Dan McTeague

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, November 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on her elevation to cabinet as well as her election in the last campaign.

No doubt this is a very difficult file and a very daunting challenge for her.

It is clear that many Canadians in the past couple of months have been extremely concerned about the cost of energy prices, most important, the sudden dramatic rise in the cost of gasoline and now home heating fuel, which impacts electricity.

As we head into a time of deflation, people are losing their jobs and they are also seeing higher costs for energy, particularly truckers in western Canada with respect to diesel fuel. They also have home heating concerns as well.

What contingencies, what plans and discussions does the government have to address this? I heard nothing in the minister's speech that addressed one of the most fundamental issues confronting Canadians today, higher energy costs at a time when they are losing their jobs. What does the minister have to say about that? What plan does the government have, if any?

[Petitions, November 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from the same Canadian groups and individuals.

The petitioners call upon the Canadian government and Parliament to amend the Health of Animals Act with regard to long distance transportation of farm animals consistent with welfare norms usually established for husbandry.

[Petitions, November 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions signed by Canadians across my riding and across Ontario and Canada who seek in the first instance and, most important, that consideration be given and international aid efforts renewed to help increase our aid to the victims of conflict in Darfur.

[April 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am very encouraged by the comments of the parliamentary secretary. I know how hard he works. I realize that he has read part of this and he looks pretty tired, as would anyone who has done as much travelling as he has done. I also know the hon. member is very committed to this issue.

I take it that he will have also taken into consideration the more positive news with respect to Mr. Kohail's brother, Sultan. I am hoping that these positive steps taken by another court to bring in and cross-examine the prosecution can also be suggested, or at least inferred, in terms of our deliberations.

[April 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, since my March 4 question to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, there has been little progress in the government's efforts to have the death sentence of Mr. Mohamed Kohail commuted.

Aside from the serious problems caused by the change in government policy with respect to seeking clemency only in certain cases where Canadians have been sentenced to death in foreign countries, we know that the author of that misguided policy, the Minister of Public Safety, visited Saudi Arabia and talked with officials about Mr. Kohail's case. What good came out of those meetings the minister had is really not known. However, with less than four weeks left before the appeal ruling occurs, there is genuine concern that indeed time is running out on Mr. Kohail.

The entire trial of Mohamed Kohail only took 90 minutes. Moreover, there was no opportunity provided to Mr. Kohail's lawyers to cross-examine the witnesses testifying against Mohamed.

Canada should not only be seeking to have the death penalty against Mohamed Kohail overturned, the Canadian government should also be using every measure at its disposal to engage Saudi authorities.

Mr. Kohail's life hangs in the balance, and that is why I ask the hon. member if he can give this House his assurances that Canada will indeed do all it can to display to the Saudi government that Mr. Kohail deserves to have his life spared and the original guilty verdict overturned on appeal.

I also want to remind the hon. member that this is not a partisan issue. The life of a Canadian citizen is at stake. I believe that Canadians expect their government will do all it can to save Mr. Mohamed Kohail's life. I would like to believe that the government is engaging the Saudis and that our embassy is actively using its resources to this end.

There are just a few weeks remaining before the ruling on Mr. Kohail's appeal occurs. We have to ensure that this remaining time is indeed used wisely.

We are not lecturing the Saudis. We are not questioning their judicial system. Canada must, however, stand up for its citizens. I ask the hon. member to ensure that that is exactly what is being done in the case of Mr. Kohail in these few remaining days that are left.

[April 9th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, we are hopeful that we will have a positive outcome and, should she be found guilty under the system, that the transfer of offender treaty will in fact apply to her and she will be able to come home immediately.

Let us be very clear. There are hundreds of cases out there where we do apply and recognize that the judiciary of another country is paramount. Canada is not to interfere, nor does it propose to. However, in the case of Brenda Martin, by all evidence, the laws that apply to Mexico and the obligations Mexico has under international treaty, including the international treaty and convention on civil political rights, were not upheld and were not in force. That is why this member and the Liberal Party went to bat for Brenda Martin.

We believe it is important that, while Canada has obligations to respect other countries, other countries have an obligation to respect our nationals when they are in their country as well, as they would expect of us when it comes to their nationals being here.

I am pleased to see the hon. member is on the file. I am hoping that there may be a change in the next couple of weeks. I understand he is very interested in these cases. I look forward to more cases down the road behind the scenes so we can resolve these problems before they are gone. When the opposition raises this, it is for a good reason.

[April 9th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to raise the point pursuant to what we discussed during question period on February 26. My question for the Secretary of State responsible for Canadians abroad dealt with the fact that she had taken the time to go to Mexico but failed to actually address the issue of meeting with Brenda Martin.

We know that Brenda Martin has been languishing in a prison for the better part of the past two years. Despite repeated attempts by our party and by this member in particular, attempts in the foreign affairs committee, in late shows like this one and with questions in the House, it seems impossible to understand where and how the government sets its priorities, particularly when there is evidence that a Canadian has been literally railroaded and denied her rights, not only from a Canadian perspective, but under Mexican law in and of itself.

My question for the minister at the time was why could she not take the time to visit Brenda to demonstrate and create a link to Mexican authority in recognition of the fact that we were not interfering with the judicial system but were instead sending a message to Mexicans that we were not exactly pleased with the way in which their judicial system had treated Brenda Martin.

There are plenty of examples of past cases like this. Particularly in dealing with this one, I note with thanks the efforts of people such as Charles Rusnell of the Edmonton Journal. His investigative work in the background has made it possible for us to focus on this question and bring into play the fact that her fundamental rights were denied. In particular, she was not given access to an interpreter. As well, there is the fact that she has been imprisoned with other convicted felons, felons under the Mexican state, which we are not second guessing, individuals who have committed crimes and been found guilty.

She has not been found guilty of anything. There has been a pretrial incarceration of over two years. Desperately, Ms. Martin sought the help of her government to at least pick up the phone from time to time. The same minister failed to do that and, I suggest respectfully to this House, demonstrated a distinct lack or dereliction of her responsibility.

I am very concerned that what I raised on February 26 was also raised again by the Canadian Press story, which went further and confirmed the fact that the minister seemed to be given to swilling back Perriers and canapés as opposed to spending 18 minutes to travel to see Brenda Martin. it is very critical that such was the case. It demonstrates a clear lack of experience by the minister.

There are members on that side of the House who have very good talents and who understand consular affairs. I am hoping that what comes out of this will indeed be an opportunity by the Prime Minister to change the lineup, to change the batting order so that we actually have people who can get onto these cases from the get-go.

I led the consular affairs division for a couple of years and I can tell members that once engaged it was second to none. Most nations have no difficulty becoming involved and I think no less of our ability to do the same. This has been a very public issue with respect to the plight of Brenda Martin. We are hopeful that she will be released, that the judges will find their way to freeing her. We know that Alyn Waage, who was responsible for the fraud scheme, himself has exonerated her twice and has written two affidavits pursuant to the court.

However, let us understand that in this case the prosecutor made the charges so difficult there is no way Brenda Martin can get out without the help of her government. We are asking the Canadian government to get involved, including the Prime Minister, by ensuring that the Prime Minister himself not only picks up the phone but also observes that when an international treaty is broken he has an obligation to stand up for Canadians. We did it on this side of the House. We expect the Conservative government to do the same.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, April 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, what is good about being a member of the New Democratic Party with 29 members is that they never need to worry about being responsible. They never need to worry about being government because we saw what happened in the province of Ontario when that did happen.

The member said that he was prepared to throw away everything about his vote, which was on CPAC, supporting this bill in favour of making a political statement. I think that is regrettable. However, if that is what the New Democrat member believes, that is fine.

However, despite the catcalls and the heckling, it is their responsibility to ensure in the first instance that this legislation continues. Unless he has a crystal ball, he cannot predict the future.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, April 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question but I do understand the member's passion. However, I want the member's passion to be focused in a way that is the best way to achieve a very good piece of legislation. I can appreciate the fact that he is trying to make a political point but I also understand the same member supported this bill. I agree with him. We do need to find a way to get this bill through. The tactics of today will not diminish the importance of this legislation.

I can tell the hon. member, having grown up in a family of 10 and having 5 children of my own, I know how difficult it is, having struggled to put myself through university when my parents were not capable of looking after my interests.

What is important is for all us as members of Parliament to recognize very clearly that in this legislation we can use some of the savings that is there to ensure that students whose parents do pay taxes or cannot pay taxes, that we improve the child learning account from the savings that would otherwise accrue from the existing system which no longer works.

The hon. member asked how I will vote and I think he knows how I will vote on this.

I am saying this because, beyond the cut and thrust of politics and beyond the cut and thrust of question period, Canadians will judge all of us as to how we were able to appropriate this bill, how we stood for what we believed in and, most important, I will have no difficulty, if the hon. member heard my speech, taking this battle to the Minister of Finance and to his colleagues. I need the hon. member's help to do that.

Appreciating that the member was not here in the last Parliament, but if he is concerned about how the Conservatives got elected, his party may want to ask why it ruined the Liberal Party in terms of its own background and in terms of the things that we put forward for Canadians.

I would ask the hon. member, in the spirit of goodwill and in the spirit of the future of this country, to stand up for his constituents.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, April 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for York West for her extremely important and enlightening comments in her capacity as former minister of immigration and a very diligent member of Parliament on this file. She continues to remind us that it is extremely important for us to declare to Canadians why these changes are being made on the fly through a legislative piece that was brought back as a ways and means motion, a motion that I would suggest really is about covering the Conservative agenda with respect to important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is critical that you be in the chair today because I am on my feet not only because of this bill but because of what the bill is attempting to do.

The will of the House of Commons was expressed very clearly on March 5 of this year. This was after a ruling that you, Mr. Speaker, made some two years ago, but which was obviously lost on Conservative members, including the Minister of Finance. He assumed that once a bill was votable that it might have an impact with respect to lessening of tax that he should not consider this, not just once but in two separate budgets. He completely and utterly ignored and threw away prudent fiscal understanding of the implications of various bills which should have been routine and instead worked with several other people to try to suggest that my bill, Bill C-253, which would give a chance for families to save in a very real way, to save for post-secondary education, by making RESPs income tax deductible and completely forgot the principle of the importance of a decision made by the House.

The bill is nowhere near dead. As we know, the bill is before the other House and is now at second reading there. I hope it is given the equal consideration and time it takes to have an important piece of legislation passed.

It seems to me that when we are talking about the future of this country we may have differences of opinions as to how this country ought to be led and how it ought to be managed but the one thing we cannot disagree with are some of the imperatives.

Students face an incredible amount of debt. Over 50% of students right now face incredible crippling debts as they leave post-secondary education, long before they are able to pay any type of debt down. It is difficult enough for them to try to find a job.

In 10 years from now we know that the average cost of education, with four years in residence, will be $100,000. Given the average income of families, I do not see how it will be possible under the current regime to have a situation where so many people will not have access to the skills that come with higher education and the training that the global economy demands in order for Canada to remain competitive. It is a reality that we all as members of Parliament agree with.

I have spoken to several members of the Conservative Party who over the years supported this bill. Dare I say that they probably voted against the bill at the final reading, although the will of the House was expressed in much greater numbers, because they were jealous? They knew this was a policy that was good for the future of this country.

I have letter after letter and members of the House on all sides received letters from their constituents asking them time and time again to not kill the bill.

I am pleased to report that those rumours of the death of my bill, which were pronounced in some of the media and greatly exaggerated in some editorials, were only rumours. The same editorials also suggested, and I am hoping some of those editorialists are listening to this, that the bill was passed by stealth, that it required a royal recommendation. I will not benefit the author of several stories in one particular paper, but it was someone who actually thought that what had been done here by parliamentarians was tantamount to what happened in 1840, which is why Lord Durham had to be brought in.

There was no revolution here. There was instead a recognition and understanding that in a minority Parliament, in a setting where Canadians expect more from their parliamentarians, members of Parliament, backbench members of Parliament of all parties worked deliberatively, not for a day, not for a week, not for a month and not through gamesmanship, but over two years to ensure that a piece of legislation on RESP deductibility would in fact be put forward.

I am speaking today to the fact that the bill, far from being killed, is the subject of Bill C-50, which I will refer to as the killer-hunter bill proposed by the Minister of Finance.

The Minister of Finance's own riding of Whitby—Oshawa is one that I represented and I know that the Minister of Finance will know that this is so popular an issue if this is in fact going to be an election issue, which it could very well be. I know full well that it is something that I am prepared to take to the door of his riding, a riding I once represented. I can tell the House that anyone who has families, anyone who has children, anyone who wants to live the dream of this country will know that this legislation is not only timely it is supportable.

A decision made by this House of Commons, by these members of Parliament in the majority, is simply thrown away because someone has suggested that somehow it will put the country into fiscal danger.

Who put us there?

The Minister of Finance has an obligation, quite apart from his pathetic critique of the bill on RESP deductibility, which many of his members support, to explain to Canadians how it is that he took a $13.2 billion surplus and blew it away overnight.

The member from British Columbia is looking this way.

What happens if we have another forest fire in that region of the country or floods in Quebec? What if we have a national disaster of some proportion that will cost us several hundred million dollars?

When we see that amount of money that could potentially put the country at risk, we have put ourselves in a very precarious financial situation and we have not planned for the future.

We know that south of the border the federal reserve chair, Mr. Bernanke, is suggesting that we are teetering on a recession. There is no doubt that there are implications for my province and for provinces across the country. This government did not plan. It had no plan. It is extinguishing the hopes and aspirations of young people to get access to a better job, to pay the kind of taxes, to grow the kind of country and to recognize that with an aging population we need to get this right and we need to get it right now.

This bill is not the be all end all. The bill that I proposed on the RESP, which this bill, Bill C-50, proposes to kill at some point down the road, is in fact decidedly a bill that is designed to use the issue of confidence before anything that the government disagrees with.

Yes, the hon. members will probably ask us whether we will be supporting this or not. That is still a few months off, perhaps even a few weeks off, but the one thing that is clear is the idea with respect to the RESP bill is something that we cannot ignore.

I am glad to hear the NDP members cat howling in the corner but they supported this bill. They have stood, and I applaud them for doing that, to support this bill because of its importance. The Bloc also supported this bill.

They know full well that it is very important for the future of our country that students have the opportunity to get an education regardless of cost. We also have an opportunity to help the provinces, which will give students more money to invest in their futures and to go on to universities, colleges or apprenticeships.

We must not fail the next generation. Universities that want to increase their capacity for investing in infrastructure, human and physical, will not need to go cap in hand to the provinces and say that they want to raise tuition fees. There is a greater certainty now that this vehicle addresses what ordinary average families have been looking for.

In one fell swoop, with this particular legislation, the Minister of Finance and the House leader crafted a bill to try to kill this. We can talk about the gamesmanship today, but what we have is an attempt at vandalizing and compromising the future of this nation.

We have a higher obligation to serve the interests of our constituents and to help somehow, in some way, to build a stronger nation, a stronger nation where people can get access to the kind of opportunities that this generation, many of us, have been blessed with.

Previous members who have come here have always tried to build a better House and to find ways in which we can come together to find more creative means to ensuring Canada can meet the challenges of tomorrow.

I am saying this because if we were to sit down and talk to grandparents, parents and people in our communities who are struggling day in and day out to make ends meet, we would hear that there is a real and effective understanding of what they are trying to do, which is to achieve a better future for their children.

I would implore the Conservative Party, which has quietly said that it loves this bill, to actually take the time to consider what it has done. It has actually tried to reverse a position taken only a month ago by this Parliament which is widely popular with Canadians.

There will be critics either way but I would ask the Conservative Party to reconsider what it has done because I think it is in everyone's interest, partisanship aside, to ensure that good legislation, whether it is passed by backbenchers or passed by the government, does in fact have the ability to proceed.

I call on all members to work together cooperatively. This is for our future, for our children and for our Canada.