Ralph Goodale

[Firefighters, November 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank everyone who has participated in this debate on Motion No. 388. I am grateful for the support that has been offered from all three parties in the House and the independents. I am grateful for that and hope that will be reflected in the vote on Wednesday.

I regret that the government's official position with respect to Motion No. 388 seems to be to oppose the motion. I will address the two key arguments that some of the government members have used in expressing their opposition. One of them has to do with jurisdiction and the feeling that somehow Motion No. 388 encroaches upon provincial or municipal jurisdiction. In fact, there is no such encroachment.

I will discuss the three elements that are involved in the motion. The first of them deals with the National Building Code of Canada. By definition, the National Building Code is under the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. Therefore, there is no encroachment on anybody else's jurisdiction there.

The second element is the issue of vaccines. The guidance that is being talked about in my motion is federal guidance on vaccine priorities as developed and published by the Public Health Agency of Canada. Again, there is no infringement on provincial or municipal jurisdictions. The provinces and local authorities would retain their full local flexibility. That remains fully intact. It is simply at the federal level that the advice would be offered about the priority to be given to firefighters and first responders.

The third element is the issue of the public safety officer compensation benefit. I am happy to note that in virtually every civilized country in the western world, including the United States, it has been recognized that this is an appropriate national obligation for governments to acknowledge. Why is that so? Apart from paying tribute to the important work that firefighters, first responders and public safety officers do in our society, there are some other very tangible benefits to providing this benefit at the national level. First, consistency is gained in the treatment of all public safety officers regardless of what level they happen to be employed at. Second, some of the pressure, cost pressure in particular, is taken off of the local municipalities. Third, the collective bargaining process will probably be improved by bringing in this provision at the national level and removing what could be an irritant at the local level. Fourth, a compensation plan for all public safety officers across all jurisdictions can be designed that will roughly match what is available today for members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the RCMP. All of that can be accomplished at the federal level through the adoption of this measure without, in any way, encroaching upon local or provincial jurisdiction.

The second argument is one of cost. I want to point out that the cost of this measure, particularly the compensation benefit, is very modest, entirely scalable and within the control of the government because it is the government that will ultimately define who falls within the definition of a public safety officer. Surely, firefighters, police officers and emergency medical technicians would fall within that definition. Beyond that, it is the government's call to draft the definition in the legislation. However we cut it, annually the cost will be a modest one, less than the cost of government advertising, a security detail for the Prime Minister, a three-day meeting of the G8 or G20 or a rounding error in the government's fiscal framework. Therefore, it is affordable.

Finally, on the issue about how current MPs have previously voted in the House on similar proposals, I am pleased to report that some who previously voted no will be voting yes this time, which improves the chances that this measure will pass. Let me observe that there are 48 Conservative members in the House today who were also in the House the last time a similar measure to this one was voted upon and every one of those 48 Conservative MPs voted yes. I would certainly invite them to do it again. We need to get this job done and we need to do it together in the interest of what is right for Canadian firefighters.

[Petitions, November 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have three more petitions to file today, all of them signed by people all across the province of Saskatchewan. In one petition they come from southwestern Saskatchewan, Golden Prairie, Maple Creek, Fox Valley and various other locations, then from Neilburg and in the Battleford area of Saskatchewan.

A second petition, again on the same subject, is from people around Chaplin, Saskatchewan, Mortlach, Parkbeg and various other communities, as well as Cupar, Southey and Earl Grey.

A third petition is signed by people in the Oxbow area, Glen Ewan, Alameda, Carnduff and various other locations in Saskatchewan, Aneroid and Ponteix among them.

All these petitioners draw attention to the fact that the government has cut funding for the prairie shelterbelt program and is in the process of selling off the historic tree farm at Indian Head, Saskatchewan.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to maintain funding for the prairie shelterbelt program and specifically to maintain adequate financial support for the tree farm at Indian Head, which has been an integral part of prairie agriculture since 1901.

[Petitions, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have two more petitions to file today in respect of the government's former prairie shelterbelt program, particularly the tree farm at Indian Head. These petitioners come from a broad cross-section of Saskatchewan: Zehner, Edenwold, Pilot Butte, Qu'Appelle, Quill Lake, Wadena. They also come form other areas in the province, like Elrose, Eston, Swift Current, Wilkie, and North Battleford. They basically make the point that the tree farm and the shelter belt program has been an integral part of prairie agriculture for more than 111 years. They believe the Government of Canada should find the resources to maintain the program ongoing into the future.

[Petitions, November 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition today from various people across Saskatchewan in places like Saskatoon, Bradwell, Clavet, Dundurn, Kinistin, Melfort, St. Brieux and others, who are expressing their concern about the government's decision to terminate the prairie shelterbelt program and, in particular, to sell off the federal tree farm at Indian Head, which has been a vital part of rural Saskatchewan and rural western Canada since it was first founded in 1901.

The petitioners are calling upon the government to change its position and to allow sufficient funding to continue to ensure that the Indian Head tree farm can continue in full operation.

[Citizenship and Immigration, November 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the two Nigerian students stranded in a Regina church, the government keeps repeating the falsehood that these two young women are not students and had been working extensively. However, the University of Regina says that is not true. The government of Saskatchewan says that is not true.

Why is the government calling the province and the university liars? Can the government say whether any inducements were offered to these two young women by the federal officials handling their cases?

[Correctional Service Canada, November 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are appalled by the grotesque videos now in the public domain, showing the abuse of young, mentally ill Ashley Smith while she was in federal custody. The scenes in the videos are an integral part of a lengthy tragedy of events that led to her death. The government has fought relentlessly to keep the videos secret and to limit any public examination to provincial matters only.

Now that Canadians know what the government was hiding and are disgusted by it, will the government stop the charade, fully co-operate and allow the videos as evidence at the Ashley Smith inquest?

[Citizenship and Immigration, October 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, a government report says that foreign students at Canadian universities benefit our economy, with greater brainpower, innovation and productivity. The minister says he wants more of them to stay, but his treatment of two Nigerian students in Regina sends the contradictory message that foreign students risk unfair, inconsistent and arbitrary abuses of power based on disinformation.

Both the University of Regina and the Government of Saskatchewan oppose deportation of these two young women for a small honest mistake. Will the minister agree?

[Points of Order, October 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in light of the point made by the government House leader, I think what he is drawing attention to is the fact that, this fall particularly, there has been a tendency in the Standing Order 31 statements to drift pretty far away from what was the original intent of Standing Order 31, into a realm where there is, quite frankly, an exchange of insults across the floor of the House. That lowers the tone of the House and it creates a tendency toward disorder in the House, as members can see from the reaction on both sides.

I would simply encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to exercise greater discipline in terms of the content of these motions so they do not become disrespectful and, at the end of the day, do not cause the House to become disorderly.

[Citizenship and Immigration, October 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to these Nigerian students whose only offence was the honest mistake of working for two weeks at Walmart, the minister knows that deportation would destroy their education and damage them for life.

He claims such cases are for independent public servants to handle in a consistent manner. Deportation is not mandatory. There are other remedies. Other people in similar circumstances have been given simple fines, so why deportation in these two cases? How is that consistent with others who have just been given fines?

[Citizenship and Immigration, October 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, about the two Nigerian students in sanctuary in a Regina church, the Minister of Immigration said yesterday that one of them was not a student and was working. However, the University of Regina said that was not true and at all relevant times both these young women were properly registered as U of R students. The government's only complaint against them is their honest mistake of working for two weeks last year at Walmart.

The Government of Saskatchewan supports these students and opposes deportation. Will the minister now review these cases and agree to a more proportionate sanction?