Karen Redman

[Justice, December 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's former top consular official has said that the government's recent embrace of the death penalty is simply “not a workable policy”.

The government cannot pick and choose who gets to live and who gets put to death on a case by case basis as the Minister of Justice has suggested.

When will the government reverse its misguided decision, respect the rights of all Canadians abroad and finally, once and for all, say it rejects the use of the death penalty?

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, November 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, lest this sound like a mutual admiration society, I would have to say that I have eminent respect for the colleague who just posed the question. I know that, in the main, members in all parties of the House come here to make this a better country for their constituents, their provinces and Canadians across Canada.

In direct response, I would look at the accelerated writedown of capital costs and ask why the government would choose to continue to have a richer writedown of capital costs for people in the oil sands, who have record profits right now, and ignore the plight of manufacturers.

I think there are many things the government has done that really underscore a philosophical bent. There is an expression, and I do not know if people viewing this on TV will understand, known as “retail politics”. It is what will sell at the ballot box. It is the politics of division in choosing winners and creating losers.

The government had a $14 billion legacy of surplus left over from the hard work not just of the previous Liberal governments but all Canadians, because we recognize that everyone collectively tightened their belts to get rid of the $42 billion deficit that we as a government inherited.

The government has cancelled the court challenges program. Philosophically, they have taken word “equality” out of the mandate of the Status of Women department. There seems to be an absolute philosophical bent to decide who votes for them and how to reward them.

Communities and cities right across the nation need the kind of partnership that we can create at the federal government. I look at Waterloo region and Kitchener Centre. I look at the homeless issue. I look at the supporting community initiatives of over $320,000 that went into my riding and at what the local levels of government and non-profits did to make sure that nobody was left behind in my community.

That is the kind of leadership and partnership Canadians deserve and should expect from the federal government. It is not the kind of leadership they are getting from this minority Conservative government.

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, November 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is a distinct pleasure and honour to rise in the House today to speak about the economic statement that was tabled in this House earlier in the fall.

I know that members would agree with me, because we all spend a lot of time in our constituencies, but certainly the constituents of Kitchener Centre and in fact Canadians right across this nation have indicated that they do not want tax cuts at the expense and the compromise of the social fabric of the nation. For the majority of Canadians, spending on medicare and education, the elimination of poverty, the creation of a national child care program, as well as the protection of the environment all come before tax cuts as their priorities.

Today Canada's economy is performing extremely well. In fact, the federal treasury is awash in cash. As the government announced in September, it ran a surplus this year of $14 billion. Certainly a tax break would be in order during times of such prosperity.

However, the government also announced a reduction of the lowest tax bracket to 15% when in reality it was merely reinstating a tax cut that our previous Liberal government had made. The Conservative government in its initial budget had raised the tax rate of the lowest income bracket from 15% to 15.5%. It is hardly a tax cut when it merely returns to the same rate that it was previous to the increase in the budget preceding. Canadians are no further ahead financially than they were before the minority Conservative government took power.

Many in this House will recall the previous Liberal government's $100 billion tax reduction plan. It was passed in the year 2000. It was the largest tax cut in history, and Canadians continue to benefit from that budget today.

What made the tax relief plan and the subsequent Liberal tax relief so effective was how very broad the application was. Millions of people benefited from those reductions.

We are also in favour of reducing the tax burden on corporations because we recognize this is one way to unleash Canada's productive capacity. Our record speaks to this.

The finance minister and the government make much of the reduction of 1% in the GST. It has gone to 5% from 6%.

What is interesting about this is that the vast majority of economists and as a matter of fact those with any kind of economic sense are quick to acknowledge that trimming taxes on consumption offers very little in terms of economic stimulus. Quite frankly, it advantages the rich. We all know that we would get more GST relief when buying a Mercedes-Benz than when buying a bicycle. It is simple arithmetic.

On this side of the House, we are accustomed to governing with vision and with an eye to the long term economic good of our country.

The quick fix, simplistic initiatives put forward by the Conservative government are designed to pay dividends at the ballot box in the next election. There is no commitment to long term economic vitality, no vision and no attention to growth.

The Conservatives fail to deliver on the long term vision of the investments that need to be made in using the record setting fiscal strength that they inherited from our previous Liberal governments.

We need a system of taxation that would provide an economic stimulus to help mitigate the economic slowdown in the United States. No one can dispute that Canada will face consequences of any economic changes that happen in the United States. With our loonie at par and occasionally above par and worth more than the U.S. dollar, Canadian manufacturers need help from the government.

The Conservative government is failing to create or even protect thousands of manufacturing jobs. In 2006, the House of Commons industry committee made 22 unanimous recommendations to help Canada's manufacturing sector. To date, of the 22 unanimous recommendations, one has partially been implemented. That was the creation of a two year window for writing off capital investments at an accelerated rate as opposed to the committee's recommendation of a five year window.

Meanwhile, other sectors, such as the booming oil sands industry, continue to enjoy a much more generous accelerated capital cost allowance. These are industries that have immense returns on their investments, yet we see the manufacturing sector struggling in Canada and hear silence from the government.

Canadian communities are also feeling the pinch of this Conservative mismanagement. According to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Canada's cities and communities now face an infrastructure deficit of over $100 billion, yet only $4 billion of the government's $30 billion building Canada fund has been earmarked for municipal infrastructure. Clearly, this is simply not enough.

Canadian cities and municipalities need long term sustainable funding for infrastructure programs. This requires partnering at all levels of government, but the Conservatives have failed to come to the table. The Conservative finance minister accused mayors, my own mayor from Kitchener, of being whiners. He dismissed them. He said that the government does not deal in potholes and said to go home. Yet everybody lives in a community, whether it is a village or a city, and recognizes that there needs to be attention to infrastructure. How many bridges need to collapse and injure or kill Canadians before we recognize the screaming deficit that we have in investment in infrastructure?

Similarly, the Conservatives' immigration program shows no real desire to respond either to the needs of our economy or to the needs of new Canadians. Their approach has a narrow regional focus. It lacks long term objectives for our immigration system. It ignores the realities of the Canadian labour market, where there are severe shortages. In addition, the Conservatives' plan is targeted almost exclusively at western Canada and shows no real desire to respond to the needs of employers in other provinces.

In budget 2006, the Conservatives provided $18 million over two years to create the Canadian agency for assessment and recognition of credentials. This is for foreign-trained professionals who want to immigrate to Canada. This represented a $145 million reduction--and I underscore that, a $145 million reduction--in spending on foreign credential recognition and cut the shelf life of the programming in half from what was promised in 2005.

What is worse, budget 2007 continued this backward path by breaking this meagre commitment. Instead of creating a foreign credential agency, the government replaced it with a Foreign Credentials Referral Office that is worth $13 million over two years. This merely provides referral services for prospective immigrants to connect with appropriate provincial assessment bodies rather than actually helping the foreign-trained workers find jobs quickly.

Statistics show us that within the next 20 years immigration will account for all of Canada's net labour force and population growth. Passing the buck to provinces and territories hardly seems a responsible reaction in addressing this sector of our society and our economy.

Liberal governments implemented numerous infrastructure programs in the 1990s and the early 2000s to support the municipal infrastructure projects, culminating in $5 billion over five years with the transfer of gas tax funds to municipalities and continuing at $2 billion annually from 2009.

The Liberals also invested $263 million in the foreign-trained workers initiative in 2005 and over $100 million to improve the delivery of immigration services.

As a member of the Liberal Party, I have consistently advocated for the support of Canadian families while promoting fiscal responsibility and building a solid economic foundation for the future.

I find this budget short-sighted and irresponsible. Quite frankly, Canadians deserve better.

[Airbus, November 30th, 2007]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I believe that was the wrong page on the briefing book. That was not the substance of my question.

Somebody in the current government decided to shut down a justice department investigation into the questionable ethics of Brian Mulroney and it happened on that government's watch. The current Minister of Justice says he did not do it.

My question is really quite simple. Who shut down the investigation? Who is the responsible party? Has this investigation been restarted and if not, why not?

[Airbus, November 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, somebody over there stopped a justice department review of whether or not Canadians should get their $2.1 million back from Brian Mulroney.

The current Minister of Justice claims that he had nothing to do with shutting it down, which leaves one obvious candidate. Was the former minister of justice, now the current President of the Treasury Board, the one responsible for protecting Mr. Mulroney?

[The Environment, November 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the Prime Minister, the chair of the Lloyds of London, Peter Levene wants the world to take urgent action on climate change. Yesterday in Montreal he said that we needed to act on climate change strictly for economical and commercial reasons.

If we act now, greenhouse gas emissions could be stabilized at the cost of 1% of GNP. If we do not act, 20% of the world's GNP will absolutely vanish. It will be wiped out.

Does the Prime Minister understand this simple math? Will he start thinking ahead and preserve our economic future by pushing for firm targets and—

[The Environment, November 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, aspirations will not stop climate change. The world agrees that in order to fight climate change, we need firm targets and binding commitments, but the Prime Minister refuses both. He says one thing in Canada and another on the world stage. Is this why he wants to sabotage the Bali conference, to hide the fact that the government is a fraud?

The Prime Minister keeps repeating his empty phrase, “Canada is back”. Back to the back of the line? Back to the dark ages? When will he come back to his senses?

[Correctional Service Canada, November 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Ashley Smith tragically died at the Grand Valley Prison for Women when she suffocated herself just weeks before she was to be released. Rather than receiving treatment, this mentally unstable teenager spent most of her sentence in segregation. Segregation cannot be confused with treatment.

The government has ignored several reports calling for a mental health strategy in our prisons. When will the government take action and implement a mental health strategy in Canadian prisons?

[Health, November 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the untimely death of Ashley Smith, an 18-year-old inmate at the Grand Valley Institution for Women, has everyone talking about the care provided to inmates with mental health issues, everyone, that is, except the government.

Ashley Smith began her six year sentence as a young offender and it ended tragically four years later when she suffocated herself just weeks before she was to be released. This mentally unstable teenager had spent most of her sentence in segregation.

Canada's correctional investigator has been telling us for several years that Canada's penitentiaries are becoming warehouses for the mentally ill. Yet our prisons remain ill-equipped to treat those who suffer with mental health issues. Segregation should not be confused with treatment.

I call on the government to make it a priority to implement the mental health strategy that has been languishing since 2004, to ensure that no future inmate will end up sadly as Ashley Smith has.

[Justice Canada, November 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, justice department officials wanted to review the Mulroney settlement in light of new evidence that his story had changed, but that was before the cabinet shuffle.

After the cabinet shuffle, when the former Mulroney caucus member became justice minister, there was no more talk of a review.

Will the government confirm that based on this new information it now has relaunched this review and, if not, why not?