Canadians visited the riding I represent during the Olympic games. With me, they saw 25,000 volunteers welcome the world with the best of Canadian hospitality. They saw our athletes win an unprecedented 14 gold medals. They cheered with me as champions like Ashleigh McIvor from Whistler, and Maëlle Ricker from Squamish took us to the podium and got us singing our anthem. I invite them back to Whistler to cheer on our Paralympians.

As we savour Olympic memories and embrace the Paralympics, we must channel the momentum of the games to move all Canadians toward healthy living. I am therefore delighted that colleagues from the three opposition parties have joined me once again to invite all MPs and senators to accept the 2010 fitness challenge. As stated in our letter to each of them, we call on them to use their influence to promote health and fitness for all Canadians. Go Canada go.

Twentieth Annual Suicide Prevention Week

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the 20th annual suicide prevention week was held from January 31 to February 6. Hundreds of events were held throughout Quebec, with the theme of “Have you ever considered it?”.

Over the year, but in particular during this week, organizations and individuals devoted their energies to promoting awareness of suicide among men, women, young people and children.

Unfortunately, for reasons that we all know, we did not have the opportunity to mention this week in the House when the events were going on.

However, today I am reaching out to all parliamentarians in this House, all partisanship aside, so that we can join together to highlight the importance of continuing to fight against this scourge that too often affects our young people, and so that in the future, the answer to “Have you ever considered it?” will always be no.