Peter Goldring

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, perhaps the minister could answer a question. If the procurement is going to be above reproach, then why are we breaking fundamental treasury board guidelines in the procurement process for the maritime helicopter project? Why are we not looking at best value rather than just lowest price? This is a basic treasury board guideline.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, I would like to know the minister's opinion on this. Earlier this evening one of the Liberal members made the comment that in procurement not only was the original capital cost of the procurement a concern nor should be looked at solely as the major concern, but also attention should be paid to the long term maintenance or carrying costs of an item. The example given was energy saving devices that cost more initially to procure but obviously operate on a less continuing cost.

I would like to know if the minister will be carrying that same thought forward when he is reviewing the maritime helicopter project, not just look at the helicopter project based on their performance, range, mission capability and safety but also on the follow up cost savings that would be inherent by having common helicopter frames, power and parts supply that would be a common product.

The new search and rescue helicopters are one particular airframe. Would it not be a sensible way to view that commonality of two airframes when viewing the tremendous purchase costs of the maritime helicopter project? Will he be entertaining those considerations too?

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, one reason the public seemingly lost confidence, and it goes along with a statement that the minister made earlier to my colleague from Battlefords--Lloydminster, was that the management style of public works was clearly inadequate prior to the year 2000.

Many would say that there have been seriously inadequate management and ethical challenges in several key areas since the year 2000, at a time when the government clearly was been bogged down for 27 years procuring a replacement for the Sea Kings. Yes, 27 years ago the Liberal government started replacement proceedings for the then 12 year old Sea Kings. That was in 1975. A political procurement nightmare still continues and it is still at the bottom of the action list of things to do today.

In response to the member for Saint John, the minister said that he had not been briefed on the maritime helicopter project yet. Nine days is not a very long time but I would think, for a project that is the largest single government procurement in history, that the minister would find the time to be briefed on the file in his first nine days.

My question for the minister is this. When will he be briefed on this file? When will he crack the file on this major procurement project?

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, I want first to congratulate the minister on his appointment and also on his endurance this evening. A daunting challenge lies ahead for him. There are three at bat and two have struck out.

Of concern is the 69% of Canadians who truly believe their government to be mismanaged, to have corruption in it, to have ethical problems, and they are looking for an ethical home run, but they doubt they are going to get it.

I would like the minister to tell us what he has done that is an improvement over what the last minister did, and let me repeat, the last minister, not the first of the three ministers. Could he tell us what he has done to change this perception, real or imagined, in this short time?

[Liberal Party of Canada, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals are in a free fall or is it that they are in a free for all?

More ministerial heads rolling than in a maritime fish cannery.

The minister of finance, axed for ambition. The minister of national defence, banished for billing. The minister of public works, deported to Denmark. The second minister of public works, returned to sender. The minister on the status of women, canned for crosses. The minister of industry, turbot Tobin turfed. The deputy prime minister, Gray given the gate. The second Deputy Prime Minister, given ministerial role after role to cover the last minister's mess.

Soon the minister of all might be a lonely cabinet of one.

It is a true Liberal meltdown before our very eyes. A long lapse in ethics in character, now a collapse in ability to govern.

The Liberal way in complete disarray, from corruption crisis to catastrophic chaos, spelling the beginning of the end for the Liberals.

[Housing Bill of Rights, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like clarification of the comments made by the hon. member a few moments ago and ask if he could possibly table the document--

[Housing Bill of Rights, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-416 on affordable housing. It has been of great interest to me for many years now.

Last week the media quoted it as a tragedy and a national disaster. A street nurse charged that we had conditions so deplorable that they violated the United Nations basic requirements for refugee camps. One observer appalled said that she was struck by the images of body after body after body. We may think this sounds like a description of a war area or a third world hospital camp, but it is not. It is an emergency shelter for the homeless in Toronto.

As the Toronto Star pointed out, anybody who doubts the need for more affordable housing should watch the one minute documentary that made newspaper headlines last week. It shows a man searching for a place to wedge in his narrow mat and sleeping bag, stumbling over prone bodies, packed together like sardines in a can. The unidentified shelter is just one of the many across Canada and the situation reoccurs with depressing monotony, night after night.

However it does not have to. Affordable rental housing has been a critical need in Canada's major cities for years. Today in most communities more condominiums are built new or converted from existing apartments than new rental units are constructed. Even though the economy is relevantly buoyant, the national rental inventory is shrinking and singles entry level rental housing is practically unavailable.

While it is clearly a provincial responsibility under the constitution, roller coaster federal funding for non-profit housing has seriously upset the free market for affordable housing and the provinces ability to respond accordingly.

For many years the government has provided most of the funding and grants for social housing but unfortunately what was good intentioned, the hope of providing economically affordable housing, has been bogged down in community desires for aesthetic preferences. Construction costs have soared as architects, designers and well-meaning people add to projects eating up precious housing dollars. At the same time capable private housing providers are discouraged from attempting to respond to this very significant need. While non-profit projects enjoy tax free status, municipal taxes are punitive, being much higher for rental units than for private housing. This condition further discourages private rental housing providers.

Private businesses cannot compete with the multiple grants, the tax free status, the funding latitude for excessive architecture and the municipal taxation relief available to current social housing providers. The result is that many working poor are left wondering why their housing has fewer features than the social housing projects of their neighbours.

Because constitutionally housing is a provincial matter, the question we at the federal level need to ask is: what can the federal do to help the provinces remedy the situation?

The Liberals say “We will spend another $753 million of homeless funding on non-profit social shelters and transitional shelters and spend more again on non-profit housing with more to follow”. The Liberals leave us without a plan, without guidance and without funding for private housing providers.

The Progressive Conservatives say “Spend $1.25 billion on non-profits, fund co-op housing and give away federal land”. Again we are left without a plan, without guidelines and no funding for private housing providers.

The NDP says, “Spend 1% of Canada's GDP. No rooming houses are wanted”. Again, there is no plan, no guidelines and no funding for private housing providers.

These are obviously ineffective approaches. First, in co-operation with the provinces, we need to develop a clear national policy for shelter and housing. This policy must incorporate guidelines and rules that will permit private housing providers to participate on a level funding and benefit playing field with non-profit providers. The homeless problem is not caused by a funding shortage. The root of the problem lies in how the money is being spent.

In contrast to the good intentions of the hon. member for Vancouver East, the bill is mired in legalese and logistics that, by constitution, are provincial and therefore outside of Ottawa's sphere of authority.

I also hope that this was unintentional on the member's part, but the bill seems to blatantly discriminate against the most affordable housing that is readily attainable, what is commonly referred to as rooming house rooms. Surely the hon. member does not intend to do away with rooming houses, as Bill C-416 seems to indicate. To do so, especially with a crisis looming in affordable housing, would be unconscionable.

One need only ask the people living in Toronto shelters and others how many could and would gladly pay $300 per month for a clean, secure rooming house room if there were any available at all. I am sure the member from the NDP could easily verify that one half of Toronto's homeless sleep on the streets or in emergency shelters because there is no independent entry level housing available.

I do mean inexpensive, privately operated rooming houses with a shared kitchen and bathroom and not expensive, high-rise apartments that house only a lucky few, such as the ones that Jack Layton wants to build at a staggering $100,000 per unit. I repeat that I mean basic rooming houses like the ones that could be built by the hundreds by private operators who are ready, willing and able to proceed if only assisted with a mere $15,000 per unit of funding.

Toronto's annual funding cost for 6,000 homeless is a staggering $180 million or $30,000 per shelter bed per year. With only 25% of this annual cost or an investment of $45 million 3,000 rooms can be built. That would empty out half of Toronto's shelter system. Imagine closing Toronto's shelters because of lack of use.

Where could the $45 million in funding come from? How about Toronto's share of the $753 million national homeless funding? How about the minister responsible for the homeless actually dedicating the homeless funding for homes for the homeless? That is a rather radical thought, shocking some would say; homeless funding for the homeless.

The Department of National Defence in Toronto could get their armories back. The city of Toronto could save $90 million per year because those 3,000 roomers would be able to pay for their own housing and enjoy the dignity of self-sufficiency and security that most of us desire.

Imagine properly designed, private business transit shelters for short term emergency use with 4 people per room, not the 100 per room, as was shown on the recent video presently, being contracted by non-profits to the city and not for $45 a night but $20 per night, cleaner with more security, privacy and dignity for the client.

Can private industry alone fix the homeless plight? Of course not. They are proven experts in efficiency when it comes to bricks and mortar and tenant management. One only has to turn back the clock 30 years and count how many homeless there were on the streets of Toronto at that time. Why there are so many today?

Toronto's homeless plight can be greatly relieved not by pouring millions of dollars into social shelters and not by building grandiose high-rise social housing, but by reinvesting in entry level private housing such as rooming houses and economical walk up apartments and investing in traditional, modest, affordable starter housing. Toronto's mayor, Mel Lastman, summed it up simply and succinctly last week when he said “We need more affordable housing, not more shelters”.

Rather than focusing on increasing shelter space, I say we must focus on encouraging the building of independent living homes. We must develop and implement a national housing and emergency shelter policy. Private industry under appropriate government agreement could and should have access to the same benefits as non-profits for providing affordable rental homes.

Taxpayer funded housing assistance should be restricted to funding economical entry level homes. The Liberals have failed miserably in helping the homeless find affordable independent living homes. We must do better than this.

[Government Contracts, May 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, how times have changed the members of the Liberal ranks.

The member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell has gone through an amazing metamorphosis, from rat packer opposition critic for public works to the minister of public works today. Back then he would thump his desk, stand on his chair, wave his fist in the air and give shrieking calls for investigations into the odorous Conservative mismanagement. Now in charge of the public works file he is magically transformed. Now with much more suffocating odours of corruption emanating from Liberal held public works files he has lost his sense of smell.

There are two conclusions here. Could it be that donations to the Liberal Party perfume the air and mask the odour, or could it be that his sense of smell never was very keen?

Sixty-nine per cent of Canadians smell mismanagement. Sixty-nine per cent of Canadians smell corruption. Canadians want to know why the Liberals do not.

[St. Barbara's Russian Orthodox Cathedral, May 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, St. Barbara's Russian Orthodox Cathedral: a historical Edmonton spiritual landmark with its picturesque dome crowned by a triple bar cross, symbolic of Orthodox churches around the world; and 100 years of community faith service, nearly 50 years in the present edifice alone.

For 30 years it has been the church of my family; our wedding, our children's christenings, our family's faith centre.

Father John, our priest for 20 years, whose presence is still felt as we gather to pray. Father Grigory ministers to our family and friends today.

Congratulations to St. Barbara's on its 100th anniversary of ministering to many thousands over the century. May our faith community continue to be spiritually served for another 100 years and beyond in this consecrated landmark.

[An Act To Amend The Criminal Code (Cruelty to Animals and Firearms) and the Firearms Act, May 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-15B, an act to amend the criminal code and the Firearms Act. The stated purpose of the bill is to amend the criminal code by consolidating animal cruelty offences and increasing the maximum penalties. The bill would also add administrative provisions that are intended to simplify applications of the Firearms Act.

Bill C-15B re-introduces the proposed amendments to the cruelty to animals provisions of the criminal code that were introduced in Bill C-17 during the last parliament with certain changes. However, despite the minor improvements to the legislation, many people who are dependent on the harvesting and husbandry of animals for their livelihoods still have a number of concerns with the bill.

One concern is that the definition of animal is too broad. The proposed definition of an animal in Bill C-15B includes non-human vertebrates and all animals having the capacity to feel pain. The new definition would extend legal protection to a number of living organisms which have never before been provided that kind of protection.

Another key concern is that the criminal code would no longer provide the same level of legal protection afforded at present to those who use animals for legitimate, lawful and justified practices.

The phrase legal justification, excuse or colour of right in subsection 429(2) of the criminal code currently provides protection to those who commit any kind of property offence. However, in the new bill, the fact that the animal cruelty provisions would be moved out of the general classification of property offences and into a section of their own would remove these provisions outside of the scope of that protection.

Moving the animal cruelty section out of the range of property offences to a new section in its own right would emphasize animal rights as opposed to animal welfare. This is a significant alteration in the underlying principles of the legislation and could elevate the status of animals in the eyes of the courts. The legislation could open up the possibility that farmers, sporting groups and scientific researchers would be unjustly prosecuted.

Animal rights groups in Canada will certainly use the new legislation as the basis for such prosecution and have already stated their intentions to do so. Liz White, the director of legislative revision from the Animal Alliance of Canada has stated:

My worry is that people think that this is the means to the end, but this is just the beginning. It doesn't matter what the legislation says if no one uses it, if no one takes it to court, if nobody tests it. The onus is on humane societies and other groups on the front lines to push this legislation to the limit, to test the parameters of this law and have the courage and the conviction to lay charges. That's what this is all about. Make no mistake about it.

The former federal justice minister assured us that what is lawful today in the course of legitimate activities would be lawful when the bill receives royal assent. However, the problem is that these new provisions would arguably narrow the scope of what constitutes legitimate activities.

The changes to the Firearms Act are administrative by nature. The provisions of the bill are intended to simplify the registration process and to incorporate information technology to reduce costs. Regarding the Firearms Act, I refer to section 31 of the Canadian Alliance declaration of policy where it states:

We believe there should be severe mandatory penalties for the criminal use of any weapon. We are committed to keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals as a necessary part of making our communities safer. We will replace the current firearms law with a practical firearms control system that is cost effective and respects the rights of Canadians to own and use firearms responsibly.

We support increasing penalties for cruelty to animals offences but we do not support widening the scope of what currently constitutes a criminal offence. New animal cruelty legislation may cause the courts to interpret such offences in a different light. This could have significant and detrimental implications for farmers, hunters, and other agricultural producers who are dependent on animals for their livelihoods.

We do not support the amendments to the Firearms Act as we have a long held feeling that the act should be repealed entirely and replaced with a practical, cost-effective firearms control system.

To reiterate, the Canadian Alliance in no way condones intentional acts of cruelty to animals and supports increasing the penalties for offences relating to such acts. Moving animal cruelty provisions out of property offences to a new and separate section of the criminal code could elevate the status of animals in the eyes of the courts. The defences currently available would no longer apply in the new section. The new definition of animal would include an extremely broad definition that includes a vertebrate other than a human being and any other animal that has a capacity to feel pain. This new definition would extend legal protection to a number of living organisms which have never been provided that kind of protection before.

The former justice minister stated that what is lawful today in the course of legitimate activities would be lawful when the bill receives royal assent. If it was not the former justice minister's intention to change what is lawful today why did she not simply raise the penalties for existing animal cruelty offences?

Without substantial amendments to address the concerns I have I must join with my colleagues of the official opposition party and oppose the bill.