Chris Warkentin

[Customs Act, May 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member discussed at length many issues unrelated completely to the bill we are discussing this morning. Because he did not have the opportunity to speak to that during his lengthy discussion and ramblings, I would like to ask him this question. What is the Liberal position or maybe his own position as to what technical changes within Bill S-2 he would like to see modified or changed? Is he specifically supporting the changes and provisions within this bill and does his party intend to support this bill?

[Points of Order, May 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I stand on a point of order with regard to the comments made by the chair of the government operations and estimates committee.

In his tabling of the report, he commented that the committee was disappointed in some actions of the government. I first want to make a clarification in terms of his remarks.

I sit on that committee and the committee is in no way, shape or form disappointed in the least. There was no discussion within committee about the disappointment it had with regard to the minister or the executive.

I want to read from page 375 of Marleau and Montpetit, which might help the hon. chair in terms of the clarification of his point. It reads:

However, even if a document is technically due during the adjournment period, a Minister still has the option of waiting until the first sitting day following the adjournment to table it in the House or deposit it with the Clerk.

This may help to alleviate any concerns the chair of that committee may have with regard to the tabling of the document. However, I assure everyone again that no committee member had expressed any disappointment in the way the document was or was not tabled in the House or sent back to the committee.

[Health, April 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, could the minister please provide an update to the House with regard to her work with the Mexican government? I know the Mexicans have previously asked us for assistance in determining if they were experiencing a human swine flu outbreak.

Could the Minister of Health tell the House whether the Mexican government has asked the Canadian government for help yet again.

[Taxation, April 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, $20 billion of additional tax cuts by the Conservative government will leave more money in the hands of Canadians. It will assist to help the economy to grow during these tough economic times.

However, the Liberal Party has a plan for dealing with the economic situation as well. It plans to raise taxes on Canadian families. The Liberal leader recently said, “We will have to raise taxes”.

Anybody with a basic understanding of economics knows that cutting taxes, like our Conservative government is doing, encourages economic growth, while raising taxes, like the Liberal Party is pushing for, discourages economic growth. This is not the time to be discouraging economic growth.

Canadians have a right to know how many taxes the Liberals want to hike, how much they will raise them by and which Canadians they will go after to get more money under the new Liberal tax grab.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, during this process we will not compromise accountability. We believe it is critical to strike the right balance between the rapid delivery of stimulus measures and the appropriate due diligence and transparency. We have established clear conditions for the use of this vote to ensure the appropriate checks and balances are in place.

This fund can only be used for economic action plan initiatives announced in budget 2009, which has been passed by this Parliament. Every initiative funded from this vote requires approval of Treasury Board. Existing policy requirements on accountability and reporting must be met. For example, grants and contribution payments are subject to the transfer payment policy. The use of this vote is time limited as well. Funds can only be allocated between the dates of April 1 and June 30, 2009.

This economic crisis is an example of why government needs the ability to quickly and prudently respond to events that we see developing. Today because of the government's drive for more efficient and effective management within the public service, departments are better equipped than ever before to manage this process.

Over the past three years we have improved financial management standards across government. Departments now have independent internal audit committees that include members from outside the government. There are chief financial officers in every department. In addition, under the management accountability framework, the state of financial management and control within departments is assessed annually by the Treasury Board Secretariat.

Based on these assessments, large departments and agencies representing more than 90% of government spending have improved in areas of financial management and controls. Recent financial management and control indicators rated “acceptable” and “strong” are now up to 90% from 59% in the 2006-07 fiscal year. This government believes that responsiveness and responsibility should define the public service. This is the vision that has guided the transformations we have put into place here in Ottawa. This is truly the way forward.

This economic crisis is not of our making, but it is a true test. This is truly where the rubber meets the road. This is why we have shown Canadians that we are managing the economy and society in a new way to ensure that ongoing competitiveness and prosperity is given to every Canadian.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to support the special vote that is found in the main estimates known as vote 35.

As we have heard today, vote 35 is a $3 billion appropriation requested by the government for the Treasury Board to provide funding for initiatives set out in the economic action plan starting April 1. This is an extraordinary step taken to provide funding for departments that have projects that are ready to go right now. Many such initiatives are construction projects, which need to be started at the beginning of the season if Canadians are going to feel the positive effects in this given year.

There has been some confusion among the hon. members on the other side about the role of this $3 billion vote. I would like to shed some light on how this process would work.

Of course, there will always be those who prefer to muddy the waters so that Canadians and their members of Parliament are not clear about what the choices are, but I should think the hon. members opposite would appreciate my efforts in bringing clarity to this particular issue.

There are several challenges that need to be addressed with the economic action plan. These measures need to be dealt with by moneys that are put into place by this measure. One of them is the Budget Implementation Act, which provides funding for some of the economic action plan initiatives.

With this act receiving royal assent on March 12, the most important task at hand for hon. members is the passage of the main estimates. This is necessary to ensure that the measures provided for in the economic action plan, such as building roads and bridges, reducing taxes, supporting Canadians hardest hit by the economic downturn, and helping communities and businesses adjust and grow, will move forward now when they are needed the most.

Anyone who has ever invested money knows that the sooner one puts that money to work, the better it is. It is better to invest sooner, because the returns for that investment start flowing sooner and last longer.

When it comes to investing, time truly is of the essence. That is why we need vote 35 in the main estimates. It provides funding for a broad range of economic action plan measures that are not funded through the Budget Implementation Act but need access to money between the dates of April 1 and June 30. These include community recreational infrastructure projects, investments in first nations infrastructure, and investments in aboriginal skills and employment partnerships, just to name a few.

To ensure that departments can start funding these initiatives before this summer, we have requested the authority to make payments on these projects up to $3 billion.

This approach has been applauded by the International Monetary Fund. In a recent report, the IMF said that Canada's immediate focus should be on implementing the budget to mobilize spending.

This vote is necessary because the short time period between tabling the economic action plan on January 27 and the main estimates, which were brought forward on February 26, did not allow enough time for departments and agencies to seek funding for budget initiatives through the main estimates. Vote 35 allows the government to provide initial funding for ready-to-go initiatives until departments and agencies can receive funding through the normal parliamentary supply processes.

This really is bridge financing. It is simply a way of advancing the funding that would otherwise have to wait until supplementary estimates in June or even later.

However, make no mistake, we are accountable for this $3 billion. That is why we will table reports in Parliament on the status of the economic action plan initiatives, three more in this particular year: one in June, one in September, and one in December. The first report has already been tabled in the House.

In addition, the government will report on all allocations for the central vote as is the case for all central votes in subsequent supplementary estimate documents.

Finally, the Auditor General has indicated that she will be reviewing this process as well, and no one wants the Auditor General saying that money was not spent on what it was supposed to be spent.

This government has made accountability and transparency the cornerstones of its mandate and at this point we are not going to change our stripes. Our first piece of legislation was the Federal Accountability Act. Since tabling the economic action plan, we have cut red tape, taken extraordinary and unprecedented actions to ensure critical investments are not delayed--

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just went to great lengths to compare what she believes the United States is doing right, and she somehow seems to indicate that we should be replicating that particular process.

I wonder if the hon. member has been watching the United States news over the last number of weeks. Certainly we have seen this whole discussion about the debacle that the United States found itself in, having permitted through the processes these things that she calls unprecedented levels of accountability and transparency. Under this program that she has talked about all the merits of, through this program that the Obama administration put forward to the American people, these huge compensation packages were given to AIG.

While she talks about accountability, while she talks about transparency, she likens it to the program that we see south of the border, yet we see the most ridiculous, unprecedented, problematic process the United States has seen in a long time with these multi-million dollar compensation packages given to some of the people who caused what we are seeing as one of the biggest financial disasters in world history.

[Tibet, March 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government is committed to promoting Canada's core values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law around the world.

Canada remains seriously concerned with the human rights situation in Tibet, including the treatment of Tibetans who continue to see violations of their freedom of expression, association and spiritual belief, as well as restrictions on their freedom of movement.

This government raises these concerns with the Chinese government at every appropriate opportunity, calling on it to take effective action to respect, protect and promote the human rights of the ethnic minority groups, including Tibetans.

We urge the Chinese government and the Dalai Lama and his representatives to work toward a solution of outstanding issues and establish a true and lasting peace acceptable to all parties.

[Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, March 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader is out of touch with real Canadians. More specifically, he is out of touch with rural Canadians, most recently demonstrating this by his opposition to the Canadian seal hunt, all the while supporting a punitive carbon tax.

He claimed during the 2006 Liberal leadership race and during last year's election that a carbon tax was a good thing for Canada and a good thing for our economy. He said that we needed to burden other Canadians who were able to bear the energy costs, never asking rural Canadians if they could burden the extra costs.

To exacerbate his attack on rural Canadians, he is now trying to cut off the livelihoods of traditional sealers because his European friends think that it is a good idea. His party will introduce legislation today, supported by the controversial IFAW, to ban the Canadian seal hunt.

The Liberal leader does not support Canadian sealers. The Liberal leader does not support rural Canadians. When will the Liberal leader quit his assault on rural Canadians?

[The Budget, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal opposition benches remind me of that Alicia Silverstone movie Clueless.

In the Financial Post this morning the member for Markham—Unionville claimed that the budget was unconstitutional somehow, but he voted for it. His boss, the Liberal leader, voted for it. The Liberals supported the budget.

The budget contains Canada's economic action plan to make sure that Canadian jobs are protected and to ensure that as a country we are in a strong position in the world economy. Despite all the myths that the Liberal member wants to conjure up, the economic action plan works for Canadians.

Despite his confusion about what the budget is, he voted for it and I think that he should work with us to build stronger communities and to make jobs a top priority. Those are good reasons to vote for the budget.

There is no reason to feel guilty about supporting this budget. Feeling guilty for being a Liberal, sure, but not for supporting Canada's economic action plan.