Scott Reid

[Question No. 234, September 16th, 2003]

Concerning federal public servants, how many whose first language is a ) French, and b ) English are employed in (i) bilingual imperative positions, and (ii) bilingual non-imperative positions, for each of the following Official Language profiles: “E” (Exempt from further testing); “CCC” (Reading, Writing and Oral Interaction at Superior levels); “CBC” (Reading and Oral Interaction at Superior levels, Writing at Intermediate level); “CCB”(Reading and Writing at Superior Levels, Oral Interaction at Intermediate Level); “CBB” (Reading at Superior Level, Writing and Oral Interaction at Intermediate Levels); “BCB” (Reading and Oral Interaction at Intermediate Levels, Writing at Superior Level); “BCC” (Reading at Intermediate Level, Writing and Oral Interaction at Superior Levels); “BBB” (Reading, Writing and Oral Interaction at Intermediate Levels); “BBC” (Reading and Writing at Intermediate Levels, Oral Interaction at Superior Level); “BBA” (Reading and Writing at Intermediate Levels, Oral Interaction at Minimum Level); “BAA” (Reading at Intermediate Level, Oral Interaction and Writing at Minimum Levels); “BAB” (Reading and Oral Interaction at Intermediate Levels, Writing at Minimum Level); “ABA” (Reading and Oral Interaction at Minimum Levels, Writing at Intermediate Level); “ABB” (Reading at Minimum Level, Writing and Oral Interaction at Intermediate Levels); “AAB” (Reading and Writing at Minimum Levels, Oral Interaction at Intermediate Level); and “AAA” (Reading, Writing and Oral Interaction at Minimum Levels)?

[Question No. 234, September 15th, 2003]

Concerning federal public servants, how many whose first language is a ) French, and b ) English are employed in (i) bilingual imperative positions, and (ii) bilingual non-imperative positions, for each of the following Official Language profiles: “E” (Exempt from further testing); “CCC” (Reading, Writing and Oral Interaction at Superior levels); “CBC” (Reading and Oral Interaction at Superior levels, Writing at Intermediate level); “CCB”(Reading and Writing at Superior Levels, Oral Interaction at Intermediate Level); “CBB” (Reading at Superior Level, Writing and Oral Interaction at Intermediate Levels); “BCB” (Reading and Oral Interaction at Intermediate Levels, Writing at Superior Level); “BCC” (Reading at Intermediate Level, Writing and Oral Interaction at Superior Levels); “BBB” (Reading, Writing and Oral Interaction at Intermediate Levels); “BBC” (Reading and Writing at Intermediate Levels, Oral Interaction at Superior Level); “BBA” (Reading and Writing at Intermediate Levels, Oral Interaction at Minimum Level); “BAA” (Reading at Intermediate Level, Oral Interaction and Writing at Minimum Levels); “BAB” (Reading and Oral Interaction at Intermediate Levels, Writing at Minimum Level); “ABA” (Reading and Oral Interaction at Minimum Levels, Writing at Intermediate Level); “ABB” (Reading at Minimum Level, Writing and Oral Interaction at Intermediate Levels); “AAB” (Reading and Writing at Minimum Levels, Oral Interaction at Intermediate Level); and “AAA” (Reading, Writing and Oral Interaction at Minimum Levels)?

[Petitions, June 13th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, today I am presenting a petition on behalf of a number of constituents from several ridings close to my own in Ontario. These are petitions that were circulated by members of provincial parliaments, specifically Marcel Beaubien and Bob Runciman. They relate to the question of gun control and particularly the firearms long gun registry.

The petitioners draw to the attention of the House of Commons the wild cost overruns in the firearms registry, which they regard as turning the long gun registry into a metaphor for government waste. They also draw to the attention of the House of Commons the complete ineffectiveness of the firearms registry in keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals. This relates to the issue of property rights.

Madam Speaker, I wanted to mention as well, because this is our last day in the House of Commons before the House rises, that I hope you personally and all my colleagues have a very good summer this year.

[International Plowing Match, June 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend a warm personal invitation to all MPs and to Canadians from across the land to attend the premier agricultural exhibition of 2003.

This year Ontario's International Plowing Match and Farm Machinery Show is being held in beautiful Lanark County, just a few minutes west of Ottawa, from September 17-21. The International Plowing Match is also known as Rural Expo, and it is a wonderful opportunity to experience Ontario's rural culture and rural heritage. Anyone lucky enough to attend will bask in the warmth of Lanark County hospitality.

Although there has been support from all levels of government, it is truly the hard work and dedication of 1,700 volunteers, led by Gord and Ann Munroe, that will ensure the success of this huge undertaking.

Lanark's International Plowing Match is a chance for rural Canadians to show city dwellers why we love country life so much. Come along, and love it too.

[Agriculture, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the BSE scare has led to an American ban on all ruminants, not just beef but also sheep and lambs. This is no small issue. In 2002 alone, 148,000 head of sheep were exported to the U.S.A., but with this market shut down, prices are in steep decline.

During his press conference on June 4 and again in the emergency Commons debate, the agriculture minister failed to mention sheep even once. It is as if this industry does not exist in the minister's mind, so here is my question. When can we expect to see sheep and lambs included in the plan for piecemeal resumption of trade?

[Chabad, June 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Chabad movement was born in Russia more than 200 years ago. Chabad worked to keep Judaism alive under oppression during the czarist and communist regimes. When the Soviet Union crumbled, Chabad emerged from underground. Its work continues throughout the former Soviet Union where it has established some 200 institutions for Jewish outreach and humanitarian aid.

There are 72 Chabad centres in Canada. There are 37 centres in Quebec, 21 in Ontario, eight in British Columbia, two in Alberta and Manitoba and one in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. These centres serve the needs of Jews no matter what their level of knowledge or observance.

Only a few weeks ago for the first time ever, Chabad organized a reception here at the House of Commons commemorating the Jewish festival of Purim.

The vision and leadership for this vast network of activities and services was and is the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneersohn of blessed memory.

[Citizenship Act, June 10th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, in making his remarks the hon. parliamentary secretary asked rhetorically if there was a better system because he had not heard of one.

He must have been absent from the parliamentary committee hearings when Ed Broadbent, the former leader of the NDP said that yes, there was a better way. He said to give the money--because there is a valid purpose for public funds for these things--to the parties that people want to support. Let people tick off on their income tax forms which party they would like to support based on their preferences and whether or not that party represents their interests. It might be a party that has parliamentary representation or it might be one of the minor parties that does not have parliamentary representation. That is the fair and democratic thing to do.

That suggestion was made in committee. It was not in any way taken seriously in the committee's report back to the House and certainly not by the government. That was a disappointment. The hon. parliamentary secretary has not answered my question. Why was this democratic proposal not taken seriously?

[Citizenship Act, June 10th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, my question this evening is on the subject of Bill C-24, the political financing act. Last week I rose in the House to question the government about the proposed amendments to the bill. Now that the amendments have been officially tabled and voted on, this may be somewhat academic, but I want to ask some further questions about these amendments.

First let me outline some of the amendments that were tabled yesterday and have just been voted through. The direct statutory annual allowance paid to parties will go from $1.50 per vote that the party obtained in the last election to $1.75 per vote. Incidentally, this is going to guarantee the Liberals an annual subsidy of over $9 million, year in, year out.

The reimbursement of election expenses to individual candidates who win more than 15% of the vote will be raised from 50% to 60% of their election expenses. Similarly, the reimbursement for election expenses to national parties is being raised from 50% to 60%. This represents a massive grab of taxpayers' money for political parties, particularly of course for the Liberal Party of Canada, which is hoping to lock in its political success from the past election through a formula which ensures that each party will be paid according to the number of votes that it received in the prior election.

Voters often change their minds during a government's mandate. With this new system, a party's chances at the next election are tied to its performance in the previous one, and this is a problem which I can best explain by means of an historical analogy.

In the 1988 election, Brian Mulroney and the Progressive Conservatives won a strong mandate and more votes than the other parties. In the 1993 election, the Conservative vote collapsed. The Liberal vote soared, as did the vote of my party, the Reform Party at the time, and the current Prime Minister came to power. Clearly voters had changed their minds during that mandate. However, had the proposed new funding rules been in place during that period, the Progressive Conservatives would have continued to receive $1.75 each year for every single ballot they had received in the 1988 election, even as their popularity plummeted and the popularity of the parties that opposed them rose. Those other parties would have been denied a level of financing that would have been commensurate with the level of support they were receiving from the public, given the fact that many of the voters who had formerly supported the Conservatives had since decided that some other party now best represented their point of view and deserved their support.

It goes without saying that the same situation would occur today if the Liberals were to find their support level declining from the levels they enjoyed in the election of November 27, 2000. The same thing would be true if my party, the Canadian Alliance, or any other party were to see its level of support go up or down. Like flies caught in amber, their annual subsidies would go on reflecting the electoral results of a prior election without any reflection of how voters are thinking.

To avoid this kind of confusion, I strongly recommend to the House the amendment suggested by former NDP leader Ed Broadbent. In a presentation to the House of Commons committee considering this bill, Mr. Broadbent suggested that instead of basing the annual payment to parties on the results of the prior election, citizens should be permitted to direct their proportionate share of the subsidy to the party of their choice each year by means of a question that would be included on their income tax return form. Already it is possible to register for the voters list by doing this.

This solution would be fair. It would be democratic. It would allow people to give money to the party they actually support should they find their support changing, or even to a minor party which has no representation in the House of Commons. This was not considered in any serious way during the debate over the amendments to this bill. My question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is simply this: Why was it not considered?

[Agriculture, June 10th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, the trade restrictions imposed on May 20 on all ruminants as a result of BSE are affecting farms and farm support workers across Canada. The beef and cattle industries continue to lose $11 million daily. Sheep and goat farmers are also being affected by the trade ban.

Last week I met with beef farmers on one of the many cattle farms in my riding and I have also received representations from the sheep farmers of eastern Ontario. They are hurting.

Tragically, the concerns of rural Canada do not even enter the Liberal radar screen.

While all this is going on, the internal strife within the Liberal Party remains the only issue about which the government actually cares. While not a nickel goes toward mitigating the crisis in rural Canada, the Liberals are suspending the rules of Parliament in order to ensure immediate passage of a law that will give the party a $9.1 million taxpayer funded gift on January 1 to make up for the fundraising shortfall caused by its leadership race.

Beef farmers and sheep farmers across the country deserve a higher spot on the government agenda than the internal concerns of the Liberal Party of Canada.

[Question No. 213, June 10th, 2003]

With respect to the issuance of Performance Bonds (form IMM 1230) and Security Deposits (form IMM 0514): ( a ) how many of each have been issued in each of the last five years; ( b ) for which types of visas; ( c ) what was the money value of typical bonds and deposits; and ( d ) how many were forfeited for non-compliance with the conditions of the bond or deposit?