Geoff Regan

[Business of Supply, November 1st, 2006]

Mr. Chair, first, the hon. minister should know that she said yesterday in committee that she was unable to tell us where the cuts were. Also, we had the point in relation to homeless people yesterday in committee. She would not tell us if one of the most important programs for the homeless, which is the SCPI program, the strategic communities partnership initiative, would continue beyond March 31, 2007.

I will give her the opportunity again. Will that program go on beyond March 31, 2007?

[Business of Supply, November 1st, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I thank everyone, including the ministers, for gathering here this evening.

All the cuts the government has announced reflect choice, not necessity. The government inherited a remarkably strong financial situation.

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Oakville, and until further notice, unless we advise otherwise, the members will all be asking questions this evening, thus using their time to ask questions.

The government chose to cut literacy programs, child care, student employment, seniors, volunteers and homeless people, among others. Does the size of the cuts reflect the weakness of the minister or does she simply put no value on protecting the vulnerable in society?

[Government Programs, November 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Saskatchewan Literacy Network is closing its doors. Yukon is losing its literacy coalition. The Canadian Labour and Business Centre is already closed. Employment equity offices in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are closing. The 25,000 summer jobs for students are gone. Some cup of coffee.

Is the minister unaware of how hurtful her cuts are because she did not bother to consult any of these groups?

[Government Programs, November 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this meanspirited minority government has turned its back on vulnerable Canadians. It slashed programs that would teach people to read and write and would have provided day care spaces for our kids. Destroying their dreams was not good enough; it had to insult them too.

Yesterday, the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development said the hurt imposed by the cuts to her budget was the equivalent of having to do without a cup of coffee.

Will she apologize for her spiteful statement that demeaned the most vulnerable in our society?

[Criminal Code, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech by my hon. colleague and to the questions from my colleagues opposite. In my opinion, it is important to put certain people in prison to protect the Canadian public and to punish offenders who repeat various offences. That is why Canada has some of the toughest laws in the world on dangerous offenders.

In my opinion, we need to have intelligent laws and intelligent approaches to criminals and criminal law.

As my hon. colleague said, many members of the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian legal community have shared their concerns about this bill, especially when it comes to the issue of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Many of them have argued that this bill would be dismissed in court because of this concern.

In my opinion, it is not smart to create a risk whereby the part of the legislation on dangerous offenders may be completely dismissed. Does the hon. member agree?

[Human Resources and Social Development, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, several times in this House and at committee the minister has falsely claimed that she has consulted widely with groups about these cuts, widely, but she cannot list any. She cannot list one group she consulted before making these cuts.

While she sees no value in meeting with literacy groups, she can file a $3,000 travel claim for a symbolic cheque presentation. Why is a photo op value for money when consulting Canadians is not?

[Human Resources and Social Development, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is embarrassing. The human resources minister who had $153 million slashed from her department could not give a single specific example of one of those cuts at committee today. While she could not be bothered to get the details of cuts to students, homeless people and adults learning to read, she compared them to having to do without a cup of coffee.

Is she taking her cue from the President of the Treasury Board who dismissed adult literacy training as “repair work after the fact”, or will she now apologize to Canadians for these callous comments?

[Challenger Jet Use, October 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, has the government secretly changed Treasury Board guidelines? Is it now possible for members of this House, for example, to pick up the phone, call over to DND and book the Challenger with the assurance that the party will pick up the tab?

The government needs to account for these breaches and it needs to end these offensive practices now. Would the government release the passenger manifest for this trip so Canadians can know which government members are playing limbo when it comes to meeting any kind of ethical bar?

[Challenger Jet Use, October 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the President of the Treasury Board misled the House when he claimed that Derek Burney and Ian Brodie had paid their own expenses for a Challenger joyride to Washington.

Now we learn of another joyride by unknown persons to Halifax for an event dedicated to former Conservative premier John Hamm. Can the President of the Treasury Board tell the House why the Conservative Party is only now reimbursing taxpayers for the flight and why the passenger manifest was blacked out?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2, October 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague's speech and it was quite interesting to hear the NDP's viewpoint, even though I find that there are many problems with his calculations and his logic. His logic leaves a great deal to be desired.

For one thing, it should not surprise our colleagues in the NDP that Canadians do not have confidence in them to form a government of Canada because of their ideas on economics, let alone mathematics, considering my hon. colleague just talked about 13 years of Liberal government.

Yesterday happened to be the 13th anniversary of the 1993 election in which Mr. Chrétien and the government were elected. I was first elected in that year, as my hon. colleague knows, before I took my involuntary sabbatical, as I call it, between 1997 and 2000. My hon. colleague should know that 13 years occurred yesterday. Therefore, the Liberals were in power for 12 years and 2 months. However, the NDP thinks that is 13 years, which is completely illogical and it kind of fits with the rest of his thinking about the deficit and so forth.

Earlier this year we saw the report on poverty in Canada, which indicated that it had been reduced over the past decade. That is totally contrary to what he said. The statistics, the facts are contrary to what he has told us and he knows that, but he wants to create a new myth that things have become so much worse. He knows and, more important, Canadians know that the Liberal government had to deal with the deficit. He thinks we should have ignored it and let it grow and grow. He fails to recognize that the Conservatives left us a $42 billion deficit, which was destroying our economy.

Canadians supported the measures we took and re-elected our government several times. His party never did anything to support any of those cuts, which put our country in much better shape. They helped us build a much better economy and created millions of full time jobs, which made the country and people better off and gave them a better quality of life and standard of living. His party voted against every one of those budgets and every measure ever taken to put our country in better shape.