Larry Bagnell

[Extension of Sitting Period, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will be quick so the Bloc gets a chance to ask a question. My new-found love will be delighted that he asked that question because one of the most important things for my new-found love, Melissa Craig, is that the same sex marriage bill gets passed. She has been lobbying me incessantly to make sure it gets passed. I guess it is because I am so old that she would rather have me here working on it than back in the Yukon. I thank the member very much for asking that question.

[Extension of Sitting Period, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is a very important contribution. He is correct in that I do not remember anyone from any party mentioning that aspect of it in the lengthy debate we have had on Bill C-48.

I am particularly moved about pensions in particular. When I was on the transport committee we had the situation of airlines in trouble. There was a big problem with pensions and the fact that the workers might lose their pensions. It was inconceivable to me that people have worked their entire life but somehow in Canada we have set up a system where pensions are not protected. To me it was like pensions were cast in stone; they would just be there. I think this aspect of protecting workers is very important. It is very humanitarian and I am sure that all parties that support workers would be in support of this.

I do want to also comment on the remark about what was once a grassroots party. I have been particularly amazed at the transformation of the opposition over the last couple of years.

In particular, it came about in relation to entering the war with Iraq. Canadians were massively against that. Members might remember that I asked the Leader of the Opposition, in the House, why those members would continue to stand for it when they knew their constituents were against it. They had taken on a whole new philosophy. They said it took leadership, that it did not matter what the constituents said, that it required leadership. It would not surprise me coming from another party, but that party is the one that always says it is at the grassroots where the decisions should be made.

The second example is in missile defence, where Canadians were massively against it and the once grassroots party started speaking in favour of it.

[Extension of Sitting Period, June 23rd, 2005]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

A call to [the leader's] office for enlightenment produced none.

Just so the Conservatives do not feel left out, this author also briefly mentioned them:

The Conservatives' logic is also noteworthy. There is nothing in C-48 that would help Montreal or any other city in Canada. The claim is preposterous.

I want to talk about Bill C-48 in general. The member for Calgary Centre suggested earlier it was an expenditure without representation. We are having a vote tonight in the House about whether or not we go on and debate it further. I do not understand how members can suggest there is any lack of representation because these are votes in Parliament.

I want to talk about how Bill C-48 came about. As everyone knows, we are in a minority Parliament. The people of Canada told the Liberals that we could govern in partnership with any other party for everything we wanted to do. They did not give us the right to do things on our own; we had to convince another party. That is how we are operating.

Originally, the Conservatives voted for Bill C-43. There are a lot of things in it. With their 99 members, they had great influence and their party chose to use that great influence. Then for some reason they abandoned their support, so we had to find another party that would agree. I can understand how they are a little bit upset that with their 99 votes they lost to a party with only 19 members. We had to find some way to pass the bill because the people of Canada said we needed the agreement of two parties.

The original Liberal budget had flowed from a plan and we extended expenditures in some areas of priority. This was not an overnight plan. It started when the present Prime Minister first became leader of the party. He outlined his priorities in social foundations, lifelong learning, Canada's place in the world and in the cities agenda. He carried that through to the throne speech with great integrity.

The member for Calgary Centre-North asked earlier today how this compared with the throne speech. These items were all in the throne speech. It is all part of our philosophy. With great integrity, the Prime Minister carried those promises into the budget.

To the great credit of the NDP, we were encouraged to accelerate the spending in those areas in that particular plan. Once again, those items total only 1% of the budget. They are priorities and we are happy that we have the fiscal ability to support them more than we had originally planned and still have a surplus, and still pay down the debt.

It is a two page budget, as members opposite mentioned. The opposition members suggest fiscal irresponsibility, but they can hardly do that, considering the fiscal record of the government. We inherited a huge debt and reversed the debt. We have the best standing in the G-7.

I do not have to go through the fact that we lead the world in fiscal responsibility, but I will speak to one item which has not been mentioned before. Certain Conservatives suggested that program spending was out of control. Program spending now and in our projected budgets is very close to 12% of the GDP. In the years of Conservative governance it was 15% at the lowest and 18% at the highest. Our spending is lower and far more in control than any Conservative budget in history.

One of the comments we hear a lot is that the budget is only two pages long. I would like to make two points about that. First, as I said, for this particular small amount, 1% of a budget, our previous budget, which the Conservatives voted for, or any Conservative budget and that amount of the budget, perhaps two pages is enough for the opposition to read.

The member for Cypress Hills--Grasslands was up a few minutes ago waving Bill C-48 around, suggesting that there was nothing in it about transit and saying that there were only two pages. He asked me and he asked another Liberal member who had been speaking to apologize for bringing up transit. Let me just quote from Bill C-48 and paragraph 2(1)(a): “including for public transit”.

In the minute or so I have left I would like to talk about the other reasons the Conservatives feel we should not vote for Bill C-48 right now. It was suggested that the world would collapse because there were so many expenditures in the bill. Some members said it would be fiscally irresponsible.

Then the member for Port Moody--Westwood--Port Coquitlam, as well as the member for Winnipeg North, confirmed that it was only 1% of the budget. After saying that all the expenditures in Bill C-48 would cause a fiscal collapse, the Conservatives turned around and said on the other hand that the money would not flow to any of the items.

To their credit, virtually none of the Conservatives have spoken against the items in the bill: public transit, foreign aid, housing and post-secondary education. Perhaps the best thing for the nation and for the Conservative Party, but the worst thing for the Liberals, would be for them to actually vote for Bill C-48. It would show that the opposition believes in the general things that Canadians do: clean air, foreign aid, housing and post-secondary education. That would then leave the Bloc isolated in voting against these items.

It would give new life to the Conservatives, which would be bad for us, but it would give new life to Canadians and it would also take the Conservatives out of their alliance with the separatists, which I think a vast majority of people in the House would agree with.

For all these reasons, I implore members opposite to search their souls, consider their principles and consider voting for the important elements in this budget.

[Extension of Sitting Period, June 23rd, 2005]

Yes, especially me. However, we have important things to do here. I will be speaking in favour of this, in spite of the fact I would like to be at home with my fiancée.

It was suggested by the opposition that there is no public interest, that it is not urgent that we stay here. It depends on how one sees Bill C-38. I do not think there is anyone in the House who would deny that same sex marriage is a passionately debated issue in the country. There are very strong feelings on both sides of this issue. I do not think there are any members of Parliament who would suggest that they do not have constituents on both sides of this issue and constituents who feel very passionately about this.

We have had a lengthy debate in the House. We have all received a great deal of correspondence and discussion over the last year from our constituents. In fact, the Conservatives and the independent member on the other side explained this afternoon the huge number of witnesses we have had and the lengthy debate in committee.

Now that we have had all this, I do not think there is any member of Parliament who would really want to maintain the nation in this state of divisiveness. Everyone has had input. Members have talked to the people they want to and they can now make a decision. We should set the country at rest and allow everyone to vote with their conscience on what they have gleaned from the debate.

The second reason why I do not think we should wait is that court decisions have led to a situation where there are certain people in the nation who are not treated equally. We have a situation that this bill would remedy, where all the people in Canada would be treated the same.

It may not be important to persons that it does not apply to, but it is to persons who have been caught up by the court decisions and feel that they are not equal. I think it is a very important principle in this country. I cannot believe that the opposition would not agree with me that all Canadians should be treated equally and to be in that position as quickly as possible. We have had an exhaustive debate, we are ready to vote, and we should go ahead with it.

I suggest that I am not the only person saying this. In today's Ottawa Citizen it states:

Tories are only hurting themselves. Are they nuts? The Conservatives should be clamouring to dispense with same-sex marriage legislation quickly, the better to hit the barbecues pronto and put this albatross issue at the greatest possible distance from an election call. They should shut up and state their political opposition in classic democratic form--by defiantly voting against the bill at the earliest opportunity,

I would like to turn now to Bill C-48. This is probably the first bill that Motion No. 17 would lead us to in the House. In fact, when we finish this debate, we will be going back to Bill C-48.

I want to ensure that the public has no illusion that we have not had exhaustive discussion about this particular bill. There are four items in the bill including extra money for urban transit. The Liberals, as the House knows, have always contributed toward urban transit, foreign aid, housing and post-secondary education. More money will be added which is only 1% of the budget. It is a small percentage of the budget.

We have had an exhaustive debate on this. We should not let the public think that we have not and that we should bring this to a conclusion. We have had a lot of debate. I would suggest that any similar four lines in any of our budgets, and the budget that the Conservatives voted on already, Bill C-43, would not exceed 1%. I think the hours of debate we have had are as much as there has ever been over 1% of a budget.

The biggest loser in this, and I think this is a bit sad, and I am not sure of the reason for it, is the Bloc Québécois. How can the Bloc members vote against things that they used to be in favour of? How can they join the Conservatives and say they cannot spend on things that they used to spend on?

How can they campaign in the next election and go from house to house saying that there is going to be more smog? How can they say to people that they have to take an old bus and pay higher rates because Ottawa had some money for transit in Quebec but they wanted Ottawa to keep it? How can they not vote for it? How can they say to people that they were very generous during the Tsunami, but now the Bloc does not want to give foreign aid from the Canadian government? How can they join with the Conservatives and not spend this kind of money on foreign aid?

What about when Bloc members are in a shelter or a rental apartment and a family wants to get a home of their own? How can they tell that family that Ottawa wanted to give more money to affordable housing, but, sorry, they had to vote with the Conservatives, and they cannot have that money in Quebec.

When they go to another house and there are a couple of teenagers there who want to go to college, the Bloc members will say that the fees could have been lower. They will say that the government offered to provide more money for that in Bill C-48 and lower tuition fees, but they could not support that. They had to vote with the Conservatives not to spend money on post-secondary education.

Wisely, during the debate on Bill C-48 so far, the Bloc members have not tried to defend why they are voting against those items. They have left the Conservatives at the shooting gallery, but today its House leader, for whom I have great respect and who is a great orator, one of the best if not the best speaker in the House, was squirming. He was trying to come up with johnny-come-lately reasons as to why the Bloc was voting against these measures.

The Conservatives and the NDP had at least tried to make agreements or vote with our party to get a budget through, but the Bloc johnny-come-latelies had no influence on it and they tried to make up reasons at the eleventh hour as to why they might vote against these measures.

I encourage the Bloc to go back to the principles for which many Quebeckers voted for them and were at one time proud of them. I say again, it is not just me saying this. The premier of Quebec and many mayors in Quebec have asked the Bloc Québécois to vote for Bill C-48 for what it would do for Quebec.

I would like to read from a Quebec newspaper. Montreal's The Gazette stated:

Bloc opposes bill giving money to Quebec - why? The problem is that the Bloc Québécois has joined with the Conservative Party to oppose part of this funding. It's bizarre: Cash-strapped Quebec desperately needs this money, and yet a party whose exclusive reason for being is to serve Quebecers' interests is resisting the funding tooth and nail. Yet, if the Bloc's Gilles Duceppe has his way, this extra funding would not materialize. The Bloc's logic escapes me. If passed, C-48 would give money to many causes that the Bloc supports besides public transit - among them affordable housing and foreign aid. Yet the Bloc opposes the bill. A call to Duceppe's office--

[Extension of Sitting Period, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank members for their congratulations on my engagement to Melissa Craig of Yukon. Unfortunately, that is probably the last time members will clap for me tonight.

First, I want to answer a couple of questions the last member raised. One of the question was on affordable housing. He suggested we were do nothing on that file. However, we have invested $1.9 billion a year to support 640,000 families in existing social housing units.

In 2001 we added $680 million over five years to help increase the supply of affordable rental housing. I would not say that is nothing. It was so successful that in 2003 that we added another $320 million. We also put $128 million into renovations programs, which I know are very popular in my riding. We have been active since 2000, with almost $3 billion, in affordable housing.

The other point he made was related to farming. I am glad he raised that. Opposition members a number of times have gone off topic when we have talked about farming. I am sure a number of them come from farming territory. They should understand the programs that the Government of Canada has available for farmers.

However, some of those members have suggested that there are absolutely no programs. The member of Ontario suggested that. I do not know if they were not here the day that we announced $1 billion, shortly after the budget, for the farm community in the member's riding of Ontario.

In 2005 we made a farm income payment of $144 million. In 2004 we had the transitional industry support of $137 million. In 2003-04 we had the agricultural application program of $192 million in production insurance. In 2004 we expected $45 million to go to producers. In 2004 we had the spring credit advance payments of $236 million in interest free advances. March 2 and 3 this year producers had funds in CAIS above the third deposit and were able to withdraw money. We assume that is another $160 million for farmers. We put $53.6 million in the tobacco assistance program.

On April 1, the environmental stewardship activities was announced in the amount of $57 million. The annual research in agriculture was $70 million. We just announced another $9.4 million in sciences innovation in five years over the APF program. That is just for one province. They also have access nationally to Canada's $488 million repositioning strategy and also $50 million to the Canadian Cattlemen's Association.

If they want to be viewed as credible, they should at least acknowledge what is there for their constituents and ensure they can access them. Then they can start on that base to criticize and suggest improvements.

We are here to debate Motion No. 17 which extends the sitting of the House so we can carry on its business. It does not specify which motions, but it means we will be back next week, if it passes, sitting until midnight every night, as we have been this week, to get important work done.

The House leader and our whip have made it quite clear that two of our priorities are Bill C-38 and Bill C-48. We have had much discussion about that this afternoon and before.

I just want to make a brief comment on the results of passing the motion tonight. As opposed to going home, and I know all of us would like to be in our constituency where we have important things to do--

[Extension of Sitting Period, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I was delighted that the member put some philosophy into his speech. I would like to paraphrase one of the philosophical statements he made. He basically suggested that when an opposition party works in its own interest, when it has no vision and no plan, then there really is no opposition.

In a way, I think many people feel that is the way it has been for the past six months in this House, at least until a couple of weeks ago. There has not been an opposition on that side of the House that has asked any questions on the various departments and crown corporations. There has been nothing on foreign affairs, veterans, miners, employment insurance, national defence, farmers, the national debt, tax cuts for the poor, regional development, the homelessness program, transit, the environment, Canada's peacekeeping role, greenhouse gases, corrections, softwood lumber, culture, the budget, taxes, fisheries, the handicapped, Darfur, troops in Afghanistan, foreign aid, or aboriginal people.

If it is so important to have a vision or a plan, why in the last six months did the official opposition not talk about the things that would be in a Conservative plan or vision? Why did the official opposition not talk about things that are important to Canadians, so that one day there would once again be an opposition on that side of the House?

[Extension of Sitting Period, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, before I ask a very short question, I want to ensure that everyone who is watching and members of Parliament and their staff know a very important event has just started in the Senate lobby. It is a celebration of which every member of the House is proud, and that is the Labrador Inuit land claim. Anyone who can get there should, and of course I have an Inukshuk on my tie to celebrate that.

I have a hard time understanding the reasons that the other two parties are against this motion. The Conservatives in particular are asking for more time. Could the member outline the rational, reasonable and logical arguments the Conservatives have, given in the excessive time they have had so far to debate Bill C-48? If the member thinks they need more time, what more logical, rational, objective arguments might they come up with?

[Extension of Sitting Period, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member about the importance of the funds for municipalities in Bill C-48. The opposition member seemed to think it is only in Bill C-43. It is in Bill C-43. We would like to get the budget through. The new deal for cities has all sorts of things for municipalities. As the hon. member has correctly stated, the mayors would like us to adopt these bills as fast as possible if the opposition would not keep filibustering.

I would like the hon. member to talk about the importance of urban transit and the other items in our bills for municipalities, so that we can get these bills passed.

[Extension of Sitting Period, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the speech of the member opposite. I have a great deal of respect for him. He actually got into some facts and figures on this topic and made it a very good debate.

However, of course I have to disagree with him on his conclusions related to the democratic deficit. It is timely, as he mentioned, that a report came out yesterday extolling all the accomplishments in that area, which is, as he said, one of the pillars of this Prime Minister's government. We have fleshed out the goals we are aiming for and we can see the results of that in the report, including the first ever independent Ethics Commissioner and the House of Commons' own conflict of interest code.

As well, more bills are referred to committee before second reading than ever before, so that members of Parliament can influence and shape legislation. Resources are being increased to committees, where so much is done. Also, the budget for the Library of Parliament's independent research on legislation to help MPs has increased.

Nominations for key positions like heads of crown corporations have gone for review. There is a new process for Supreme Court judges, whereby the justice minister appears before the justice committee to give their professional qualifications.

By far the biggest and most important reform is that government MPs are free to vote on a vast majority of items, as has occurred since the day the Prime Minister was elected, on virtually all things that are not confidence motions, of which there are very few. There has been a tremendous change in the chamber since the last Parliament because of this.

Indeed, as the member opposite will see, if there is a democratic deficit related to that aspect it is within his own party as opposed to the Liberal Party. If people watch the very important vote tonight on extending the sitting in order to pass legislation, I am sure they will see that the Liberals will be split on it whereas I imagine every member of his party will be voting in the same manner.

He said he was surprised that there was nothing in the bill about some of the rules in the House which allow for calling closure and limiting debate. The Prime Minister at the time was probably giving the benefit of the doubt to the opposition that we would not see such antics as we have seen on Bill C-48. I am amazed the member would bring this up when his party is so vulnerable due to the way it has constructed this particular debate, with the exception of his own intervention.

As he will remember, on Bill C-48 we heard speech after speech of the exact same words, which were put on record in the House. Yesterday during debate on Government Business No. 17, the whip for the official opposition would not let anyone speak and talked about all sorts of things not related to the bill. Is it any surprise that the other three parties would intervene to protect the taxpayers of this country when members were filibustering? It is a good job that this provision is there to stop the wasting of time by filibustering.

I will ask the member if he could justify his own party's actions if he wants it to be credible and for the democratic operation of the House.

[Extension of Sitting Period, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the Liberal member. He has many times, as he has today, spoken for his constituents and sometimes against the government.

I congratulate him for the great role he played as parliamentary secretary related to the democratic deficit. I refer all members to the first report on the action plan that was tabled yesterday in the House of Commons, and the tremendous progress the Prime Minister and that member and others have made on the democratic deficit.

The member opposite and the Conservatives now have far more democratic deficit problems than the Liberals. Quite often they have voted in a block against bills that would be good for Canadians, the member included.

The member will see in tonight's vote that the Conservatives will probably all vote against it, whereas the Liberals once again, with the new democracy that the Prime Minister has put in, will vote in different ways on the motion tonight.

The member was talking about saving the rights of the minority, which is great, but doing that in the wrong way by changing parliamentary procedures. Does the member not agree that it is totally within the rights and obligations of members of Parliament to set the rules of Parliament? We are continually amending and changing them. There are provisions, as there are for the vote tonight, to have special consideration. There is consideration for the Speaker to extend the hours. These are all rules of Parliament. They are set by Parliament and they are changed by Parliament, so I do not see that as undemocratic and I would like the member to comment.