Catherine Bell

[The Budget, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the words of the hon. member for Palliser and, being that he is from the west, I think he would share some of my concerns about what is not in the budget. I heard other hon. members earlier say that the government had made it easier to save for children's education but that it did not make education any less expensive. It is really difficult for families to save for their children's education when they have such high child care costs and housing costs.

Income splitting does not help single seniors. It is a fact that many women outlive their partners and many of those women are living in poverty.

First nations want to settle their treaties but there was nothing in the budget for them. They are very concerned in British Columbia about what has been left out of the budget with regard to treaty settlements.

One of my other big concerns is western economic diversification. I did not see any mention of that in the budget. I understand, when I met with the department, that there have been cuts to WED. I wonder what the member can tell me about western economic diversification. Will there be any funding for the program and will it continue?

[The Budget, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have a concern about the budget. While the manufacturing sector will receive a 50% capital cost allowance, which is probably good because it can invest in retooling and all those things that he talked about, I want to know how that helps the industry, especially the forest industry in Vancouver Island North and elsewhere in British Columbia where we have had so many mill closures because of the softwood sellout and raw log exports. What incentives are there for manufacturing to stay in British Columbia?

The minister spoke previously at the natural resources committee about being concerned about raw log exports but I have not seen anything in the budget that would stop that and would keep the manufacturing and the value added in British Columbia where we should keep our jobs.

[Democratic Reform, March 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is using delay and stall tactics to put the brakes on any kind of voting reform in this country.

The system is broken and the minister does not want to hear from Canadians who have better ideas. In fact, he went so far as to appoint a firm that not only despises reform but advocates against changing our voting system. This is hardly fair or balanced. This is disgusting political trickery and manipulation of the highest order.

If this is to be a fair process, why hide it from Canadians? Will the minister now table the contracts in this House?

[Democratic Reform, March 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister for Democratic Reform is misleading this House when he says that his so-called study on electoral reform is set up to have broad-based input from all Canadians heard.

In fact, the Canadian Press learned that the recruitment process has been compromised to an unauthorized sub-subcontractor. The contractor is accepting unsolicited applications after putting out a last minute word-of-mouth call this week.

I ask the Minister for Democratic Reform to come clean and tell Canadians how his process misses the mark, is unfair, undemocratic and does not engage citizens at the grassroots.

[March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the minister knew in December that I had put my Motion No. 262 on the national agenda, but in January, while all the members of this House were on a Christmas break, on holidays and in their ridings, he introduced his sham of an electoral reform process and awarded the contract to his friends. Talk about an open process. My goodness, it is starting off behind closed doors already.

A little over a month later, he came to the procedure and House affairs committee and asked it to vote for something that was done behind closed doors. Of course, we voted against that process. It was bogus. It is a sham.

We support true civic engagement and that was what was put forward in the last Parliament, in the 43rd report of the procedure and House affairs committee. We will be voting to honour the work that was done in that committee by Ed Broadbent and many others to have true engagement of citizens across this country.

[March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity today to question the Minister for Democratic Reform further on his ill-advised process to study Canada's electoral system.

I have several questions for the minister in the very few minutes that are allotted to me.

First, I would like to know why the minister is ignoring the will of this House that adopted recommendations in the 43rd report of the procedure and House affairs committee of the 38th Parliament, including a recommendation to broadly consult with Canadians on the values and principles that they would like to see in our electoral system? Canadians expect their government to be open and accountable, but this government has hijacked the process that was agreed upon in the past.

Second, can the minister explain to us why, after saying he did not want the process taken over by special interest groups, he contracted it out to a special interest group?

The Frontier Centre for Public Policy is well known as a right-wing think tank and has several articles opposing electoral reform on its website. It is hardly an unbiased group to convene a series of focus groups across the country.

Was it the only group that applied for the job of convening the focus groups? Was the process even open for other facilitators to apply for this opportunity? Those are just a couple of questions.

I would also like the Minister for Democratic Reform to tell Canadians what criteria he used to select the 40 people for the first focus group? Are they selected from certain segments of the population? Are they representative in any way? Did he put an ad in a paper or on a government website and did they apply to come to the discussion? How does one know where to go to be a part of this hand-picked, closed-door process?

Canadians are not fooled by the government. They know that real civic engagement does not happen behind closed doors. If the minister really wanted participation, he would support Motion No. 262.

I ask again, will the minister now admit that his sham process of bogus civic engagement is a waste of energy? Will he do the right thing, withdraw the electoral reform from that process and commit to full citizens' consultation across Canada?

[Questions on the Order Paper, February 28th, 2007]

What funds, grants, loans and loan guarantees has the government issued in the constituency of Vancouver Island North since February 6, 2006, including the 2006-2007 Budget and up to today, and, in each case where applicable: (a) the department or agency responsible; (b) the program under which the payment was made; (c) the names of the recipients, if they were groups or organizations; (d) the monetary value of the payment made; and (e) the percentage of program funding covered by the payment received?

[Democratic Reform, February 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the minister said that he did not even know the people to whom the contract went. Let me introduce him to his new friends, the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a neo-Conservative think tank against the idea of climate change. The want a private health care system. They like the idea of bulk water exports. They think trans fats are okay. Guess what? They are opposed to electoral reform. A special interest group has already hijacked the process.

Could the minister explain how a think tank that opposes reform has been put in charge of it?

[Democratic Reform, February 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister for Democratic Reform has contracted out the issue of electoral reform and closed the door on a truly open citizens consultation. Under-represented groups need to have a say on the electoral system, but he does not want special interest groups hijacking the process.

Could the minister explain who those special interests are? Who does he not want to hear from: women, first nations, parliamentarians, ordinary Canadians?

[Electoral Reform, February 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the citizens' assembly of B.C. consulted broadly in 2004. The Ontario citizens' assembly is consulting now, giving citizens a direct voice in determining the options they will want to have when they go to the polls.

Seventy-eight per cent of the Ontario citizens' assembly chose a form of proportional representation as the preferred alternative to first past the post.

Will the Minister for Democratic Reform throw out his unfair process he contracted out to his friends, hear from all Canadians and report back to Parliament?