Tom Lukiwski

[Business of Supply, November 1st, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I want to make a couple of comments and ask the minister a specific question because I find it odd that we have members opposite saying that with the billion dollar expenditure reduction that this government implemented it affected Canada's most vulnerable.

Could the minister comment on the fact $47 million of that billion dollar expenditure reduction came from reducing the size of cabinet? I suppose only Liberal members could think that federal cabinet ministers are among Canada's most vulnerable. I would suspect that they think that way because, as all Liberals, the taxpayers' money is really not important, it is what use the money is to the Liberals.

I would suspect that the minister might have some comments on why a $47 million reduction in the size of cabinet would result in good value for Canadian taxpayers.

[Business of Supply, November 1st, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I rise on a point of order. My understanding of the procedures tonight is the hon. members opposite would be able to ask questions about the spending estimates of the minister's budget, not whether individual members of the government are questioning about particular cuts. I do not see the relevance that question has to the estimates of the department, and I would ask for a ruling in that regard.

[Points of Order, November 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, let me say first that I thank the hon. member opposite for his point of order. Clearly it is a complex issue. We would like some time to consider this issue. We will come back in the near future, I should say, with our submissions and response.

[Motions for Papers, November 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 107 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.

[Government Response to Petitions, November 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(b) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 14 petitions.

[October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I could listen to my hon. colleague all evening but, unfortunately, he only had a minute and I only have a minute to respond to him.

Once again let me reiterate that the public works minister will be stepping down and running in the next general election. He made that commitment when he was appointed to cabinet and the Prime Minister made that commitment when he made the appointment. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that they are not following through on their commitments in terms of re-election.

Mr. Fortier will face the electorate in the next general election. The will of those voters will actually be something that both Mr. Fortier and the Prime Minister will respect. I think the member continues to harp on this issue when in fact he really does not have a constitutional leg to stand on.

[October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to set the record straight. My hon. colleague and I have had discussions on this matter before and I think we both agree to disagree with the method by which the Prime Minister ensured that Canadians from coast to coast to coast would be represented in our cabinet.

I am quite sure that the hon. member would be critical of our government if we had a cabinet that did not have representation from the second largest city in Canada. That is the genesis and the motivation, from the Prime Minister's standpoint at least, as to why Mr. Fortier is now in cabinet. We wanted to ensure that Canada's second largest city had adequate representation.

How does one go about doing that? Constitutional experts will tell us that to appoint someone to cabinet the person must be someone who has been appointed from another House. Since Mr. Fortier did not run as a candidate for the House of Commons or for Parliament in the last election, it would stand to reason, constitutionally, that if we wanted to appoint him to cabinet then he should be appointed from the Senate, which is exactly what the Prime Minister did. He first appointed Mr. Fortier to the Senate so he could then have him in cabinet for representation in Canada's second largest city.

The member may scoff at that and say that it goes against all campaign promises of democracy and accountability. Let me again point out to the member that this is not an appointment, as the Liberals and others have done, to the Senate for life. This individual will be stepping down from the Senate to run in the next general election. That was the commitment of the Prime Minister when the appointment was made and that is the commitment from Mr. Fortier himself.

Let me also say that this is far from being an unusual or isolated case. Over the course of our parliamentary history, many senators have been appointed to the cabinet. I can think of one that sticks in my mind very vividly because he came from my home province. The senator, an individual by the name of Mr. Hazen Argue, who has now passed on, was appointed by a Liberal government to represent voters as minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. There have been several other examples. Again, from a constitutional perspective, this is something that has been accepted and, in fact, from the constitutional side, insisted upon.

It is the right and the obligation, I would suggest, of the Prime Minister to ensure that all Canadians are represented adequately and with full integrity, which is exactly what happened in this case. The Prime Minister appointed someone to represent Canada's second largest city.

Let me just say in conclusion that this is obviously something that took a great deal of internal courage, vision and leadership, because, quite frankly, everyone knew and the Prime Minister certainly knew that he would be criticized for making this move. He did it because the Prime Minister, as I well know, as everyone in the House knows and as Canadians well know, is not guided by political polls. He is guided by principle. He did this, in spite of the criticism, to ensure that all Canadians in the city of Montreal were represented adequately.

[October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the minister will be meeting with the standing committee as soon as possible. However, let me address one of the points that the hon. member has made.

While in her esteemed opinion Bill C-257 is a bill that will protect both the workplace and the worker, independent analysis and studies have proven just the opposite. In fact, studies have proven that for those companies that do not have replacement workers, the strikes last a shorter duration and the settlements are actually higher. These are well documented.

For those reasons and many more, I would suggest that all members of the standing committee take a close look at the impact that this bill will have. I will assure members that banning replacement workers will have nothing but a detrimental effect on both the employer and the employees.