Eric C. Lowther

[World Petroleum Congress, June 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, from June 11 to June 15, Calgary will host over 3,000 delegates from over 80 countries at the 16th World Petroleum Congress in my city's new Telus Convention Centre.

The congress is dedicated to the application of scientific advances in the petroleum industry, environmental issues and to the use of the world's petroleum resources for the benefit of mankind.

This is the first time that the congress will be held in Canada and Calgarians are determined to set a new high standard while hosting this international event.

As evidence of Calgary's strong community spirit, more than 1,300 people have signed their names to the volunteer roster for the congress. In fact, my own twin daughters, Beverly and Gina, will be singing the national anthem with the Calgary Children's Choir at the opening ceremonies.

I offer my congratulations to Jim Gray, the chairman of the Canadian organizing committee, and to all the hardworking men and women of Calgary who are involved in making this event a great international success.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2000, June 5th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member made some very compelling arguments about the need for lower taxes. It was a very good presentation and I appreciated it very much.

However, he did not mention the need to start paying down the debt which previous governments over the last 20 years have incurred on behalf of all Canadians. It is close to $600 billion. One-third of every tax dollar we send to Ottawa goes to interest, which does nothing for anyone. With the threat of rising interest rates we have a ticking time bomb.

Would the member be so good as to articulate a plan which would address and start to pay down the debt, as opposed to the increased spending that we see from the other side?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2000, June 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the finance critic for the Conservative Party.

I remember reading some of the recent claims and statements made by the Progressive Conservative Party at a recent rally talking about increasing the spending on health care and other things. They talked about reducing taxes and eliminating the capital gains tax completely. They then talked about $25 billion a year in debt retirement. Those all sound nice and the themes are consistent with the Canadian Alliance Party, but in an effort to attract some sort of public support they go over the top.

I wish they would follow the lead of our finance critic who has submitted his plan to the academic community and economic forecasters who say that our plan has integrity because it balances out. Our plan actually works with the numbers. It balances and it makes sense.

I wonder why the member opposite does not consider adopting a plan and moving in a direction that has integrity, where the plan balances as opposed to what we have heard from his party in the past making wild promises that do not balance. Canadians see that and will never embrace it. Canadians are embracing our plan because it has been tested by academics and proven to be workable and real.

I would invite the member to comment on that and to consider supporting the Canadian Alliance approach to tax reform in Canada.

[Petitions, May 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a year and a half since the law against child pornography has been struck down. These petitions I am submitting today add to the hundreds of thousands of signatures from coast to coast calling for action. They ask that parliament take every measure to ensure that child pornography remains a serious offence and that federal police forces be directed to give priority to enforcing this law for the protection of our children.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, May 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that is accurate. I think the hon. member has done some work in this regard and I think that is accurate. Where there might be need for a greater discussion is how those principles are applied and administrated in the land. However, in general I would say yes.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, May 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, before question period I was responding to a question which had to do with what it meant to me and others in my riding to be a Canadian and how Bill C-16 addresses that.

I can quickly say that the meaning of being a Canadian cannot be captured in a brief comment. For me it means that I have to respect the laws of the land. I have to participate as a citizen. There are a tremendous number of rights, but there are also a tremendous number of responsibilities which we have as citizens, to work to improve our country, to represent our country and to obey the laws of the land.

My concern about some aspects of this bill is that although it deals with citizenship, it appears to move us in the wrong direction. It does not make it clear, in my estimation and in that of many members of the committee, as to exactly who qualifies. That seems to be watered down and left to regulation and bureaucrats to determine.

The language requirement is not clear as to how proficient a new citizen needs to be in either or both of the official languages. It is very unclear. In fact, one could argue that a new citizen under this bill might not even need to understand much, if any, of either languages, because it allows for interpretation assistance, et cetera.

Under citizenship-type certifications and assessments with regard to family, it is unclear who qualifies under familial relationships, whereas it is clear in Canadian law. This bill moves in a different direction and leaves total discretion to the minister and her bureaucrats.

Then there is the very grievous concern about potentially revoking citizenship for those who have chosen to be Canadian citizens, leaving them to appeal. There is no real appeal process available through the bill for those who may have had their citizenship challenged. Of course, the citizenship judges have been gutted of any real responsibility and are really window dressing. We have again deferred to the bureaucracy to make assessments on people's lives, who they are, their nationality and their citizenship.

Yes, it means a lot to be a Canadian citizen. Unfortunately, this bill moves a lot of the significance, the administration and the firm statements as to how important it is out of law and into the hands of the whims of a bureaucracy and regulation.

[Petitions, May 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I present several hundred names in support of a call by adoptive parents who face significant adoption related costs and out of pocket expenses applicable to adoption.

The petitioners request that parliament pass Bill C-289, which would recognize a deduction for the expenses related to the adoption of a child.

[Foreign Affairs, May 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the minister is not aware of what he personally signs off on. The minister personally signed off on a document from which I will quote that said “unconventional leasing agreements for staff accommodation in Algeria”.

In addition, a 1997 departmental memo explained that “the unconventional portion of the lease consists of a foreign currency payment of 32,000 French francs per month”.

Why does the Minister of Foreign Affairs sanction breaking the law in another country by personally approving black market—

[Foreign Affairs, May 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, leaked documents show that the foreign affairs minister personally signed off on black market payments in Algeria. The minister renewed a so-called “unconventional lease” for the payment of 32,000 French francs per month for a Canadian staff quarters in Algeria.

The problem is that the currency in Algeria is dinar, not French francs, and it is illegal to pay rent in a foreign currency in Algeria. How is it that the Liberal government could possibly justify making these under the table payments in another country?

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, May 29th, 2000]

With respect, I would appreciate the opportunity to answer after Oral Question Period, Mr. Speaker.