House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2006, with 39% of the vote.
DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE ACCOUNTABILITY ACT June 7th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I would like some of the member's thoughts on accountability. The bill refers to the “competent minister”, an “advisory committee” which will advise the minister in the exercise of his or her powers, and “development assistance”, meaning official development assistance as defined by the OECD.
With all these layers of responsibility and direction, who does the hon. member see as being accountable under the bill?
Veterans June 2nd, 2006
Mr. Speaker, unlike the successive Liberal governments that have swept this issue under the rug, our government is taking action. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he wants a resolution. It is going to be a knowledge based solution. That is why we are doing the kinds of reports that were released on Thursday, June 1 in the House.
Veterans Affairs Canada is working closely with DND to develop compensation options. Our government remains firmly dedicated to addressing the concerns raised by Canadian Forces members, veterans, civilians and area residents about herbicide use at the New Brunswick training base.
Budget Implementation Act, 2006 May 18th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments of my colleague across the way. We are both fellow British Columbians.
The Pacific Gateway part of his speech was especially disturbing. I would like to ask the member if he recalls that there were only 41 words in the proposed Pacific Gateway project that came forward from the previous Liberal government. There were no plans and no details, just 41 vague words about what it was planning to do.
As a Conservative government, our extension to five years is to cover the fact that there will be very many projects that could not be completed in such a short timeline. It is a consideration that has been given to the projects to make certain that they are completed and funded by the Pacific Gateway project and not to shorten the projects. We are trying to expand them and to allow for them to actually occur.
I wonder if the member opposite would like to comment on the fact that there was no money for the Pacific Gateway funding in any of the Liberal budgets that were put forward before and if he would agree that it was simply a Liberal promise.
Questions on the Order Paper May 18th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Committees of the House May 18th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I move that notwithstanding the order adopted Tuesday, April 25, public safety and national security be the committee for the purposes of section 145 of the Anti-terrorism Act, 2001.
Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that the member opposite would use a serious issue such as agent orange to play partisan games in the House, but I am not responsible for his actions, he is.
The difference between the previous government and this government is that we are going to do what we say. The government will keep its promise. We are doing the research and we are moving forward. As we proceed, we are doing everything possible to ensure veterans are aware of their rights to submit applications for disability awards.
We are helping veterans make those applications as complete as possible. We are ensuring that any new evidence, which may add to their applications, is included. We are reviewing those applications on a priority basis. We are not waiting for the completion of the class action suit.
The process is moving forward as quickly as considerations of fairness and good science permit. To ensure fairness, we must have the facts. And the fact is, the government will keep its promise.
Mr. Speaker, this is a government that keeps its promises. We have kept our promise to give hard-working Canadians a break and cut the GST by 1%. We have kept our promise to give families a choice in child care. We have kept our promise to introduce legislation to crack down on crime and make our communities safer. We have kept our promise to put government on a path to real accountability and restore Canadians' faith in their government. We will keep our promise to respond to concerns raised by members of the Canadian Forces, veterans and area residents about the health effects of defoliants used at CFB Gagetown.
The Government of Canada will not wait for the resolution of the class action suit to provide that response. Veterans Affairs Canada has taken the lead role with regard to compensation issues. Departmental officials are currently examining policy options for government consideration and this work is progressing well. This matter continues to be handled on a priority basis as we work toward a timely and appropriate response.
The fact-finding exercise led by former New Brunswick health minister, Dr. Dennis Furlong, is continuing. In this work, Dr. Furlong is supported by the advisory panel made up of academics, scientists, stakeholders, including veterans.
We are working with the Department of National Defence to identify all current and former civilian and military employees of CFB Gagetown and to determine what defoliants were used, when and where. Studies are also under way to determine the impact of defoliants on the environment and people's health.
The independent experts conducting this research are doing everything they can to advance the work as quickly as possible, and this is an open process. The results of this research will be passed on to the public.
In the interim, we invite veterans who believe they may have an illness associated with exposure to agent orange or other herbicides at CFB Gagetown to apply for a disability award through Veterans Affairs. These applications are being reviewed on a priority basis, and the department is doing everything it can to help those who apply for an award gather the information they need to support their claim.
Any new research findings will be incorporated into our decisions on these applications and any application or decision on awards that may be affected by the research will be reviewed automatically.
All cases where veterans, who served at Gagetown in the mid-60s, have a condition related to agent orange exposure, including cases that have already been adjudicated, are being reviewed to ensure nothing has been overlooked in pulling together evidence to support veterans' claims. When we weigh that evidence, the benefit of the doubt is being applied to ensure fairness.
The government remains committed to resolving this matter as quickly and as fairly as possible. That resolution will be based on facts and fairness, not on political expediency.
Veterans May 5th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I said for the hon. member and I will say it as clear as I can. The Government of Canada does not intend to wait for the resolution of the class action suit. As promised, we will deliver.
Veterans May 5th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, it is a priority of our government to respond to concerns raised by members of the Canadian Forces, veterans and area residents about the health effects of herbicides used at CFB Gagetown.
The Government of Canada does not intend to wait for the resolution from the class action suits. As promised, work is continuing and proposals are being developed to deliver on the commitments the government has made.
Business of Supply May 4th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe this is an inferior program and this is not the Conservative government that the member refers to. This is the new Conservative government. We are looking for solutions to long term problems that have faced this country for more than 20 years.
I am sure the member would agree with me that it is rather outrageous that when the former Liberal government originally talked about child care, it was 13 years ago. The children who were supposedly going to be taken care of by government help are now old enough to babysit. That is pretty pathetic.
We are trying to give $1,200 to each and every family who has a child under the age of six. It has been said many times in this House as well that the taxable portion of it will be placed against the partner who earns the least amount of money. We are trying to have the least negative impact on families and provide the most positive alternatives to all families in this country and to treat them all equally.
If we were to do it on a tax reduction basis, which I have heard the member already say today, she would be overlooking the fact that more than 30% of Canadians simply do not earn enough money to be taxed, so using it as a tax basis would not support them at all. As I said earlier today, we have just removed another 655,000 Canadians off the tax rolls.
If we really want to help every Canadian family and if we want to be there to support every Canadian child, this is the best way to do it. All through the day today I have heard that it has been tried somewhere else and it did not work. I really hate to hear those kinds of comments. Maybe they did not do it right. I think we are going to do this the right way and I believe it will be very successful.
I hope the member for Trinity--Spadina will support this system. We need to do something for Canadian children and this is the best opportunity she will have.