Reed Elley

[Petitions, May 16th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first is signed by 61 petitioners in my riding who state that because the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman as passed in a motion in the House in June 1999, they call upon Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Softwood Lumber, May 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade has promised that he would not allow the Americans to further harm the Canadian softwood lumber industry.

We understand that an export tax as high as 33%, a full six points higher than the present punitive duty, is being proposed by the United States. We also hear that it wants two-thirds of the $1.5 billion in duties collected to date to remain in American hands.

It is clear that these proposals will only further harm workers in my riding and across the country. Will the government stand up for Canadians and refuse to cave in to these American demands?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, May 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's questions are indeed good ones.

In response to his first question, yes, it is a budget that tends to sprinkle money across the country, going to favourite pet projects that often will reward friends of the government, and it is attached only to the government's priorities for Canadians.

I do not think if Canadians were asked if the spending priorities of the government were in line with theirs, there would be much of a consistency in their answer and the government's response in this budget. Unfortunately, Liberal governments, when they do finally get into a position where they have surplus funds, do not tend to take the right decisions that will affect the majority of Canadians across the country long term.

This government is not proactive. It does not come up with great plans that lead the country into the future, with a 5, 10 and 15 year plans that look down the road as to what might happen for the country. Instead, it is a very reactive government that continues to react to crisis. It goes from crisis to crisis, finally being forced to take action on some huge issues, not building up any kind of confidence within Canadians with any kind of proactive plan for many things. That concerns me greatly.

In terms of the EI fund, we know that this has gone on for years. Even though the government boasts of having lowered EI premiums, it continues to take far too much out of the pockets of Canadian taxpayers by way of these kinds of taxes. It does not give Canadians back in return what they deserve.

In my own riding at a time when the EI fund was boasting of billions of dollars of surpluses, HRDC did not renew contracts to organizations in my community that had previously done retraining and counselling of laid off workers. In my mind the spending of EI funds should be used for workers. That is the workers' money and it should be spent on workers. It should not sit someplace in a government fund which is too easily raided by the government to balance its budgets or to go into some kind of general revenue to be put to a pet project for the government.

That is scandalous and it is wrong but the government continues to do it and workers are paying the price.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, May 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Surrey North.

It is my pleasure today to rise and join in the debate on Bill C-28 regarding the 2003 budget. Before the bill was tabled in the House of Commons, Canadians, and in particular my constituents in Nanaimo—Cowichan, were hopeful that the government would actually realize what was happening in the real world outside of Parliament Hill. Canadians were hopeful that the government would begin to come to grips with the disappointment and disbelief that has arisen out of past budgets presented by the member for LaSalle—Émard.

My constituents have expressed to me, in the strongest possible terms, the conviction that the government does not even know that they exist. My riding on Vancouver Island is one of the western most ridings in this country and simply put, out of Liberal sight, out of Liberal mind. Indeed, the staff in my riding at one point had a letter from the Prime Minister's Office wanting to inquire about someone who lived on Victoria Island. Members can imagine how crushing a blow that is to our ego out there to realize that the Prime Minister's Office does not even know the right name of the island on the west coast of Canada.

My constituents were truly hoping for tax relief, but received none. Instead, they received $17.4 billion in new spending initiatives over the next three years. The simple truth is, and it is an easy truth to understand, that while the government attempts to lay claim to tax reduction, the budget says that for every one dollar in tax relief the government puts in additional $7.56 in spending. That is the new math. That is not a tax reduction budget; that is a tax and spend budget.

I would like to speak to several specific points in the bill. There is no question that tax changes for small business and the eventual elimination of the capital tax would benefit many Canadians. We have called for this for a long time. The government has paid far too little attention to the small business community in this country. This is only a feeble step in the right direction. Small business is Canada's economic backbone and has been ignored for far too long.

I am pleased with the proposed 40% reduction in the air security charge, something that the former finance minister refused to do. I eagerly wait to see if the current finance minister will actually deliver on these promises or if there is any real difference between these two members as they vie for the leadership of their party. In a country the size of Canada and the speed at which business of all sorts is conducted, air travel is absolutely imperative. The current air tax reduction of 40% is a good start, but it will continue to discourage air travel in Canada. I know and have heard from many business people in my own riding about the negative impact of the air tax. This tax should now be eliminated, not simply reduced.

The next point is child care. The Canadian Alliance believes that child care options should be given to parents, not to bureaucrats. I believe that the family is the cornerstone of society and we will prosper or collapse on the basis of that strength. We support a $3,000 per child, up to age 16, deduction for families and therefore allow them to choose the best child care option for their children and family by keeping the money in their own pockets.

With the national child benefit, Canadians once again see how the Liberals give and the Liberals take. The Liberals give the national child benefit to low income families with one hand and then tax thousands of dollars away from these very same families with the other. If the Liberals were so concerned about Canada's working poor, why would they tax them so heavily? They tax them through rising Canada pension plan premiums. They overcharge them through their employment insurance premiums as well as through low income contingent GST credits. The Liberals simply have not given working poor Canadians a fair break in the budget.

The spending on health care is another issue covered by the bill. Perhaps there is nothing that affects Canadians more than health care. Whether it is for our aging parents, our growing children or ourselves, each one of us here and across the country is impacted by health care and the costs of the system. Simply put, the money is now on the table and it is time to get on with the job of real health care reform.

When will the federal government realize that it cannot stay mired in the past? This path of health care has led to the many problems that we are currently attempting to deal with in Canada. The Liberals balanced the books largely on the backs of the provinces' own health care budgets. This was not acceptable, and it is not acceptable today. The Canadian Alliance will hold the federal and provincial governments accountable to ensure that new health spending buys real change, not simply more of the status quo.

An issue that affects all Canadians, but most notably many constituents of mine in Nanaimo--Cowichan, is the budget allocated to aboriginal affairs. Despite the billions of dollars the government has spent on aboriginal programs over the past decade, the standard of living for aboriginal Canadians remains appalling. I have visited numerous reserves, homes and sat with councils and understand this issue as well as anyone in this chamber.

I support the reallocation of departmental funding for key issues such as health, education and capital infrastructure, such as water and sewage. Let me be perfectly clear on this. I do not support the role of an increased bureaucracy. The absolutely last thing that aboriginal Canadians need is one more hurdle to jump over, one more hoop to jump through and one more piece of red tape to cut through.

Aboriginal Canadians need real assistance. Neither native nor non-native Canadians can afford to be saddled with any more administrative costs with which to deal. The number of mouldy homes, non-potable drinking water and non-existent sewage systems is simply not acceptable.

This is not a problem that has just cropped up recently. This is an issue that has been with us for years. It is an issue that existed when our present Prime Minister was the minister of Indian affairs 40 years ago, and had an opportunity then to change things and make things right. Now aboriginal Canadians are living with the failed promises and the poor attitudes that were displayed in those days. The Prime Minister of this day did not do then what had to be done to change the life of aboriginal Canadians in this country.

The Liberal government likes to talk a good story under the guise of being protectors of the environment. The Liberals have already wasted over $3 billion without a plan for Kyoto, and at this date have absolutely no results to show for it. Throwing more good money into the Kyoto cookie jar will simply lead to more waste and misuse and will not protect the environment for Canadians. The Canadian Alliance supports the need for targeted funding for new green technologies that will bring real environmental benefits to Canada. There are viable options available, yet to date this government refuses to consider them or to implement them.

An issue that is important also to many Canadians, but in particular importance to the many active and retired Canadian armed forces personnel who live in my riding, is the appalling way this Liberal government has undermined our military. This also shows up on the radar screen of a lot of polling that we do. The Canadian Alliance agrees with the Auditor General as well as many other organizations calling for an immediate increase of $2 billion per year in our defence spending. The Liberal commitment of $600 million per year falls far short of what is necessary to sustain our armed forces let alone start to rebuild it.

The examples are almost endless and they are shameful, indeed scandalous: the ill-fated replacement helicopters that have caused the death of armed forces personnel; a lack of camouflage uniforms for Afghanistan and the necessary equipment when we sent our troops into battle zones or put them into harm's way; now the government's refusal to spend any money on any heavy lift capability, expecting our allies to do the job for us; as well as underpaid personnel which leads to a deteriorating moral among our armed forces personnel. That is simply scandalous. It has to change and a Canadian Alliance government would make sure that that change takes place.

The government is making some token gestures toward tax changes. The move to increase RRSP limits to $18,000 by the year 2006, to increase the small business deduction limit to $300,000, to eliminate the capital tax over the next five years and lower the resource tax rate in line with the general corporate rate are positive moves. Unfortunately, from our point of view they are being implemented far too slowly and they fall short of what could and should be done.

I presume that my time is drawing to a close, but I would like to say that there are other issues I would love to talk about such as foreign aid, amendments to the federal-provincial fiscal arrangements, the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, the employment insurance compassionate care benefits and of course the Liberals favourite tax, which they were going to scrap and abolish, the GST. However I do not have time to speak about all those things even though I would love to.

The bottom line however is this budget is a tax and spend budget, not unlike many budgets that have been presented in the House by previous Liberal governments. It builds on the broken promises brought in by the current Prime Minister. It builds on the boondoggles to which Canadians have been witness at HRDC and the failed gun registry.

Canadians can see through this Liberal smoke and mirrors show. They recognize that there is no significant tax relief for them in the 2003 budget. Instead the Liberal government has increased spending by 20% over the next three years. I would challenge the government to go to the people and ask if they really feel that kind of spending is in line with the priorities of Canadians. Canadians are growing weary of this, and I will continue to oppose this budget until real tax relief is available to all Canadians.

[Softwood Lumber, May 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is $1.2 billion and some of that has been taken out of companies in my riding.

The softwood lumber industry all across Canada is concerned with the current state of affairs. Forest workers in my riding are out of work, bills are not being paid and many communities are suffering again. What assurance will the Minister for International Trade offer Canadians that a softwood lumber deal with the U.S. will this time give us long lasting peace and civility? Or will the government's inaction be responsible for putting us through this horror in the next five years?

[Softwood Lumber, May 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the softwood lumber industry is still waiting for a resolution to this issue with our American counterparts. The parties have not met since February.

For tomorrow's meeting, the Americans have made it clear that they will not budge on some very critical issues: self-imposed border tax, return of the $1.2 billion in duty taxes already collected from Canadian companies, and whether Canada will be required to drop its lawsuits at the WTO and NAFTA. Which of these three issues is the minister going to compromise in order to strike a deal?

[Parliament of Canada Act, May 2nd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise and be able to speak on behalf of my constituents to Bill C-34, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, specifically regarding the ethics commissioner and the Senate ethics officer.

As well all know, the current Prime Minister has been searching for his legacy, something that Canadians will remember him by after his years of public service. While I greatly respect his years of service, I do not have to endorse what he has done during those years. The bill is a prime example of the Liberal legacy, saying that it will do something but only doing it in half measures.

If the purpose of the bill is to fulfill a 1993 Liberal red book election promise and provide for the appointment of a truly independent ethics officer that would report directly to the House Commons regarding the conduct of its members, then we would be able to proceed quickly with the bill. Unfortunately, as my colleagues before me have stated and as I will mention in the next few moments, this is really is not the case.

The bill is part of the Prime Minister's ethics initiative that he first announced in May 2002. As is often the case with the Prime Minister, his cabinet and his government, they use the right words but the meaning and implementation are shifted in such a way that the results are confusing. In other words, they simply do not walk the talk.

I believe if any one of us asked our constituents what they thought the term “independent ethics commissioner for the House of Commons” actually meant, there would be a fairly consistent response. Canadians who I have spoken with over the past number of years on this issue take the view that an independent ethics commissioner means exactly that, independent, free of influence and restrictions from anyone else.

While that would be the Canadian norm, the Liberal version of the world is always just a little bit different. Under the bill the term “independent ethics commissioner” is misleading. Under Bill C-34 the Prime Minister will make the choice of ethics commissioner. There will be a consultation process with the leaders of the parties in the House and then there will be a confirming vote in the House.

This may sound like it meets the needs of an independent ethics commission. However, we must consider that the consultation process with the leaders does not mandate that the Prime Minister change his mind if they all disagree.

Consider that the confirming vote in the House will undoubtedly be a vote in which all Liberals will mysteriously vote in favour of the Prime Minister's choice. This will not be a secret ballot where every member of the House can vote according to his or her independent view of the proposed ethics commissioner. Is it not ironic that an independent ethics commissioner will not be voted on by independent minded members of Parliament?

As we all very well know, there is a very strong precedent for secret ballots in the House. The Speaker of the House of Commons has been voted on in this fashion for the past several times and it has worked extremely well. The wishes of the members are clearly heard and they in turn are well served by that democratic choice.

I note that the House of Commons ethics commissioner is appointed for an initial five year term and is eligible for reappointment for one or more terms of up to five years each. Furthermore, Bill C-34 states that the House of Commons ethics commissioner will work under the general direction of a committee of the House of Commons, presumably the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. While this seems all quite logical, I believe we need to look at the working details of the bill more closely. Unfortunately again, Liberal logic and Canadian logic often do not match with each other.

When speaking out in opposition to Bill C-34, let me quote directly from Canadian Alliance policy and what I firmly believe should be involved in the bill. It states:

We will facilitate the appointment of an independent Ethics Counsellor by the House of Commons. The Ethics Counsellor will report directly to the House of Commons and be given the mandate to investigate, and where applicable, recommend prosecution for conflict-of-interest infractions by a Member of Parliament, and/or his/her staff.

I am fully in favour of setting and maintaining a high standard of ethical conduct by government and parliamentarians. As public servants, we must ensure that a high standard is maintained. In this case it is this Liberal version of ethics to which I am opposed. By its very nature ethics are not something that can or should be subject to internal definitions.

I have no doubt that the Liberals will try to characterize my fellow opposition members as being against a code of ethics but let me emphatically state again that I fully support the premise and the need for an independent ethics commissioner. Unfortunately, after reading the details of the bill, while the position may be for an ethics commissioner, the position is certainly not independent. It is on this basis that I disagree with this bill.

I ask the obvious question of how an ethics commissioner appointed by and answerable solely to the Prime Minister can have any legitimate jurisdiction over backbench and opposition MPs. I urge all hon. members of Parliament to carefully consider these implications. This is nothing more than one more Liberal wolf dressed in sheep's clothing. How can an ethics commissioner for all members of the House of Commons have any validity when he or she would be appointed by the Prime Minister without an endorsement by the rank and file members of Parliament?

As we have seen in the past, situations arise where an investigation by an independent ethics commissioner is required. If an investigation of a minister is requested by a senator or an MP, the ethics counsellor is obliged to investigate. However under Bill C-34, any public report arising from the investigation can be suitably sanitized by withholding any information considered confidential.

An independent ethics commissioner must report to the House of Commons ideally through one of the committees, not through the Prime Minister's office. Without this provision there is no independence and the position continues as a lapdog to the Prime Minister.

I know the government House leader has indicated that Bill C-34 meets all the recommendations of the standing committee in its report tabled just before Easter. However that is not necessarily the case. The method of recruitment and the appointment of the ethics commissioner is key to guaranteeing his or her independence. Unlike all other officers of Parliament, the ethics commissioner reports on the conduct of members of Parliament and not the government. Therefore, faith in his total independence is essential.

I note the standing committee made favourable reference to the practice in the provinces where there is direct involvement by their members in the selection of their commissioners.

In my home province of British Columbia he is selected by an all party committee, which makes a recommendation to the premier, who must then obtain a two-thirds confirming vote by the legislative assembly to make the appointment. Alberta uses a similar method without the two-thirds requirement. In this package the House will have, arguably, no real involvement in recruitment and appointment, and in the end the government majority will simply prevail.

There are many other issues that arise out of this bill that time prevents me from addressing. I know that opposition parties and many backbench government members have grave concerns over this bill.

Some of the issues I have had the opportunity to speak to but there are many others. I am concerned over the confidential advising to the Prime Minister and the ability of the PMO to clean up the report over confidential issues between the Prime Minister and his ministers. The bill provides no real role for the House in the selection of the ethics commissioner, therefore arguably not really truly independent.

I am strongly in favour of a code of ethics by which all members of the House can abide. I affirm the need for a truly independent ethics commissioner to uphold this standard. Unfortunately, the Liberal government thrust its own definitions on the role and position and in so doing, have circumvented the legitimacy of a truly independent ethics commissioner.

[Public Works, May 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, another related concern on this issue is that the government has been relying on local government to negotiate compensation issues with the landowner on Gabriola Island when this is really a federal responsibility. This will not be resolved until the federal government accepts its responsibility for this issue.

Will the Minister of Public Works and Government Services commit to having his department handle these negotiations, and respect provincial and municipal jurisdictions?

[Public Works, May 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, many of my constituents in Nanaimo--Cowichan rely on water transportation. Under the government, Gabriola Island's green wharf, which allows the only public access between Gabriola and Mudge Islands was set for demolition. Last year, the then public works minister announced there would be an indefinite moratorium on the disposal of the green wharf until the access issue has been resolved. Public works officials have now arbitrarily imposed a September 13 deadline.

Will the present minister please confirm that he will stand by his government's previous commitment to an indefinite moratorium--

[Softwood Lumber Industry, April 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have been warning the Liberal government for six years that its policies were hurting the B.C. softwood lumber industry. Unfortunately, the situation has not changed. Thousands of softwood lumber workers remain unemployed in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan because the government has allowed the softwood lumber crisis to drag on and on and the export of raw logs continues to take jobs with them.

Meanwhile, our neighbours to the south in the Pacific northwest who want our raw logs continue to ban log exports from their own lands.

Recently the federal government raised the possibility of removing restraints on the export of even more raw logs. Canadian Alliance members of Parliament on Vancouver Island have taken a firm stand against this because of the loss of more jobs that would go with them.

I have stood at the gates of the Youbou Mill and talked with employees who lost their jobs when a profitable mill was being shut down. Meanwhile, the highway running past the mill is a continuous convoy of full logging trucks moving raw logs down to the dumping grounds to be mainly towed to American sawmills.

Shame on the government for even thinking of exporting B.C. jobs with B.C. logs. Shame on the Minister for International Trade for allowing his deputy minister to even contemplate the possibility.