Dan McTeague

[RCMP Commissioner, December 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, let the record show that this party, in its wisdom, chose to bring forth an inquiry to help Mr. Arar while that party accused him of being a terrorist.

The minister was directly informed a month ago about the inconsistencies in the commissioner's testimony. His deputy minister was informed in writing at the same time, and the Minister of Public Safety knew the truth. He knew it a month ago. Did he pass this information along to the Prime Minister or anyone at the PMO? If not, why not?

[RCMP Commissioner, December 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, just hours ago at his news conference, Commissioner Zaccardelli confirmed that he spoke with the Minister of Public Safety and expressed his desire to go back to the committee to explain the problems with his testimony. Additionally, he wrote to the deputy minister to explain the inconsistencies in his testimony, yet the minister had the gall to state in this House yesterday that he only found out about this issue on Monday.

Will the minister now admit that the commissioner told him a month ago about the problems in his testimony and that the minister indeed chose to ignore it?

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, December 7th, 2006]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-392, An Act to amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act (RCMP members and special constables) and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

Mr. Speaker, I promise not to tax your patience in this very brief introduction of this important bill. I am pleased to introduce today a bill to amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

The bill seeks to provide rank and file members of the RCMP with access to collective bargaining in a grievance procedure. These two fundamental labour rights are available to members of the federal public service and are the main elements in any labour relations agreement. In addition, most police forces across Canada already provide their members with a collective bargaining process and a grievance procedure.

I thank the hon. member for Vancouver East for her co-sponsorship of the bill. We hope it will help establish more harmonious labour relations inside the RCMP, one based on trust, dialogue and, of course, mutual respect.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Guru Nanak Dev Ji, November 2nd, 2006]

On November 5, Mr. Speaker, Sikhs around the world will be celebrating the anniversary of the birth of Guru Nanak Dev Ji, the founder of the Sikh religion who was born in 1469.

Guru Nanak and his teachings uplifted the poor, the oppressed and the mistreated. Throughout his life Guru Nanak spread the message of love, peace, hope, justice, harmony, equality and the oneness of God and universal brotherhood.

It is through Guru Nanak's teachings that Sikhs receive the five basic principles of their religion: remember the all mighty God; earn an honest living; share what one has with the less fortunate; pray for the well-being of humanity; and accept the will of God.

To adherents of the Sikh faith in Canada, please accept the best wishes of the House and the other place on the auspicious occasion of the anniversary of the birth of Guru Nanak Dev Ji.

Wahe Guru Jika Khalsa. Wahe Guru Jiki Fatai.

[Business of Supply, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I do a lot of work with my good friend and colleague, the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, in another industry and I know how deeply committed and passionate he is about this particular file, as I was many years ago when I encouraged my government to increase its contributions, among other things, to the veterans independence program, as well as to ensure that veterans would be looked after in a way that is consistent with national standards in a number of hospitals in which our veterans are cared for.

Mr. Speaker, on that note, you will know, since I have invited you, of the fundraising for the veterans centre within my riding, the Tony Stacey Centre, which will take place on November 9. I look forward to many colleagues participating in that event, which is to commemorate and assist in a facility that is really designed for spouses, as well as veterans. It is a unique facility in that regard.

I know the hon. member understands full well my interests and I know that his government is again committing vast amounts of money to military resources. However, it seems to me that one of the most consistent things we can do is to ensure that our veterans are given a modicum of support.

I do want to thank the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore for proposing this worthwhile motion and, on behalf of my party, I can say that we will be supporting it four square.

On the subject of the veterans independence program, does the hon. member understand how the program works? It has been around for some 25 years. I am not sure he can speak for all the members of his party, but will the Conservative Party be working toward the extension of the VIP program so that it also covers those from previous wars, regardless of the time of death of the veteran or whether the veteran was in receipt of VIP services prior to his death?

[Income Tax Act, November 1st, 2006]

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the need to, as it were, return to the issue at hand and to recall the position that you had taken. I say so respectfully, but you clearly enunciated that the bill would in fact proceed on division. Whether or not people said yes or no, it remains that the Speaker did not hear the nos. In fact, the Speaker ruled that he had heard only yes and accepted this on division.

To have then had another vote on this, Mr. Speaker, to reverse your position, is in my view, I humbly submit, an error as far as the regulations and the longstanding procedures of this House. I would therefore recommend, Mr. Speaker, that the original decision stand and that we proceed to your original decision without it being reversed. I understand that members of Parliament may have decided afterward that they wanted to speak a little louder or whatever the case may be, but this is why members of Parliament should be in the House at the time, to make those declarations.

Clearly, this went on division and should be now referred, in accordance with your initial decision, to the Standing Committee on Finance.

[Income Tax Act, November 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all colleagues for participating in this debate. I know there are many issues that cannot be resolved in the few minutes that are given to me, but let me provide a very brief outline.

Let me decipher the position of the House leader over the past couple of months. First, thank you for your ruling earlier today, Mr. Speaker, in which you made it abundantly clear that this bill in no way violates or requires a ways and means motion in order to give rise to the vote which will take place, I presume, at some point next week. What is most important is that the roadblock of the ways and means position seems to be the legitimate reason the government opposed this bill. Mr. Speaker, since that roadblock has been clearly taken away by you in your infinite wisdom, I would offer to the government that it incorporate this bill as its own and begin the process to meet the challenge of students who so clearly need the help of this Parliament and to come up with innovative ways to ensure that young people have access to higher education.

It is very clear to all Canadians, any Canadian who pays taxes, any Canadian who is concerned about the future, that the prosperity of this nation very much depends on a skilled and adaptable workforce.

Right now, as opposed to reaching out and giving everybody who wants an education an opportunity to get that education, we hear naysaying from some corners. We heard the member for Winnipeg North who chastised the bill because it is an attempt to try to cover more people who desperately need an opportunity to get that access to higher education. Whether it be a skill in the workforce, whether it be a craft, whether it be taking up a trade, or whether it be to move on to post-secondary education, we know that this cycle of education will continue in years to come. For people to have the opportunity to access education and thereby maintain the health, wealth and prosperity of this nation depends on our ability to provide instruments that are at our hand without denying the government the cash it needs to continue working on the nation's priorities.

To look at the issue of post-secondary education in the abstract, there are a number of programs out there, but we need to do more. When only 27% of students are being provided an education through an RESP, it clearly demonstrates that almost three-quarters of Canadians are not.

I do not think any of us in this House want to take a position here that suggests that today, in the year 2006, education only becomes the purview of the rich.

Students are talking to each one of us as members of Parliament and our provincial colleagues as to the amount of debt they are incurring. Students talk to us about the need to ensure that we rebuild the system, about the need for a piece of legislation that would provide an opportunity for them to continuously access education in a world in which there is increasing competition, not just in terms of trade, but in terms of resources.

It is extremely important. Given all these factors, but above all when we see in my province of Ontario the tuition freeze that has just been lifted, we now have a situation that is unacceptable to all Canadians. We need to look at the rapid rise in the cost of education.

Universities want to compete on an international level. They can only do so with higher tuition fees. The government can move to cap these things, but these are band-aid solutions. We in this chamber have to find the creativity to provide people an opportunity to access education.

In my riding, and I am sure the riding of Winnipeg North and ridings right across this country, every one of us as members of Parliament has an obligation to look deeper so that when someone is paying a tax, they may actually be put in a position where they are able to benefit from it.

This legislation is really calling for Parliament to think bigger. This legislation is asking the finance committee and parliamentarians not to navel gaze about what has happened in the past but to understand what the OECD has said with respect to rising tuition costs for students and to listen to what students are saying. However we decide to make it possible for students to get access to higher education, Parliament has a higher obligation to respond to the need.

This is not by any means the only solution, but it is an important step forward to recognize that the federal government plays an important role in the lives of students in ensuring the viability and the safeguarding of our education system. We must ensure that young people, and all people, have access to education. The instruments are there. The income tax system is probably the easiest way to do this. Most Canadians pay income taxes and they would have a great opportunity to help their children in the future.

As my final words on this, I would encourage the government and all members of Parliament to look beyond the rhetoric and to look to what their constituents need. Clearly, on RESPs, tax deductible is the way to go.

[Criminal Code, October 24th, 2006]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-361, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (law enforcement animals).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my seconder of my bill for providing me with this occasion to introduce a bill that would make it an offence to wilfully or recklessly poison, injure or kill a law enforcement animal. It also would enable the court to make an order for restitution in respect to any such offence.

I wish to thank the Humane Society and the counsellors, Lindsay Luby as well as Dan Sandor, for their initiative.

It is important that we treat animals that are working within the context of law enforcement in the same way that we would treat those who are protecting our cities and our streets.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Maher Arar Inquiry, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, let us go back to that question and the non-answer by the minister. Either the RCMP Commissioner has misled the committee or has not bothered, even to this day, to get to the bottom of what the RCMP did to cover up this shoddy investigation.

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville, the hon. member's colleague, said in committee that the RCMP's report was “riddled with inaccuracies and omissions” and is to him “the product of incompetence, negligence, or deliberate deception”.

Very simply, does the hon. minister agree with the wisdom of his Conservative member?

[Maher Arar Inquiry, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, last week the RCMP commissioner testified to the public safety committee that the RCMP had only 24 hours to produce its report on Maher Arar for the government, inferring the short deadline led to inaccuracies and omissions.

We know that Justice O'Connor states that the RCMP in fact had nine full days. Is the Minister of Public Safety concerned that the RCMP commissioner has either misled the committee or has no idea what he is talking about when it comes to the damaging and inaccurate report about Mr. Arar to the Government of Canada?