Tom Lukiwski

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 24th, 2006]

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

[Certificates of Nomination, April 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 110(2), I am tabling a certificate of nomination with respect to the Public Appointments Commission. The certificate stands referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions and I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, on Monday, April 24, at the conclusion of the debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, the question be deemed put and the motion be deemed adopted.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I find it quite ironic and amusing that this question would come from a Liberal. The Liberals have used the Senate as a landing pad for all the hacks and flaks political bagmen they have had over the years.

I admit that we have had some criticism from Canadians for the appointment of Mr. Fortier to the Senate. As the hon. member well knows, that this is not the typical Liberal Senate appointment. Come the next election, the senator from Montreal will be stepping down. It was done to get Mr. Foriter into cabinet to represent the city of Montreal.

Traditionally, I am sure the member knows this being a student of Parliament, the prime minister has within his purview the right to appoint anyone he or she wishes to his cabinet. Traditionally, if non-elected member is appointed, it is a member of the Senate. That is the process the Prime Minister took to ensure that the city of Montreal would be represented and will be represented well in Parliament.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, first, we will certainly fulfill our commitments that were presented to the electorate during the last campaign, and that is to, at minimum, support the farmers with an initial minimum $500 million in income support programs, which have to be changed.

He is quite right that Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre is a significant portion of rural Saskatchewan. I have many producers in my riding, as I am sure the hon. member does as do members who represent rural ridings across Canada. They are in dire straits. We have a financial crisis that is unprecedented.

Yes, income support is dominating the conversations that I have with producers, but I can assure the hon. member of one thing. Far more than those who are asking for quick cash are the cries for a government to finally to bring forward some long term vision for agriculture. Producers in my area did not seen that from the previous Liberal government. They have not seen that long term vision or any kind of an option plan to deal with the vision. Producers need to know what plans the government has for them. They have to make business decisions based on the government's course of action. They have not seen any long term vision or long term planning from the previous Liberal government. More than anything else, more than income support, they are asking our government to provide that vision, and I can assure members that we will.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 11th, 2006]

I am sure you will, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for that.

This is my first opportunity to speak before the 39th Parliament. As many members before me have done, I would like to take a few moments before I get into the main body of my speech to thank a number of people.

First and foremost, I want to thank my family, particularly my wife who was extremely supportive not only in the election of 2006, but also in my first election in 2004. As you know, Mr. Speaker, since we have had a close friendship over the past number of years, it was a seat where I was not supposed to win for a number of reasons. My wife seemed to be the only one, besides myself, who had any confidence in my abilities to win that. That confidence was unwavering. I can assure all members that without the 110% support from one's wife and family, this is not a profession that one wants to get into. Once again, to my wife, Diane, I want to give her my thanks and my love for all her support.

I also want to say that friendship to me as well as family are the most important things in a person's life. There are two very special friends who have supported me all my career, Diane and Butch Lasek, and I thank them as well.

My colleague from Selkirk, who is sitting behind me, also deserves some mention for motivating me to be the best parliamentarian I can. It is kind of a perspective thing, I suppose.

Finally, I want to thank all the good people and the voters of Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre who sent me back to Parliament. I can assure all members that it is an honour and a privilege that I do not take lightly. There is not a Canadian who I know who would not feel the same sort of feeling I get when I stand in this chamber and address colleagues and Canadians. It is an honour not to be taken lightly. I am sure at one point in time every member here, when they started their political career, felt the same feelings that I have felt over my career. I want to assure the constituents of Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre that I will do my utmost to represent them and their views to the very best of my ability.

The reason we are here is to talk about the throne speech, of which I am extremely proud for a number of reasons, but primarily for this reason.

When I was first elected to Parliament in 2004, I ran on a campaign promising my constituents that if I were elected, I would do my utmost to clean up the waste and corruption in government. At that point in time, we were first starting to find out the sordid details of the sponsorship scandal. Most of my constituents, quite frankly, were sick and tired of what they felt were self-entitlement practices not just the federal Liberals, but of all governments across provincial jurisdictions. It crossed all party lines.

The message I heard back in 2004 was quite clear and strong. It was that I do what I could, if elected to Parliament, to clean up government, to make it more accountable, more transparent and more reflective of the desires and wishes of ordinary Canadians who wanted to see governments work on behalf of the voters. They felt that they were the masters of the political domain, not the politicians. I took that message very seriously. During the first 18 months, while in Ottawa, I did what I could, whether it be in committee or in this chamber, to bring those feelings from my constituents to the forefront and to do what I could to try to ensure that we had accountable and transparent government.

When we brought down the throne speech, in which the highlight in my opinion was the fact that we would bring in the accountability act, the strongest anti-corruption law ever seen in Canada, I felt that finally I had arrived. I felt that my constituents finally would be able to look at our party and government and say that we had done what we were asked to do, that we had taken some significant steps to ensure accountability of politicians and governments, that transparency was uppermost in the minds of the governing party of the day.

I am very proud that the Prime Minister and my party have introduced the federal accountability act to this place today. It will go a long way to restoring public confidence in all politicians.

I know from time to time, perhaps more often than not, opposition parties will criticize the government. They will criticize it on the basis of the throne speech being too flimsy and not having enough vision or being too shallow. That is just politics.

The Conservatives did the same thing when we were in opposition. It is the job and role of opposition parties to criticize the government and, hopefully, in addition to just criticizing, to bring forward plausible and intelligence solutions. I will absolutely guarantee that every member here feels the same way as I do. I do not believe there is a crook in this room. I do not believe there is a crooked politician in this room.

I believe every member in this place feels as I do. We want an accountable government to ensure our constituents are proud of us and proud of the work we do. We can absorb the criticism because that is part of the political game. However, I feel quite confident that all members in this assembly will do the best they can to ensure their motives and desires on behalf of their constituents are reflected in an honest and above board manner.

The problems we have seen in years past, which led to the sponsorship scandal as we know it now, were the fault of perhaps some Liberals, perhaps some individuals associated with the Liberal Party on the periphery and just maybe it was a little deeper than that. I absolutely believe that is behind us, and it should be behind us.

That is not to say, and I will give fair warning to the members opposite, that I will not bring that baggage out from time to time when I feel it is opportune to do so. I know the opposition is going to be critical of the Conservatives. That again is the political process in which we live. I honestly believe everyone in this assembly knows that we cannot afford to have any events like the sponsorship scandal to ever tarnish the names of politicians and parliamentarians again.

I want to assure all members of this assembly that, while I am proud of my party and the throne speech, I recognize that we will at times agree to disagree, but it will not diminish my respect for any member of this assembly. I can give this one assurance to you, Mr. Speaker, and to members on the government side and opposition side. I will continue to work on behalf of not only my constituents, but on behalf of every member of this assembly to regain the lustre that politicians once had. I believe this assembly needs it and members of this Parliament deserve it.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I must apologize to members present if I start coughing a little bit during my presentation. As some members know, I had a bit of a health problem last year. I suffered a heart attack. I am on some medication that gives me this dry cough throughout the day and throughout the evening. In my line of business, as everyone knows, it is not the easiest thing in the world to speak for 10 or 15 minutes constantly coughing. I apologize in advance if I bother any members here.

Before I begin, I must again congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your appointment. It is a great honour for one so young and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that your mother must be extremely proud of you.

This is my first opportunity to stand before the 39th Parliament.

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 11th, 2006]

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

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 10th, 2006]

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

[Privilege, April 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to provide further details in response to the question of privilege raised by the member for Scarborough Southwest, who alleges that his privileges have been breached since he was unable to meet with public service officials during the last election campaign.

While I cannot comment on the specific details the member identified, as these circumstances took place under the previous government, I am able to confirm that the Privy Council Office does not have a policy that prohibits public servants from being in contact with members of Parliament during an election. While the PCO provides guidance to departments on appropriate activities during an election, such as limitations on government decisions and announcements and restrictions on the political activities of public servants, there is no policy that states public servants cannot speak to MPs.

With respect to the question of privilege, my understanding is that the member for Scarborough Southwest is arguing that his inability to meet with these public servants prevented him from carrying out his duties as a member of Parliament. However, this raises a grey area which the Speaker could advise on, as the events the member refers to occurred when Parliament was dissolved.

For example, it could be argued that in Canada's system of government, a member of Parliament is a member of a particular Parliament. When a particular Parliament is dissolved, that Parliament is terminated and no longer exists, and there is no Parliament of which to be a member. Accordingly, it could be argued that the member for Scarborough Southwest, who is currently a member of Canada's 39th Parliament, was previously a member of Canada's 38th Parliament until that Parliament was dissolved on November 29, 2005.

It can also be argued that this constitutional principle--that during dissolution there is no Parliament and hence an MP ceases to be a member of Parliament following dissolution--is recognized in section 69 of the Parliament of Canada Act, which states that members of the House of Commons at dissolution are deemed to continue to be MPs for the purposes of the payment of their salaries until the next general election.

If MPs legally remained members of Parliament during a dissolution, there would not be a need for this provision of the act. However, that is not to say that for practical purposes members of Parliament do not continue to have constituency duties to assist constituents with respect to government services.

The dissolution of Parliament also meant that all business of the House of Commons, including its committees, had been terminated.

While I understand that the member for Scarborough Southwest continued to have an interest in the work that the Subcommittee on Public Safety and National Security had been conducting before dissolution, it is clear that the subcommittee no longer existed and that its review of the Anti-terrorism Act was terminated.

Because these alleged events took place while Parliament was dissolved, it is clear that the member's privileges could not have been infringed upon. Marleau and Montpetit, at page 51, state:

The House has the authority to invoke privilege where its ability has been obstructed in the execution of its functions or where Members have been obstructed in the performance of their duties.

It is also stated at page 52 that:

--individual Members can only claim privilege insofar as any denial of their rights, or threat made to them, would impede the functioning of the House. In addition, individual Members cannot claim privilege or immunity on matters that are unrelated to their functions in the House.

Given that at the time these alleged events took place the member for Scarborough Southwest did not have any parliamentary duties, it is my submission that the member's privileges could not have been breached.

That said, I would like to take this occasion to advise the House that this government is committed to taking an open and constructive approach with all parliamentarians. We will be responsive to requests from parliamentarians for ongoing information and briefings.