Tom Lukiwski

[Criminal Code, May 17th, 2005]

Are you criticizing our police?

[Criminal Code, May 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I must say it will be my pleasure to speak later this evening in support of this private member's bill. I just want to say one thing and I will add to it when I make my presentation later on.

I come from Saskatchewan. My home town is Regina Beach. I used to live in Regina. Regina is currently, and has been for several years, the stolen car capital of Canada. The per capita car theft in Regina is higher than any other major centre in Canada, so I am very familiar with the destruction and the problems with which car theft is associated in the community.

I applaud the member for bringing forward the bill. One thing we have seen, and it has been demonstrated quite clearly in Saskatchewan, is that when possible, the Saskatchewan government insurance is able to add a deterrent on to the driver's licence of any car thieves. In some cases and some cases only, the provincial government insurance is able to put the cost of the victim's deductible on to the driver's licence of the perpetrator. It has been demonstrated that we have driven down car thefts in Regina by that very small deterrent. The member is talking about a far larger deterrent and I am here to illustrate that in Saskatchewan, deterrents work.

I would applaud the member for bringing the bill forward. I do not really have a question, it is a comment that I think this is the right approach. Does the member want to respond to that?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Cambridge had two very good questions. I will take them in order.

We have advocated for many months that we should be separating the Atlantic Accord from the budget. If the NDP supported that position, we would be in total agreement. Let us get it done. Let us get money to Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia as quickly as we can.

I find it very interesting that the members opposite, in their unholy alliance with the NDP, would not support their partners in crime on this one. If they are truly sincere in wanting to get money to the Atlantic provinces quickly, why do they not join with us and let us get it done?

The Liberals do not. Why do they not? For one reason and one reason only. Politically, they want to try to put the blame on the opposition. That is the only reason they are doing this. They are trying to make it a political issue. Once again, they are playing with the lives of people for their own political purpose.

Any time we have a knee-jerk reaction to something as serious as the budget, we will have problems. We have seen $2 billion unnecessarily wasted on the gun registry. We see examples like the sponsorship scandal, designed exactly for the same purpose, which was to try to buy votes for Canadians in Quebec, the biggest criminal and corrupt scandal in Canadian parliamentary history. We should not support Bill C-48 because it has all of the elements of the same problems.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 17th, 2005]

Because the members opposite have said that they want to get money to the Atlantic provinces quickly.

We were the ones, if members recall, who were for years pressuring the government to do this. It was only because of a political commitment the Prime Minister made during the heat of last year's election that this ever came to fruition. Then, after the election, for several months the government tried to renege on its promise.

We pressured the government. Premier Danny Williams from Newfoundland and Labrador pressured the government to the point that the Liberals had to admit it and say, “All right. We will come forward with our election promises”. But if they were truly sincere in a desire to get the money to the Atlantic provinces quickly, there was no need to put it in the budget. It could have been a stand-alone piece of legislation.

We have asked for it to be taken out of the budget. Members of this House could pass that if we wished. If there were unanimous consent in the House for all three readings we could get the money that is desperately needed in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia to them quickly, but this government refuses to do so.

The member asks whether that is cherry-picking. Those members have already set the standards for that. We already know what cherry-picking is and we see it in Bill C-48. The Atlantic accord should not have been included in the budget to begin with. That was our position at the time. That is our position today.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the Atlantic accord should not have been included in the budget to begin with. It should have been a stand-alone piece of legislation--

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 17th, 2005]

I am sure that all the political junkies who are tuning in to get their political fix today have nothing better to do, so this debate will probably fill a void for them. I am pleased to speak and help those people get their political fix.

I should say at the outset that even though this is a debate on Bill C-43, I feel we cannot really speak to this legislation without also speaking to Bill C-48, because the two are obviously intertwined.

I think we have to put things in context. These two bills are rather unprecedented. This is the first time in recent memory that I can remember not one but two budget bills being delivered. In fact, it is my understanding that both of these bills need to be passed on Thursday evening for the government to avoid a non-confidence vote, so let us talk about the fact that these two bills have been brought down together, what that means and what the impacts are.

Members may recall that Bill C-43 passed the first stage a few months ago. At that time, although Conservative Party members abstained from the vote, we did so because we felt that the government deserved to go forward. Our party did not think that Canadians wanted a general election, at least at that point in time, so our members abstained from the vote. Shortly after that, of course, in fear of the government going down, the NDP proposed a solution, one that is a political solution, I might add, and not a financial solution, and introduced and cut a deal with the government that ultimately led to the creation of Bill C-48.

I have to set the record straight on a few points.

First, the Minister of Finance has said on several occasions that it was the Conservatives who flip-flopped on our position of support on Bill C-43 and that is why the government was forced to seek an arrangement with the NDP. In fact, that is not true. What happened was that the revelations coming out of the Gomery inquiry were of such magnitude and such impact that we felt the government then did not deserve our support to remain in office. We then clearly indicated that we would be trying to take the government down at any and every opportunity. It was only because of this situation that the government then entered into negotiations with the NDP. The ultimate creation was this bill called Bill C-48.

It is this bill, quite frankly, that gives me quite a bit of concern, because we all know that this was a political deal made not in the best interests of Canadians but in the best interests of the Liberal Party of Canada. In fact, this deal was cut in a hotel room in Toronto without the presence of the Minister of Finance.

We hear all the spin from members opposite, who are saying that the Minister of Finance was involved. I have never seen a budget consultation that created a budget bill for Canadians while the Minister of Finance was on the phone listening to House leaders from two different parties create a budget bill. It is unheard of.

It is incumbent upon all Canadians to understand that this was a political solution to a problem the Liberals felt they were facing, and that was the defeat of their own government. This was not a bill that was constructed to help Canadians. This bill was constructed to help the Liberal Party of Canada.

Now that I have provided that framework, I think I can talk a bit more about Bill C-43.

I must admit that there are elements of Bill C-43 with which I agree. There are certain things contained in the bill, particularly with respect to the RRSP provisions in the elimination of the 30% restriction on RRSPs. This alone is something that many people in my riding had been asking for over several years. Over many elections the government talked about implementing that provision, but in my recollection, this is the first time it has actually brought it forward in a budget. That is something I applaud.

There were a few other points that I could agree with, but here is what happened when Bill C-48 came into the mix. This was a plan, and I use the word “plan” very lightly because I think there was no real forethought put into it, and a bill brought forward that literally could be contained on a page and a half. This was a bill that was put together on the back of an envelope, to use the vernacular, in order to try to save the political hide of the Liberals.

What happens when a budget is put forward that has spending commitments of over $4.6 billion without a true plan on how to implement it? It is a recipe for disaster.

I think the Minister of Finance also understood that, because at the time Bill C-43, the original budget bill, was brought forward, the Minister of Finance was effusive in his praise about his own bill. All members opposite were lauding this budget as one of the best budgets in years.

However, when questioned by the media and by members of the opposition as to the potential of amending that bill for political purposes, the Minister of Finance was quite clear. He stated unequivocally that we cannot .cherry pick budgets. We cannot take certain elements out of a budget and put other elements in because that is a sure recipe for deficits, for deficit disaster.

Those were the words of the Minister of Finance, but what happened only a few short weeks later? There was a political deal cut, without his knowledge, I might add. The very things he was warning all Canadians about happened. Why did they happen? Once again, it was for political purposes: to suit the Liberal Party of Canada.

Frankly, I feel sorry for the Minister of Finance because his legs were cut out from underneath him by the Prime Minister. The Minister of Finance was not consulted about this. He was told, “We must enter into an agreement with the NDP to save our political hides”. Now, across Canada, the Minister of Finance, to his great embarrassment, is trying to defend Bill C-48 when in his heart of hearts he knows as well as I know and as well as most Canadians know that Bill C-48 is an unmitigated disaster. It was only done for political purposes, and that is the worst thing that Canadians expect of any political party and any Minister of Finance.

Budgets, whether we agree with them or not, should be crafted to try to represent the views of the government of the day and hopefully to represent the views of the majority of Canadians, to help Canadians but to be financially and fiscally responsible. Bill C-48 destroys all that credibility, Whatever credibility there was within the original budget bill, Bill C-43, Bill C-48 goes to great lengths to destroy it. That is something I simply cannot support and I do not think most members of the House should support it.

We are in the situation right now where there is a lot of political tension. That is obvious. Many political observers are saying that we are on the brink of an election. Clearly today's announcement puts that in some doubt because of the numbers shifting a little, but I do not think Canadians should have to expect that budgets affecting the lives of Canadians from coast to coast to coast should be put in jeopardy for political purposes. I do not think Canadians expect that budgets should be crafted and designed in order to better prop up the political fortunes of any party. Whether it be Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats or the Bloc, Canadians expect and deserve better, but it is just not happening.

If there was going to be an attempt by the New Democrats to craft a deal with the Liberals to amend the budget and to bring in a new budget, or a better budget, as they like to call it, then I would think that at least there should have been consultation with all members of the House and with all parties. There was not. The NDP tried to further its own political purposes in a hasty deal with the Liberals. It totally ignored the reality of what people in my province wanted to see.

For example, in the original budget bill, Bill C-43, there was literally no mention of agriculture, none whatsoever. The NDP then suggested a solution, an amendment that it said would help Canadians in all provinces across Canada. I can tell the House with great certainty the people of Saskatchewan are absolutely opposed to Bill C-48, because once again, with an amendment and the opportunity before it to bring something to the province of Saskatchewan, the NDP totally ignored agriculture. The NDP had the government over a veritable political barrel. It could have introduced some significant changes and benefits for Canadian agriculture and farmers in Saskatchewan, and yet it did nothing.

Let me close by saying I think it is a travesty that this government is trying to promote a bill that was crafted strictly for political purposes, thus reneging on its own commitment to Bill C-43. This is unconscionable, and at least Bill C-48 should be defeated.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the assembly today and speak to Bill C-43, particularly because my understanding is that today is a rather slow news day--

[Petitions, May 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of the good people from Bethune, Saskatchewan, who are very concerned about the possibility of closure of rural post offices.

The petition is signed by many members of the Bethune and area communities who wish that not only in Bethune but that all rural post offices remain open.

[Sponsorship Program, May 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the last thing this assembly needs is to have the minister lecture members on making statements that might be harmful to someone's reputation. Perhaps it is not all the fault of the minister. Perhaps the fault lies in his genes.

We heard confessions, not allegations, from Richard Mimeau that he pocketed $6,000 of dirty money, yet he is still working for the government. When will the Prime Minister stand up for Canada, do what is right and fire every ad scammer that is currently working for the government?

[Sponsorship Program, May 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard confessions that Richard Mimeau, one of the top aides to the current Minister of Transport, received $6,000 in dirty money for working on Liberal election campaigns. What is very troubling is that Mr. Mimeau was not part of a parallel group; rather, he was another top supporter of the current Prime Minister. These revelations show that the current ministerial staff of this administration were directly involved in ad scam.

Will the Prime Minister have us believe that he was so inept that he was unaware of his key supporters being involved in swindling ad scam money?