Ralph Goodale

[Extension of Sitting Hours, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I take it in the flow of--

[Extension of Sitting Hours, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, let me repeat that point for the sake of clarity. I have pointed out that members of the opposition have been very vigorous in advancing the strong views that we hold with respect to things like tax reductions; child care; the Kelowna accords; climate change; greater aid for students pursuing post-secondary education; workplace training; innovation; help for farmers, fishers and foresters; and stronger support for the arts and culture.

We have been vigorous in our pursuit of all of those items, but I do not think it can be said that we have in any way obstructed the business of the House or slowed it down from what would otherwise be the case. There is no evidence that the business of the House has been stalled.

Second, I would point out that the government has not presented a particularly heavy or even full agenda for the House to deal with thus far in this new Parliament. There have been 17 items of legislation that have been brought forward. More than half of that total are in fact recycled old items from the previous government in the last Parliament. Two or three of them are purely routine in nature and that leaves only a very small minority of items on the order paper that are truly new or potentially time consuming in what they would demand of the House.

Again, it is not abundantly clear that an extension of hours is necessary. The order paper is largely vacant in terms of new or controversial matters.

It would be useful to know, in dealing with this motion that is now before the House, if the government requires the extension of hours, what will that extra time be used for? Beyond the one item or perhaps two items that the government House leader has referred, will the government devote some of its extra time to some new initiatives that would actually achieve some good and some progress?

For example, will the government, in that two week period, produce the promised plan to generate a dramatically increased number of quality child care spaces for those Canadian moms and dads who truly need that kind of service? I would point out, as we have said in the House before, that three or four taxable dollars per week do not a system make.

The Conservatives have hinted that they may have some plan for something more at some time in terms of increasing spaces. I wonder if they would take the opportunity in the coming two weeks to produce at least the basics of that plan for more child care spaces.

On aboriginal people, the Conservatives have said that they support the spirit and intent of the Kelowna accords for aboriginal Canadians, but they just do not like the title and they just cannot find the money. They say that they are working on a plan of their own, one probably under a different name. Somehow that word “Kelowna” seems to stick in the throat.

I ask if they will be prepared to use some of the extra time that they are now asking for to table a specific action plan on Kelowna or better still, will they simply bring forward, in the next two weeks, Bill C-292, standing in the name of the right hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, so it can enjoy the confidence of the House. That would be a very good use of the extra time.

With respect to the environment, the government to date has focused primarily on cancelling programs, eliminating budgets, and embarrassing Canadians internationally in its reneging of the Kyoto protocol. Still, it talks, amidst a lot of slogans for the most part, about some vague, unspecified made in Canada plan with respect to climate change.

Canadians have languished in Conservative darkness for too long now and I wonder, in the extra time in the next two weeks, will we see that made in Canada plan with respect to climate change and the honouring of Kyoto?

My fourth and final suggestion has to do with assistance to Canadian students and those who are seeking further training in the workplace. When the government came to office, it inherited from its predecessors $2.7 billion in firm, clear commitments to enhance the level of student aid in this country, to reduce the financial barriers, so more Canadian students could have access to post-secondary education.

The government also inherited $3.5 billion that was dedicated to enhanced workplace training through labour market partnership agreements.

All of this was aimed at enhancing productivity, growth and prosperity for all Canadians.

These issues with respect to student aid, workplace training and innovation are entirely lacking from the government's agenda now. Again I would suggest that in the next two weeks it might be very useful to devote some of this extra time to an important matter such as that.

The official opposition does not intend to delay this motion or to stand in its way, but we would ask the government to pay some attention to the issues I have just referred to.

I would also ask for the government House leader's assurance that in the way the extra hours are applied he does not intend to in any way interfere with or pre-empt the normal flow of private members' business that would be scheduled over that two week period.

Similarly, I ask that the commitment that has been made to a further allotted day which would stand in the name of the Liberal Party and is tentatively scheduled for June 20 would not be interfered with in the flow of activity that the government House leader has in mind.

I wonder if the government House leader would take the opportunity at some point subsequent in this debate, before we deal with the motion, to offer the House his assurance with respect to those two matters.

[Extension of Sitting Hours, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am on debate.

[Extension of Sitting Hours, June 9th, 2006]

Resuming debate, Mr. Speaker.

[Extension of Sitting Hours, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make on the motion that the government House leader has just introduced in the House.

First, I would indicate that I am a bit surprised at the government's perception that this type of motion, which as the hon. gentleman points out is not especially unusual, is actually necessary in the circumstances of this Parliament thus far.

While working and fighting very hard for the issues that really matter for ordinary Canadians, like: reductions in personal income taxes; high-quality, universally-accessible, affordable and developmental early learning and child care system; action on the funding of the Kelowna accords with and for aboriginal peoples; action on climate change and the environment; greater student aid, workplace training and innovation; help for farmers, fishers and foresters; and stronger support for the arts and cultural expression, I do not think it can be said that we have been obstructionist or dilatory in this House.

[Canadian Wheat Board, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP members are the worst floor-crossers in the House. Their bodies do not change places but their principles do. They gave up on aboriginal people. They gave up on the environment. They gave up on child care. They gave up on student aid. They gave up on workplace training. They have given up on farmers.

Could I have the government's assurance that when it comes to the Canadian Wheat Board, it will not change the Canadian Wheat Board unless it has a producer plebiscite on a fair and honest question, where farmers decide, not politicians, not bureaucrats?

[Business of the House, June 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as is usual on Thursday, I wonder if the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons can explain to the House his plan for the business of the House over the course of the next week or two. I wonder explicitly if he would be in a position today to indicate whether or not the government intends to seek any extension of the normal hours in the two weeks that are covered by that rule under our Standing Orders.

[Business of the House, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, if I could seek further clarification from the chief government whip, this matter might be dealt with expeditiously. I believe I heard him say that there is agreement that, one way or another, Bill C-15 will be dealt with by the end of this day. I would prefer it be 2 o'clock, but it seems we have common agreement that, as somebody once said, come hell or high water, this legislation will be dealt with and sent off to the Senate so farmers can get their money by the end of the day.

The Senate is not sitting this afternoon, so we are not inconveniencing it by waiting until the end of the day as opposed to 2 o'clock. If we have common agreement in the House that this matter will one way or another be on its way to the Senate by the end of the day today, why do we not put that in the form of a House order, so we are all sure and clear of the result and just get it done?

[Business of the House, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I noticed from the projected order of business, compared to the projection of business last week, that Bill C-15 has moved up in the order, which I am very pleased to see. Still there is no guarantee that we are going to be able to deal with this matter as quickly as I think farmers would like to see us deal with it.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if there would be a disposition in the House by consent to agree that, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, at 2 p.m. today, Bill C-15 be deemed to have been read a second time, referred to a committee of the whole, reported without amendment, concurred in at report stage and read a third time and passed.

If there is consent for that type of action, Mr. Speaker, it would assure farmers that by the time we get to question period, this matter will have been successfully dealt with and on its way to the Senate, which would be helpful.

[Petitions, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition signed by a number of residents of Saskatchewan who indicate their very strong agreement with the agreements that were signed last year between the Government of Canada and the province of Saskatchewan with respect to early learning and child care.

They note that these agreements would provide for a very substantial boost in the number of child care spaces available to the families that need that service in Saskatchewan. They call upon the Government of Canada to honour the agreements that were entered into, together with the full funding over the five year term.