Jason Kenney

[Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act, November 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, there we have it. They always blame it on the rules, but when it comes to an option to expand debate and to listen to the diverse voices of a pluralistic society, government members say no, no, no every time.

That member, in his specious point of order, suggested that this was simply an automatic limitation of debate. He realizes that this parliament governs itself through the standing orders and if we had a majority of members of this place truly dedicated to fulsome democratic debate on items like Bill C-4, the one before us today, then we could amend those standing orders to allow members to express fully their remarks in 20 minutes, plus questions and comments on any matter. We could extend the sitting hours of this place. We would not have to invoke time allocation and closure.

It is remarkable that this should come up because just yesterday at this time I was sitting here in my seat on behalf of my constituents, having spent much of the day preparing remarks to address another bill that had come before us, Bill C-9, a bill with respect to the Nisga'a treaty. I was enthusiastically waiting, having read dozens of articles and background documents, to enter my comments on behalf of my 130,000 some constituents on that piece of legislation. However, I was denied the opportunity because as I sat in this place my right to stand and speak on that treaty was stolen from me by that member and his colleagues in the government.

[Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act, November 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, are you suggesting that I have been time limited on the debate on Bill C-4? That is quite ironic. It gives me an interesting angle to address.

I want to begin by saying how touched I was to hear my hon. and eloquent colleague from Wentworth—Burlington speak in such glowing terms about his romantic soul and the expanding human spirit. He really does seem to want to go where no man has gone before. I was expecting that at any moment during his speech he would be beamed up out of the Chamber. Perhaps I could suggest to that colleague that we could volunteer him to be one of the first Canadian trial astronauts in the new space station. I suspect his constituents would rather have him in space than here representing them.

I am pleased to rise to debate this important bill, an act to implement the agreement among the Government of Canada, Governments of Member States of the European Space Agency, the Government of Japan, the Government of the Russian Federation, and the Government of the United States of America concerning co-operation on the civil international space station and to make related amendments to other acts.

The bill's statutory summary states:

This enactment relates to the implementation of Canada's obligations under the agreement concerning co-operation on the Civil International Space Station. The parties to the agreement undertake to establish a framework for mutual international co-operation in the long term in relation to the detailed design, development, operation and utilization of a permanently inhabited civil international space station for peaceful purposes. The agreement provides for mechanisms and arrangements to ensure the fulfilment of these objectives.

This is indeed an important bill before us. It is so important that I am distressed to learn that because of the rules of this place and the government's distaste for expansive debate on important statutes I will be limited to 10 minutes. In my remarks—

[Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act, November 2nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I was very enlightened by the remarks of the member for Macleod on the bill with respect to the Canadian space station. He drew a very effective analogy between that bill and the Nisga'a bill which we dispatched from this place yesterday.

Does the member think that if the Liberal Party of Canada were in opposition its members would have supported the invocation of time limitation on a bill of that importance? Does he think the Liberals would have supported the Mulroney government for instance in its frequent invocation of closure and time allocation? Could the member comment on whether he believes that the government is doing what it said it would do when in opposition with respect to allowing full and free debate and allowing opposition parties to express dissenting opinions on matters of important legislation such as that before us today?

[Privilege, November 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a question of privilege with respect to comments that I heard uttered by another hon. member during question period.

When the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast was posing his question to the Minister of Justice he said that the possession of child pornography was still legal in British Columbia. At that time I heard the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre say “When are you going to turn in your stuff, John?”, referring obviously to child pornography.

It appears that member was imputing that the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast was in possession of child pornography. He was imputing criminal activity. He was imputing ill motive, and by this act of slander was inhibiting the capacity of the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast to perform his duties in this place.

I would therefore ask that the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre withdraw those remarks.

[The Economy, November 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Premier Harris has demonstrated how to grow an economy by letting people keep more of what they earn through real tax relief. He has done that by being responsible in terms of spending.

Premier Harris has not blown $47 billion of Ontario taxpayers' money out the window like the Prime Minister plans to do. Why does he not listen to the growing demands among working Canadian families for tax relief, instead of planning a back to the seventies spending binge? Why does he not stop his retro-seventies fiscal policy and give people tax relief for the 21st century?

[The Economy, November 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is absolutely right. We do recognize that he has provided us with big government and that he is keeping his promise. Yesterday the finance minister denied the $47 billion in new spending and the Prime Minister just took credit for it.

If everybody was as fabulously wealthy as the Prime Minister perhaps they would not care so much about tax relief. But for middle income families that are losing up to half of their income to government, it does matter a lot and it matters that the government is planning a nearly $50 billion spending spree.

A surplus is a surplus, and the answer to a surplus is to collect less, not spend more. Why will the Prime Minister not abandon his $47 billion spending—

[The Economy, November 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has a spending problem. Someone has to help him work through it before taxpayers have to turn all of their income over to the government.

He is planning a $47 billion shopping spree based on a projected surplus that could, might, may reach $90 billion. Someone should remind him though that, unlike his shopping list, the surplus is projected and expected, not confirmed, meaning that tax relief is doomed again.

Why are the Prime Minister's shopping sprees always set in concrete while his tax relief is merely set in quicksand?

[Revenue Canada, November 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, if it is not $47 million, how much is it?

Why is the government throwing a million dollar party today to celebrate new spending on human resources in what is already its biggest bureaucracy? Does it not think a 44,000 person bureaucracy is big enough? Why does the government not get its priorities right? Instead of spending more on this facelift for its mega tax collection agency, why does it not give Canadian families a tax break?

[Revenue Canada, November 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, not only is the government planning a $47 billion millennium blowout, but today it is celebrating $47 million in new spending to make the biggest bureaucracy in the government even bigger. That is how much it is spending to give the biggest facelift in history to the revenue department.

If the government really wants to improve the image of Revenue Canada, instead of spending millions of dollars on a facelift, why does it not just cut taxes for Canadian families?

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, October 26th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the minister and member from the Northwest Territories, but unfortunately not in this debate because she has been asked two direct questions and has refused to answer them.

The question is very simple. Does she agree with the principle in chapter 16 of the agreement which provides for taxation without representation? Does she think that is a principle which ought to be incorporated into laws that govern Canadian citizens?