Yasmin Ratansi

[May 9th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in question period on April 30, I had asked the Minister of Public Safety why he was not telling the truth about the detainees and why his own spokeswoman was contradicting him.

The people of Canada are proud of the courageous service being provided by the men and women of the Canadian armed forces currently serving in the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan, but many are deeply concerned with the escalation in violence and the worsening situation in the country.

There is no question that all Canadians support our troops, yet many across this country harbour certain doubts about the Minister of National Defence and the Conservative government's future plans in Afghanistan.

On April 19 the Liberal Party introduced a motion which would have provided Canadians with a definite conclusion to Canada's combat mission as scheduled in February 2009. No one is under the illusion that Afghanistan will become a fully self-sufficient state when the troops leave in 2009, and that is why the Liberal motion included a provision for a non-combat reconstruction role in subsequent years.

A Liberal government would ensure a clear and deliberate strategy in Afghanistan that includes a commitment to better integration of military aid and diplomatic efforts, an effective plan to deal with the illegal opium trade, and to address the chronic water shortage. Yet recently, the handling of the Afghan mission has been tainted by contradictions, confusions and cover-ups by the defence minister and this places our troops at further and unnecessary risk.

Under the Conservatives, the mission has focused almost exclusively on the combat role with little regard for diplomacy and reconstruction. Success in Afghanistan cannot be won by military means alone. The Soviet Union learned this lesson when the mujahedeen forced 60,000 troops out of the country in 1989 after the disastrous attempt to occupy the country.

Today, damaging earthquakes, limited freshwater resources, soil degradation, overgrazing, deforestation and a crumbling infrastructure all combine to make civil reconstruction a daunting task in the midst of continuous attacks by the Taliban, and yet the Conservative response to the mission has been to order heavy battle tanks and brand new medium and heavy lift aircraft. Since most of this new equipment will only arrive a few months before Canada is scheduled to withdraw in February 2009, many Canadians are left wondering if the Conservatives are really serious about ending our combat role.

I would therefore like to ask the parliamentary secretary one simple question for the record. On May 1 last year, members of this House voted to end Canada's combat role in Afghanistan in February 2009 and to provide adequate notice to our fellow members of NATO. Could the parliamentary secretary inform this House tonight that the Government of Canada has contacted our NATO allies and made it clear that Canada will end its combat commitments as scheduled in February 2009?

[Taxation, May 9th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the minister and his parliamentary secretary are so incompetent they do not even know they are incompetent.

This is about a minister whose approach to economic policy can be summed up in three words: ready, fire, aim. The minister's own estimates for the cost of this measure was off by 2,500%. If that is not incompetent, what is? His mistake will cripple Canadian industries and cost more jobs to hard-working Canadians.

When will the incompetent minister retract this disastrous policy?

[Taxation, May 9th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the ill-fated plan to kill interest deductibility was a fundamental multi-billion dollar mistake from the very beginning by an incompetent finance minister.

Weeks after the budget, the minister said he needed to spend some time on the issue. Yesterday he said that this is a difficult and complex issue.

Clearly the minister does not know what he is doing, and he wrote the budget. He simply is not up to the job. Should Canadians not have a finance minister who knows what he is doing?

[May 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to first correct the member. Thorncliffe is not in my riding. However, 15% versus 15.5% increase is an increase, and another $350. I do not think the member knows math.

A person earning $22,000 a year cannot benefit out of the working income tax benefit. They are too rich for that and too poor for the child tax credit. These are gimmicks.

I can assure the member that voters in my riding of Don Valley East do not forget it. They want child care spaces. They have not forgot the income trust fiasco.

When will the government own up to the fact that this is a visionless budget, a gimmicky budget, which has created no spaces and has not helped any person who is vulnerable. Instead, it has put 200,000 seniors back on to the tax rolls.

[May 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of my constituents of Don Valley East and debate budget 2007, the second budget introduced by the Conservatives since assuming office in 2006.

Budget 2007 will go down as the most visionless and meanspirited budget in Canadian history. In fact, with $12.5 billion in new spending, the finance minister has distinguished himself as the biggest-spending minister in Canadian history. This is quite a feat.

When the Progressive Conservatives were finally defeated in 1993, they left the Liberal government with a $42 billion deficit and a declaration from the Wall Street Journal that Canada was on the road to becoming a financial basket case. While the Conservatives love to repeat the empty rhetoric that the Liberals did nothing for 13 years, the fact remains that it was the Liberal government that turned around the desperate financial crisis, eliminated the deficit and began paying off Canada's national debt as early as 1998.

Let us fast forward to 2006,when the Conservatives inherited a $17 billion surplus and the lowest unemployment rate since 1970, and what do we see? The largest spending spree in Canada. But what did they spend it on? They spent it on gimmicks, pure gimmicks. So much for the Prime Minister and his Conservative talk about responsible government. Never before has so little been achieved with so much.

What are some of the gimmicks?

I asked the Minister of Finance a simple question. How has his budget helped real people with real problems? As for Marie who earns $40,000 and Judy who earns $22,000, how do they benefit from the working income tax benefit or from the child tax credit? They are either too poor or too rich. At $40,000, for pension splitting, how do they benefit?

When Canadians filed their income taxes, they also discovered another gimmick. The Conservatives claimed that they made a tax cut. Instead, those earning $36,000 a year or less actually experienced a tax increase from 15% to 15.5%. Does that sound like fairness?

Why is it that the neo-conservative budget is at the expense of the very vulnerable in society? This put 20,000 Canadians, most of them seniors, back onto the tax rolls. As an example, a person earning $15,000 actually experienced a tax increase of $149.

The Conservatives have squandered an opportunity. What did budget 2007 say about affordable housing? It said nothing, zip, zero.

How about day care spaces? Sadly, there was not one single space. In budget 2006, the Conservatives' hare-brained scheme to give tax breaks to the private sector crashed and burned when CEOs across the country universally rejected the plan.

How about the bombshell the finance minister dropped on October 31 when he wiped out over $20 billion in retirement savings with the decision to cut income trusts?

I would like to ask the minister or his representative how the government intends to assist Canadian investors, many of them seniors, who lost as much as 50% of their retirement income when the Conservatives broke their election promises.

[Committees of the House, May 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Status of Women entitled “The Impacts of Funding and Program Changes at Status of Women Canada”.

[April 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, without the court challenges program, how would somebody who has been detained wrongfully or tortured be given access without having to put out a lot of money?

It is important for us to note that the court challenges program is a program that protects the human rights of a person who does not have the wealth to protect himself or herself. As Canadians are celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we should be mindful of this.

[April 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the first statement the member made had me in shock. In the past 13 or 15 months, the new government has been the most unaccountable, contemptuous government we have had. It is arrogant. Hon. Michael Fortier, unaccountable senators and wait time guarantees are examples.

How about the fiasco that went on with income trusts? How about the Minister of National Defence? Every day in question period we hear this flip-flop. We do not know who is talking and where. The government has the most incompetent ministers.

I believe the government's cuts to the court challenges program were incompetent cut as well. If one looks at the court challenges program, solicitors and third parties have been talking about it and supporting it. The information between the client and the solicitor is privileged information, it is protected and cannot be released.

The program supports the constitutional rights of the official language minorities and vulnerable groups of people that cannot afford it. It is a good program and it should be reinstated.

[April 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I concur with the hon. member because the volunteerism Canada program was another very effective program. However, the minister did not even meet with them to tell them that she was cutting their funding.

I have had volunteer groups from parks and recreation, from all community organizations over the past few years and I have been doing my voluntary awards. This time I had to cancel the awards because the government cancelled the program. Volunteers contribute $6 billion to the economy and without them we would need to get $6 billion from somewhere.

I cannot understand where the government is going with its neo-Conservative agenda. How can it go after things that do not make sense? These are the social justice issues that help communities grow.

As the hon. member said, I was shocked and dismayed but then I do not know whether the Conservatives believe in the charter or not.

[April 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, justice under the Mulroney government was not served because it created abject poverty. It led the country down a track to where we were called a third world basket case and, hence, the Liberal government left the current Conservative government with a $13.5 surplus.

In a surplus environment, for the Conservatives to cut programs for the most vulnerable is a shameful thing. I cannot believe the member has the audacity to stand and challenge this. It would only take $6 million for the court challenges program, a program that helps the official languages minority, the vulnerable and the marginalized, I cannot understand his logic.