House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2008, with 50% of the vote.
Business of Supply May 14th, 2009
Mr. Chair, that is certainly not what the minister was saying back in November 2007. However, that is his statement right now.
The last time the minister's department was before the public accounts committee, a number of his employees were moonlighting to process claims before the respective agencies. Over the next day or two, they were adjudicating these claims. Can he confirm that has been stopped?
Business of Supply May 14th, 2009
Mr. Chair, it is a grant for sure and he is waiting for some conditions precedent on the money to flow. That is for sure.
The Minister of Finance announced in the budget that there would be a $50 million investment in slaughter capacity. That was budget 2009. Will the minister confirm for the Canadian public that this is also a grant?
Business of Supply May 14th, 2009
Mr. Chair, in January, the minister announced on behalf of the Government of Canada an investment of $6 million to Atlantic beef capacity in Atlantic Canada at the Borden-Carleton plant. There has been some confusion in this investment. I just want to confirm for the record that this is a grant and the money has been received.
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns May 13th, 2009
With regard to federal spending, how much financial support, both capital and otherwise, was given to individual airports over the last three fiscal years (2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008) in each federal riding?
Petitions May 13th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to present a petition regarding the ongoing humanitarian abuses that are taking place in Darfur. I am pleased to present this petition on behalf of Canadians for Action in Darfur.
Since 2003, over 400,000 people have been killed and millions have been displaced. Atrocities like this should not take place. As a peacekeeping nation, it is our responsibility to take the lead in the abolishment of the despair, kidnapping and death currently plaguing this region.
I am proud to present this petition to the government with the hope that the government will encourage and participate in all necessary measures to end this crisis once and for all.
Committees of the House May 13th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts: the eighth report on the 2009-10 main estimates, vote 15 under Finance; the ninth report on chapter 7, ”Detention and Removal of Individuals—Canada Border Services Agency”, of the May 2008 report of the Auditor General of Canada; and the 10th report on chapter 1, “Management of Fees in Selected Departments and Agencies”, of the May 2008 report of the Auditor General of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the member across did exactly what I predicted he would do. He read the speech prepared by the Department of Health saying that a research project had been funded but he made no attempt whatsoever to answer the question.
A motion was passed by the House and the member voted for it, the Prime Minister voted for it, as did 14 other Conservative members. The member across vividly recalls the motion, recalls voting for the motion and recalls what the motion stated. The motion called for the creation of a national strategy for autism and it was very specific as to what this strategy would entail. I urge members of the public to read that motion. There has been absolutely no attempt whatsoever by the member, the Prime Minister or any other Conservative member to follow through on that motion.
I will go back to my question and ask the parliamentary secretary to be specific--
Mr. Speaker, in May 2006, Andy Scott, the former member of Parliament for Fredericton, introduced a motion calling for the creation of a national strategy on the diagnosis and treatment of autism spectrum disorder and assisting the provinces in the funding of persons diagnosed with autism.
The original wording of the motion was not acceptable to the parties, especially the Conservative Party. There were extensive negotiations between the parties as to an amended motion that would be agreeable to all parties, or at least the Conservatives and the Liberals. The motion was amended to satisfy the wishes of the government members. On December 5, 2006, the motion as amended was adopted by the House. As a representative democracy, the House was speaking on behalf of all Canadians and each member who voted for this motion was speaking on behalf of their constituents.
The motion, as amended, reads:
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should create a national strategy for autism spectrum disorder that would include: (a) the development, in cooperation with provincial/territorial governments, of evidence based standards for the diagnosis and treatment of autism spectrum disorder; (b) the development, in cooperation with provincial governments, of innovative funding methods for the care of those with autism spectrum disorder; (c) consulting with provincial/territorial governments and other stakeholders on the requirements of implementing a national surveillance program for autism spectrum disorder; and (d) the provision of additional federal funding for health research into autism spectrum disorder.
Voting for this motion was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, the member of Parliament for Oshawa, the Prime Minister, and 114 other Conservative members. The motion was made in good faith and I believe all members were acting in good faith.
I reviewed the debates on this issue and the former Conservative member for Avalon summarized the mood of the House, saying that we were standing “shoulder to shoulder”. He also said, “Motion No. 172 addresses the concerns of the children themselves and hopefully the health care that is needed will be provided”. I should point out that that member lost his seat and was subsequently appointed to the Senate.
This House and all Canadians are extremely disappointed that there has been no strategy. There have been no meetings with the provincial counterparts, no standards, no study or concrete actions, nothing, zilch. Nothing has been done.
The parliamentary secretary will get up in a minute and he will read a speech prepared by the Department of Health. The response will ignore this motion. It will say that there were two or three research projects funded. It will say that the Minister of Health has met with some families and interest groups. It will say that the Minister of Health and the government are concerned, but it will not address the basic fact that this motion was totally ignored by the government.
Canadians are very interested in hearing the response of the government. I ask the parliamentary secretary to leave aside the written notes, to stand up in the House, address the Speaker and tell Canadians watching these proceedings what he was thinking about when he voted for this motion. Did he have any intentions of fulfilling the motion? Why did the other 114 members of the Conservative Party vote for the motion? Why has nothing been done? Why did the government abandon Canadian families that have persons suffering from autism?
If he gets up and reads what was presented to him, it will be an affront to the House, to every Canadian and especially to every Canadian family with an autistic child.
Customs Act May 4th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that is raised in the House quite regularly. People get on this list and there does not seem to be any quick way to get off the list. It is an international issue just as much as it is a Canada-United States issue, although I believe it is driven by the United States. Again, there has to be some protocol, some method of adjudicating whether those individuals should legitimately be on that list. If there is no reason for them to be legitimately on the list, they should be taken off.
Customs Act May 4th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, to answer the question, I do not think we are wasting our time. I hope we are not wasting our time. This legislation, as I indicated in my remarks, has several positive elements. It is a step in the right direction. It allows the customs agents and officers more powers within certain areas, and it facilitates some of the pre-clearing information that is required.
These are just two components of an overall system that basically has to become more efficient. More resources are required. More co-operation between the American and Canadian authorities is necessary. There has to be much greater use of technology. There has to be a greater emphasis on infrastructure so that things will flow smoothly.
Until those things are done, there is probably going to be a thickening border, but let us hope that the government will continue to work on it. Let us hope that there will be improvements made.
Some funds have been identified, but I am not aware of a whole lot of improvements that have been made. I still get an awful lot of complaints myself. Again, I remain somewhat cautiously optimistic. Let us hope that the situation will improve to the benefit of Canadian businesses, American businesses, and the people who live in this country and in the United States.