Marc Garneau

[Petitions, December 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of residents of the province of Ontario.

The petitioners wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that financial cuts to the Trent-Severn Waterway will have several adverse effects on the system that include: reduced recreational boating; drinking water systems being affected by lower and higher water levels; important first nations archeological discoveries being lost; fish populations being affected by the new development and possibly more invasive species entering the ecosystem, just to name a few.

They therefore ask that no cuts be made to this important water system.

[National Defence, December 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, General Lawson tells us that the statement of operational requirements for the new fighter aircraft has not been modified to date. This statement is so biased that there is only one option: the F-35. Yet the minister is telling us that all options are on the table as far as the new fighter jet is concerned. The government is contradicting itself. We have lost confidence; it is a real fiasco.

Will the government submit a statement of operational requirements for the new fighter aircraft to the National Research Council of Canada, as it did for the search and rescue aircraft?

[Commissioner for Children and Young Persons in Canada Act, December 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-420. I would like to thank those who have spoken to this bill, who have shared their thoughts with me and who have taken the time to listen to me.

In speaking with other members of Parliament, I was reminded of how parliamentarians, regardless of party, can work together to achieve common goals.

Indeed, at the heart of the bill is a goal that we all have in common, improving our children's lives. Twenty-three years ago all parties committed to end child poverty by the year 2000. We failed. We did not fail because we could not agree or because we did not care; we failed because we got distracted. That is why we need a commissioner for children, so that we do not get distracted again from improving our children's lives. This is not a partisan issue. The Liberals were in power for most of the last 23 years and we did not create a children's commissioner.

Over the past weeks I have heard several concerns about a children's commissioner, that it would be costly, redundant and would step on provincial toes. While I understand these concerns, I do not believe they apply when one takes a closer look at Bill C-420. Let me address each of them in turn very quickly.

First, some have said that the $5 million cost of a children's commissioner would be better spent on programs for children. While these programs are an integral part of what we can do for children, a children's commissioner would help us learn how to use our money more efficiently. For example, many of today's programs for youth are focused on addressing problems after they have arisen. A commissioner could help us focus on prevention, surely a more cost effective way of helping young people. The investment in our children's future is worth every penny.

Second, some have said that a children's commissioner would be redundant, duplicating processes that already exist at the federal level, such as parliamentary studies, reports to the UN and committees within government.

Yes, parliament does study children's issues, but certainly not enough or we would have succeeded in eradicating child poverty. Moreover, it was one of these parliamentary studies, a Senate report entitled “Children: The Silenced Citizens”, that recommended establishing a children's commissioner.

Yes, Canada does report to the UN every five years about children's rights, and every five years the UN reminds us that we have not yet established a children's commissioner.

Yes, there are committees within government that focus on children's issues, but these committees coordinate between different departments and levels of government. They do not focus on improving children's rights in Canada.

A children's commissioner would provide us with the information we need to improve what we do for our children.

Finally, some worry that a children's commissioner would infringe on provincial jurisdiction. They are right that many issues affecting children are provincial, and because of this nine of the ten provinces have established children's advocates, like the one proposed in Bill C-420. But these provincial advocates are calling for the establishment of a federal commissioner. Why? Because there are many areas affecting children beyond the reach of the provinces, such as aboriginal affairs, youth criminal justice, marriage and divorce law. For example, which drugs can be given to children under state care? Additionally, there are many areas of shared jurisdiction where children are falling into the cracks, like child welfare, health care and combatting child poverty. A federal children's commissioner could study any of these issues without stepping on provincial toes.

Consider a few questions a children's commissioner could ask. How do custody laws affect children going through divorces? How effective has the Youth Criminal Justice Act been in fighting crime among young people? These are but a few examples.

It is by answering questions like these that a commissioner for children can help parliamentarians focus on eliminating child poverty. According to Statistics Canada, today, nearly one in 10 children lives in poverty. The proportion rises to one in four children living with single mothers and one in three children living in aboriginal communities. In all, that is more than a half-million children who live in poverty in Canada.

With the help of a commissioner for children, we can change this.

I urge all members to vote in favour of Bill C-420 to send it to committee, where it can be improved. This will prevent us from once again getting too distracted to focus on eliminating child poverty.

We owe this to our children.

[Ethics, November 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Labrador has had every opportunity to clear his name about anonymous and corporate donations, about interest-free loans, about illegally discounted air travel and about spending way over his campaign limit. His official agent even said that when he signed off on the paperwork, everything was okay.

How can that minister sit in the front row and act as though nothing had happened? How can the Prime Minister turn a blind eye to all of this? Is there no shame in the government?

[National Child Day, November 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, today is National Child Day. On November 20 of every year, we commemorate and celebrate Canada’s signing of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

With its 193 signatory states, it is the most widely ratified human rights treaty in history, proof that the problems of children transcend political opportunism. Many of those countries have implemented the Convention on the Rights of the Child with the aid of a commissioner for children, and nine of Canada's 10 provinces have advocates for children and youth.

On December 5, I hope that members of all sides of the House agree on the importance of putting our children ahead of our politics and vote for Bill C-420. With this, we can continue working toward establishing a federal commissioner for children and young people in Canada, making Canada a global beacon for children's rights.

[Ethics, November 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Labrador said he is finally ready to explain, next Tuesday, the long list of irregularities in a campaign that he won by only 79 votes. How will he explain $20,000 in overspending, an interest-free loan from a company run by his brother-in-law, a corporate donation of free air travel, anonymous donations and a corporate gift from a construction company that does business with the government?

Why wait? If he cannot explain to Canadians why his—

[Points of Order, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am interested in knowing now if this is going to become a standard answer. When the government members do not wish to answer a written question on the order paper, will their response be that they are not going to answer it because it involves a certain amount of money?

[Points of Order, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it was indeed in the reply of the minister, versus in the reply to the question. The reply to the question was in fact two and a half lines. That is all there was to it. That is why my colleague was asking for an explanation today as to why a question on the very serious matter of disaster management only warranted a two and a half line reply.

In fact, in seeking clarification as to why it had not been answered, the minister very clearly said, as I interpret it here, that this was going to cost money and therefore they were not going to do it. Is this setting a dangerous precedent?

[Points of Order, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Today my colleague from Etobicoke North asked a question concerning the fact that she had put a written question on the order paper. The Minister of Public Safety got up and made a reference to the fact that this cost $1,300, a figure used by him, to address a part of that question, and then went on to elaborate.

I want to draw members' attention to the fact that in O'Brien and Bosc it says very clearly that replies to written questions may be presented each sitting day during routine proceedings under the rubric “questions on the order paper”. It says specifically later, “The Speaker, however, has ruled that it is not in order to indicate in a response to a written question the total time and cost incurred by the government in the preparation of that response”.

I am wondering if we could get the government to address this specific concern and let us know whether it does intend to answer the question fully that was put forward by my colleague from Etobicoke North.

[Business of the House, November 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I seek unanimous consent for the following motion, that, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of this House that the Standing Committee on Finance meet during the week of November 12 to 16 for the purpose of hearing from witnesses in pursuance of its examination of Bill C-45, and that the following standing committees meet during the week of November 12 to 16 for the purpose of hearing from witnesses in pursuance of their consideration of the subject matter of Bill C-45: the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, the Standing Committee on Health, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and, finally, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.