James Rajotte

[Petitions, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to present hundreds of petitions on behalf of members of my riding of Edmonton--Leduc and the surrounding area. The petitioners call upon Parliament to preserve the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one women. They ask that Parliament reconfirm its position that it established in this House on June 9, 1999, and that we act to do all we can to preserve that definition of marriage.

[Question No. 60, March 21st, 2005]

With respect to the Auditor General's report of November 2004 concerning Order Paper questions: ( a ) has the government asked Canada Post for an answer with respect to Question 37; ( b ) have all public declarations been certified as suggested by the Auditor General and if not, what is the deadline for certification; ( c ) when will the internal audit on the Order Paper question reforms announced by the government take place and will that report be made public; ( d ) how is the government clarifying under what circumstances Crown corporations should be compelled to provide information of a commercially sensitive nature in response to an Order Paper question; and ( e ) what is the status of including an appendix of instructions with all answers to Order Paper questions?

[The Budget, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. member with regard to citizenship and immigration. It is a file she should know something about, particularly as it relates to the people in my community in Edmonton.

We have not had a citizenship judge since the beginning of July 2004 when the contract of the then citizenship judge, Judge Bhatia, was not extended. He is a remarkable individual. He welcomed new Canadians to this country with a graciousness for which I have nothing but a profound respect. His contract was not extended by the government. That is the government's decision and the government's right to not do that, but the government has not made the decision to appoint anyone. It has been flying in judges from all over the country at great cost. Apparently the government cannot make a simple decision like this. There is a backlog of over 2,000 people in Edmonton waiting to be sworn in as new citizens.

I wrote to the last minister in September 2004 and never even received an acknowledgement on that issue. I wrote to the present minister over a month ago and again received no acknowledgement on this issue.

The people of Edmonton who are waiting to become citizens deserve some respect from the government which they are not getting. When will the people of Edmonton finally have a citizenship judge, or will the government simply extend the contract of the current one, who frankly does a fantastic job?

[Citizenship, March 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the judge who was already appointed, Judge Bhatia, was an excellent judge. He was a non-partisan judge who did a fantastic job, and he is willing to do it again. In fact he is doing it on a voluntary basis as much as he can while the government dithers.

The fact is over thousands of people in Edmonton have had to wait to become official citizens of the country because the government has not acted and has dithered. It is the responsibility of the government to act in this situation.

Why do the people of Edmonton have to wait for eight months to get a citizenship judge? When will they finally get a citizenship judge appointed to deal with this backlog of people waiting to become new Canadians?

[Citizenship, March 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Edmonton has been without a citizenship judge for more than eight months and now has a backlog of over 2,000 people waiting to become new Canadians. Instead of actually making a decision and appointing a judge, the government has been occasionally flying in judges from all over the country, but this move has not addressed the backlog.

My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Why has it taken eight months to make this appointment? When will the people of Edmonton have a citizenship judge?

[Technology Partnerships Canada, February 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, here are the facts: in 1997, $147 million; in 1999, $154 million; in 2001, $99.6 million; in 2003, $99.4 million; and in 2005, $207 million. We want to know from the government what Canadian taxpayers will receive for this money. Less than 5% of TPC has been repaid. I challenge the minister to stand up and say how many jobs have actually been created.

When will he finally tell the House and Canadians the truth about Technology Partnerships Canada?

[Technology Partnerships Canada, February 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Technology Partnerships Canada is a program that has given out approximately $2 billion and has recovered less than 5% of that.

Pratt & Whitney has received more money from this program than any other company. It has received nearly $700 million.

Would the Minister of Industry please explain to Canadian taxpayers what percentage of this money has been repaid and what Canadian taxpayers have received for their nearly $700 million?

[Taxation, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that is quite a telling comment: we are not in competition with the Americans. Exactly. That is the problem. Their rates are better than ours. In fact, we are competing with them on a daily basis. That is why they need to be changed.

In addition, it is not only manufacturers that are calling for these changes, it is also people concerned about the environment because upgrading equipment and manufacturing processes is beneficial to the environment as well. Newer equipment is more efficient and more environmentally friendly.

I would like to ask the environment minister, does he support these types of changes, to allow the inclusion of more environmentally friendly technologies in Canada?

[Taxation, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian manufacturers and exporters have called for changes to the capital cost allowance rates which deal with how companies can write off their capital investments. They want these taxes to be treated the same way in Canada as they are in the United States to ensure that our manufacturing sector is on a level playing field with its competitors and trading partners.

I would like to ask the Minister of Industry a very simple question. Does he support these changes?

[Supply, February 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I very much agree with that CAPC recommendation.

However I would challenge the member to then survey the CAPC members on whether they agree with this motion. In my view the report that was done by CAPC and the statement that the member just read is not what the motion is calling for. The motion calls for further regulatory disharmony.

With respect to his statement that it is a motion and not legislation, the motion reads:

--the failure of voluntary emission standards by legislating mandatory improvements to vehicle efficiency in all classes of light duty vehicles sold in Canada.

With all due respect, I do not think that is a motion that allows flexibility. I think that is a motion that directs the government on specifically what to do with light duty vehicles in Canada. That is a very specific motion.