2005-04-22

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from April 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-43, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23, 2005, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is important this morning to put some comments on the record regarding this very important bill. This is a bill that has some very big difficulties.
It is an important bill that should have been passed in the House of Commons this session. Unfortunately, there are things within the context of the bill itself that are very worrisome and which impact in a very negative way on Canadians, particularly Canadians on the east coast with the Atlantic accord and the Kyoto accord.
In a manoeuvre that appears to disclose a hidden Liberal agenda, Bill C-43 arrogantly disregards the best interests of Canadians. What should have been a straightforward implementation of the budget is in fact an attempt to pass legislation that deserves open discussion in Parliament and specific individual attention, namely Kyoto and the Atlantic accord.
The Liberals knew that the majority of the House would not approve their Kyoto measures if they were presented in stand-alone legislation, so they attached it to Bill C-43. This move has, at the very least, delayed legitimate budget measures from implementation and may even put their implementation at risk. Canadians deserve better than this.
Why is it that some of the measures in this bill are not reflective of how they were presented in the budget document? For example, the Department of Finance website assures Canadians that the Liberal government will “deliver on commitments made in the 2005 budget”. The budget stated that the amount of the share of the gas tax would rise to $2 billion annually or 5¢ per litre by 2009-10. While part 11 of Bill C-43 allows the transfer of 1.5¢ per litre of the gas tax to the provinces, territories and first nations for sustainable infrastructure projects, the Liberals have reneged on the remainder of their commitment.
In a recent survey conducted by the Manitoba chapter of the Canadian Automobile Association, respondents nearly unanimously agreed that Canada's roads and highways are a part of health and safety. They are a health and safety issue. The same group unanimously agreed that the federal government must reinvest more of the gasoline excise taxes collected in roadway development.
The days of neglect must be reversed. Further delay is not an option. Prior to the last election there were grandiose announcements about how this issue would be addressed, yet this issue has not been addressed.
In light of the glaring need for immediate action, how is it that the Liberal government only authorized gas tax transfers until 2005-06? Instead of fulfilling its 2004 election campaign promise and providing critical infrastructure assistance, the gas tax transfer has simply become another example of an election promise gone unfulfilled again.
Doing what we say we will do means planning how to fulfill a promise. That is again planning how to fulfill a promise, not planning on how to make excuses. Canadians deserve better. The Liberal government once again violated the trust and confidence of the Canadian people.
Senior adults in nursing homes deserve our respect and care. In my riding of Kildonan--St. Paul, as in the rest of Canada, low income seniors do not have time to wait for years to see increases to the guaranteed income supplement. Senior adults have invested in our communities for most of their lives, making them better places in which to live. They deserve to have their basic needs met with dignity and compassion.
As Bill C-43 stands, our senior adults in subsidized nursing homes may never see the guaranteed income supplement at all. Ironically, the nursing home operator or the province could become the recipient. Why are safeguards not put in place, ensuring provincial programs will not claw back part of the GIS increases?
Low income seniors in my riding frequently tell me they are struggling to put enough food on their tables. The GIS increases do not go far enough or occur fast enough to provide a substantial benefit to the low income senior adults of Canada. Senior Canadians deserve better.
The Conservative Party will continue to hold the Liberals to account for wasteful spending. Over a decade of Liberal waste, mismanagement and scandal has clearly revealed that billions of dollars sent to Ottawa would have been better managed if they had been left in the pockets of Canadians.
Our low income seniors could have had the means to live their sunset years with dignity and respect. With more gas tax revenue, our towns and cities could have had the resources to maintain roads and highways. The way Bill C-43 was put together was a very crafty way of doing it, so Kyoto would be passed.
I must speak to the Atlantic accord briefly because it is a very important aspect that needs to be pushed through to help the people on the east coast. The Liberals are holding the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia hostage by linking the Atlantic accord provisions, which most members in the House of Commons support, with Kyoto measures, with which many in the House of Commons have voiced concerns. The Atlantic accord provisions in Bill C-43 could be passed in one day if the Liberals would table stand-alone legislation.
It is critical that this game playing with the futures of Canadians be stopped. The fact that the Kyoto measures have been put in are a great concern. The Liberals knew the majority of the House would not approve their Kyoto measures if they were presented in stand-alone legislation. That is why they attached them to Bill C-43. This move has, at the very least, delayed legitimate budget measures from implementation and may have even put their implementation at risk.
There are things in traditional budget bill measures that are very important and there are things that need to be put through, but when other aspects of a bill are linked together that cause grave concern, then obviously a responsible government would ensure that these are taken out and put in a stand-alone position.
The Conservative Party does not play games with the well-being of Canadians. It is high time the Liberals stopped playing politics and followed the lead of the Conservative Party by acting in the best interests of Canadians. All Canadians deserve better.
Having seen the events that have happened in the House since the beginning of the session, it is high time that serious consideration be given to taking a closer look at legislation that would be better for Canadians and not manoeuvring legislation, so that pet projects get to be put through, regardless of what Canadians think.
Mr. Merv Tweed (Brandon—Souris, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about the Atlantic accord in her opening comments. In my constituency, we sent out a survey asking people for their thoughts in regard to the Atlantic accord and whether the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia were being used as pawns in the game. At that time the survey response was overwhelming. I was not only surprised but very impressed at the grasp and understanding that people in western Canada had of the issue.
I would ask the member to comment on some of the comments she has heard in her constituency and also the relevance of the game playing that appears to be going on by including the Atlantic accord in the budget as opposed to a stand-alone bill.
Joy Smith: Mr. Speaker, my riding is in the centre of Canada and my party is concerned about our whole nation. When things happen on the west coast, on the east coast, in Quebec or anyplace in Canada, we as a party are very concerned about the well-being of the people of Canada.
In response to that question, let me say that the Atlantic accord is extremely important. As I said in my speech earlier, that accord could be passed in one day. The reason it is so important is that it increases the quality of life for people on the east coast. It is what they deserve.
There is unanimous agreement within the House that the Atlantic accord should be passed. Everyone is anxious to have that happen. Unfortunately, through typical Liberal manoeuvring it was hooked into Bill C-43. It became a part of that bill. In order to have everything passed we have to make sure that every element of Bill C-43 is best for Canadians. Kyoto was linked in as well. It is well known that people in the House have strong feelings that there are definite problems with some of the Kyoto aspects of the bill.
What we are saying today is that the Atlantic accord should be lifted out of this legislation and made into stand-alone legislation. Let us get this passed in one day, because we are concerned about the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador and those all along the east coast. They are Canadians who have contributed to our country in a major way. At this time they have an opportunity to be the recipients of resources that have been owed to them for a long time. This is our concern.
The Conservative Party of Canada is appealing to the government to take a closer look at Bill C-43 and make sure that the stand-alone elements are lifted out so that we can make sure the people of Atlantic Canada are taken care of.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her speech and also for her knowledge of the situation as it pertains to the Atlantic accord agreement and the benefits that should be accruing right now to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and to Nova Scotia.
She mentioned taking the single piece of legislation pertaining to the accord out of this omnibus bill. The Liberals have countered with “pass the bill and everything passes”. I will ask her if this is reasonable. When we compare one two-page piece of legislation, which has been agreed to by the provinces and by the Prime Minister, with an omnibus bill, is it fair to ask people to make that comparison?
Joy Smith: Mr. Speaker, absolutely and very clearly in my opinion, it is not fair. The Atlantic accord should be stand-alone legislation and it indeed could be passed in one day. The sad part of this is that people's lives are being used; men and women and families at their breakfast tables in the morning are being put at risk because it does not allow them to get on with planning their futures and their financial well-being.
We know why governments are in place: for the well-being of the people of Canada. That is what we should be concerned about. The political game playing and that kind of thing is of no interest to anybody outside these walls. Clearly that is important.
Mr. Yves Lessard (Chambly—Borduas, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this morning to Bill C-43, the budget implementation bill. I am especially pleased to be able to speak the day after the Prime Minister's address to the nation.
This budget is consistent with the Prime Minister's address to the nation. In other words, this budget ignores the public interest, and it is based on the purely political interest of saving his own party. In fact, this budget is strategically designed as a campaign tool.
First, this budget totally ignores the priorities of Quebec. Implementing this budget would clearly contradict our own purpose, which is, first and foremost, to defend the interests of Quebeckers, who have given us the mandate to come here as a strong majority, in terms of members from Quebec.
Bill C-43 should have been an opportunity to make significant improvements to the budget. However, it includes initiatives we find unacceptable. It supports the agreements with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia and, with regard to Kyoto, it sets out measures based on the polluter-paid principle, instead of the polluter-pay principle.
The minority Liberal government should have seized the opportunity presented by Bill C-43 to make real compromises and reflect on the political situation and the message it is getting from all across Canada about the changes that need to be made to government policies.
This morning, my remarks are intended, naturally, for the Liberal members. In particular, I want to warn them that they will take the fall, and even if the majority of the country does not want an election, one will be necessary given the position in which the government is putting the Canadian public.
I was saying earlier that Bill C-43, to implement the budget, is consistent with the Prime Minister's speech yesterday. Last night, the Prime Minister appealed to the nation. It was quite pathetic, because usually a national appeal is in the interests of the entire nation. This means that the head of state, in his official capacity, must speak from on high in the best interests of all Canadians and particularly, in this case, Quebeckers, given the serious damage inflicted on them by the Liberal Party as a result of the sponsorship scandal.
Yesterday, we would have expected the Prime Minister, rather than addressing the nation to ask it to save his party, to apologize for not doing something about the current situation in Canada. We would have also expected him to acknowledge that he was responsible in large part for that situation because, when the Prime Minister was the Minister of Finance and, thus, the custodian of public funds, cheating occurred on the other side of this House for many years. He should have acknowledged that he made a mistake not only by failing to watch more closely over those who were dipping into the fund, but also by withdrawing support from municipal infrastructure.
I am also referring to the Guaranteed Income Supplement and how the government simply decided to deny seniors information about their rights. Today, as a result, seniors are still owed $3.3 billion and the government is preventing that money from getting to them. Yet, these people are among those who need it the most. He should have apologized and said that the situation would be corrected.
In terms of infrastructure, he should have arranged to have measures in place to prevent municipalities from fighting over who wins the jackpot. He should have also acknowledged what we owe to seniors and give them back the money they are entitled to and put money back into the fund for social housing.
The government made these promises in the mid-1990s, and did not start financing these sectors again until 2001. He should have told the public last night that he was sorry, that he made a mistake and that he mismanaged things. He should have added that, effective immediately, since the money is available, he will make amends.
Families are owed a major apology, all of the families of Quebec and Canada, because of the Unemployment Insurance cheat, the $46 billion taken from it. The Prime Minister pulled off a David Copperfield style magic trick to make $46 billion disappear, and now he says this was virtual money and no longer exists. Yet that $46 billion had been accumulated by reducing benefits to the unemployed, even though they and their former employers had contributed to it.
Today, a mere 38% of them can hope to receive EI benefits if they end up unemployed. There ought to have been an apology and a commitment to put that money to its proper use. Instead we are being told today that the money does not exist and that it is all virtual.
Are these employee contributions to the EI fund, and the contributions by employers, who pay $1.40 for every $1 the employees contribute, virtual? Do they exist or do they not? That deduction on people's pay stubs, are we to understand that the government did not keep it? That it was returned? If that was the case, then it has gone somewhere. Into the party's fund? I hope not. So it must be somewhere.
This talk of virtual and non-existent money is tantamount to deceiving the public. The Prime Minister ought to have told us that last night, ought to have admitted that he had deceived us. Only then would he have gained any credibility. He ought to have made a commitment to put the money back into the fund. Then he would have been credible.
So where is that money? It is being used as a hidden tax in order to decrease the debt, although that burden must be assumed by the entire community and not just one part of it. It is even worse when the money diverted has a specific purpose at a time when people are losing jobs and in difficult situations. If they are impoverishing families in this way, is it surprising that there are so many poor people, so many children living in poverty in this country?
If there are children living in poverty, it is because there are parents living in poverty. If there are parents living in poverty, it is because certain people are passing measures to prevent them from receiving benefits after losing their jobs, despite having contributed their entire lives. It is an outrage and the Prime Minister should be ashamed. Why did he not mention this yesterday evening? He would have had credibility, had he done so. He would have been speaking in the interest of the country and of Quebeckers, too, who have taken the fall for him for the underhanded dealings and fishy business connected to the sponsorship scandal.
Tying the election to the Gomery commission means making Justice Gomery shoulder a burden that is not his to carry. It is the same as saying that, when he renders his decision and tables his report on all the testimony he has heard, he will be telling the public which way to vote. That is not the judge's responsibility.
The judiciary has nothing to do with politics. The issues raised by the sponsorship scandal are directly related to public interest. This is political. The Canadian public, and not Justice Gomery, has to make that decision as soon as possible, to stop these people from getting their sticky fingers on the cash.
Hon. Keith Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one thing I think most people in the House know very clearly, with the exception of the Bloc Québécois, is that our country is better than the sum of its parts. The province of Quebec, my province of British Columbia and all provinces in this wonderful nation, including the territories, are better together than individually.
Our government has continued to treat all provinces and individuals, be they from Quebec or from any other part of this wonderful country, as precious Canadians, as individuals to be respected. We have ensured that the concerns of all Canadians, be they individuals in Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, British Columbia, the Yukon, aboriginal or non-aboriginal, immigrant or non-immigrant, are handled with grace and tact.
With respect to the Gomery inquiry, our government wants to lay out all the facts about something any member of Parliament or Canadian would find distasteful, where a small group of people misappropriated funds. The Prime Minister opened an inquiry to ensure that all Canadians would understand what went on, and the person who would be responsible for that inquiry would be Judge Gomery, an independent individual. I do not know anything more that anyone else could possibly do.
Last night's speech by the Prime Minister was a superb intervention directly to the Canadian public. He talked about what he had done to get to the bottom of this. He also underlined the fact that he had asked the RCMP to investigate and that he would try to recover the money. He has made a promise to all Canadians that if any moneys, down to the dollar, have fallen into the hands of our party or into the hands of anyone else in an illegal fashion, it would be returned the Canadian public. That is the honest thing to do.
Could the member describe to me in honesty how our government has not treated the people of Quebec with absolute fairness and respect by ensuring that their social and economic concerns are met? I think he will be very hard pressed to come up with any credible criticism of that whatsoever.
Yves Lessard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked two questions.
The first concerns the advisability of waiting for the Gomery report. We would be prepared to wait for it if its contents were challenged by the Canadian public. Seventy-six per cent of Canadians say they do not believe the Prime Minister knew nothing, as he claims. Yesterday he said he was sorry and that he ought to have known. What he ought to have acknowledged, instead, is that he did know. Canadians know that he did. It is important to acknowledge this.
The second aspect relates to my raising the point of injustice to Quebec. This arises out of two things: first, the burden placed on the people of Quebec as far as the sponsorship scandal is concerned. The scandal is primarily linked to people from Quebec, people with whom we are not associated in any way, but from whom the Liberal Party is having a hard time dissociating itself. That is the first thing.
There are many injustices, but the most flagrant one of these is perhaps the economic injustice of fiscal imbalance. This involves a shortfall of a clear $2.4 billion annually. That money does not get back into the coffers of Quebec. The federal government has a broader tax base than Quebec, so Quebec, as we saw in Mr. Audet's budget yesterday, has all manner of problems in making ends meet. The situation will be the same whether the government is PQ, Liberal or anything else. Why is that? Because the obligations are in Quebec while the money is in Ottawa.
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, the budget of this year is a landmark budget. I think what some Canadians do not understand is the balance between fiscal responsibility and social programs. There are some who would suggest that we should spend, spend, spend.
On a certain level, that is perhaps attractive. We have many needs in our country such as homelessness, poverty, people who would like to find jobs, individuals with drug problems and children in poverty. There are a whole host of social issues with which we have to be grapple, as in any country. Some people would suggest that we should pour money into many different areas and spend without taking into consideration the bottom line.
Why is the bottom line important? Why does the Canadian government not print money? Why does the Canadian government not simply pour money into all these programs without due responsibility to the bottom line?
When our government came into power in 1993, we had a mess on our hands. We had massive deficits and huge debts that were left by a Progressive Conservative government. Those deficits were added on to a debt. What does that do to the social programs? What does that do to the most vulnerable in our society? What does that do to the major income generators in Canada, which is the private sector? It crushes all of those.
To be fiscally irresponsible is to be socially irresponsible. To spend more than we take in and to engage in deficit spending hurts the most vulnerable in our society, damages the private sector, eviscerates our competitiveness and it destroys the pool of funds that we receive from our private sector, our tax base. By deficit spending and increasing our debt, we increase the amount of money we must pay in interest. That takes money from the sharp edge of what we need for our social programs and puts it into debt repayment, on the interest on the debt. That is irresponsible.
When our government came into power, we had to make some very difficult choices. We had to engage in a process of belt tightening to ensure we could get into a surplus situation. The Liberal government has over the last eight years produced those surpluses.
If we look at this internationally, it is very intriguing. The last few Economist magazines have shown that Canada is leading in the G-8 countries in terms of our economy, and that is exceedingly important. By having a strong economy, we can provide the tax base and engage in what are called the ying and the yang of what this job is all about: having strong fiscal management and a strong tax base which provides us with the moneys to provide the social programs that our neediest require. That is the responsible thing to do.
To do the alternative, which is to overspend, as some people would wish, or to go ahead and spend moneys that we do not have would only hurt the most vulnerable and damage our ability to pay for needed services.
I was formerly a part of the Conservative government. One of the reasons I left was the income and the economic plans for that party were absolutely irresponsible. Quite frankly, it shocked me.
A parallel to this is what is happening south of the border. The Republican party, a party that one would think would be right of centre and would have good fiscal management, is doing the exact opposite. It has engaged in a $470 billion deficit spending this year. That will crush the economic backbone of the United States. It is an irresponsible thing to do.
Mr. Greenspan, head of the Federal Reserve Bank in the United States, came out in the last 48 hours and made a very strong statement to the U.S. government, saying, “You must get your spending under control”.
That is what I found in the Conservative Party's missive before the last election. The economic budgetary plans for a Conservative government would have put us into a deficit situation. That is a line that we absolutely cannot cross.
It is simple to be in opposition and promise the earth, as the Conservatives did in its defence plans. One reason I left them was that their defence plans were so large and expensive. In combination with the massive tax cuts in the spending priorities, that they would have put the country into a profound deficit situation. This would have eroded and removed the ability of a government to pay for needed programs, including defence. That is something a government in the 21st century simply cannot allow.
We need a government that spends within its means so it can do what it has to do. Indeed, we have made promises and we have fulfilled them.
Just this week we introduced a comprehensive veterans' benefit package, the best package in decades. We are helping those veterans and their families who have given so much for our country, a wonderful country in which to live. These Canadians have given their lives to preserve our peace and security.
We owe them for their service and our government delivered on that promise this week. Much of the information in the package came from veterans, many of whom live in my area of Victoria, British Columbia and my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. I am profoundly grateful for the input of those veterans.
As well, we have delivered on a balanced budget for the eighth year in a row. We also will introduce new legislation for homelessness. This will happen in the next few weeks.
We have put into place the largest investment in defence in the last 20 years to ensure our men and women in uniform, who do a yeoman's job, will have the personnel, the equipment, the training and be taken care of when they do their job for our nation.
We have done a lot more. We have reduced taxes for some of the poorest people to address poverty. The Minister of Social Development and others are working on plans with respect to child care and early learning. To ensure our children have the best chances for the future, we must reduce the number of social problems such as fetal alcohol syndrome and youth crime. We must ensure that children stay in school longer and that they have a healthy start, or head start. They need to live in a loving and caring environment that is secure, with discipline parameters and good nutrition. They need to be engaged by their parents or parents.
We are working on this with the provinces, and we are committed to doing that. By engaging in that healthy start, that head start program, we will ensure that a whole host of social issues and challenges will be reduced.
I have seen that clinically on the ground as a physician. We can look at the work that has been done in the last 20 years, from programs in Ypsilanti, Michigan to the work done by former labour minister of New Brunswick and her husband Doug. This will ensure that kids will become well-adjusted, functional adults and that social problems will be reduced substantially.
Also, my province of B.C., of which I am very proud, is the first province to sign on with respect to the gas tax rebate. Those moneys will go directly to the municipalities for critical infrastructure. This is extremely important because the needs on the ground are extensive. Municipalities know the needs in their areas. The moneys will be directed to these critical infrastructure needs, in cooperation with the province and the municipalities. I want to thank the minister involved for that.
I am very proud of the budget put forward by our government. For the eighth year in a row we have surplus budget, which is the perfect compromise and match of good fiscal responsibility and social responsibility. I think all Canadians will see that in the future and they will see it in the next election.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's comments. Aside from the breathtaking, staggering hypocrisy, the shedding of his political skin is one thing but he also completely abandons any memory of the factual basis of the debt load in this country. He refuses to acknowledge that when the Conservative government came to power in 1984 the spiralling deficit left by the Trudeau administration was one never seen in a G-7 country in the history of the world.
I hear a lot of chirping coming from the other side. I know we have now changed the voting laws so that the Liberal government can now garner votes from inside prison but they may soon have an opportunity to campaign directly there for that support, Mr. Speaker, in your constituency.
The member shows dexterity in sidestepping some of the accountability of his own government and is very deft at refusing to mention that his government is mired in the largest fiscal scam ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public. What he is actually demonstrating is something that a friend of mine, Donald, once described as podia-dexterity, which is the ability to put both feet in one's mouth at the same time.
I want to ask him a direct question dealing with the offshore accord, which was jammed into the omnibus, blunderbuss budget implementation bill that is before the House. What the government did, again in a very deceitful way, after having signed a stand alone deal with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador to give 100% of the revenue stream from the offshore oil and gas to those very deserving provinces, is it hid it in with 24 other items and suggested that somehow it was an all or nothing offer to Canadians, that they had to take all of these unrelated items or take nothing and then somehow hold this over people's heads that they had to take this.
The people in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador understand what the government is trying to do. It is trying to back out of the commitment that the Prime Minister made in desperation during an election campaign and now it is trying to somehow weasel away from that commitment that is costing those provinces millions while the interest accumulates on their provincial deficits.
Why is it that the hon. member neglects to acknowledge that the offshore oil and gas accord can be a stand alone bill, brought before Parliament, passed immediately in the House with the support of all members and we can put that implementation process in place, allow those provinces to start receiving the revenue to deal with the infrastructure challenges and the education and health care challenges that they are still suffering under as a result of cuts of his now newly adopted government?
Why is it that he can stand in his place and be such an adamant apologist for a government he once so fiercely condemned when he was on this side of the House before he abandoned his party and his principles?
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, it is because I am standing by my principles that I made that move and that is why I changed.
It is time that I cut through the political hyperbole that the hon. member is extremely adept at using to obscure the facts. What I will do right now is let the member know the facts for his own edification. He should look very carefully at where he is sitting in his party.
When I joined the Reform Party I was proud to do it because the party was standing up for getting our fiscal House in order. Unfortunately, if the hon. member were to look at his party's last budgetary projections, he would see very clearly that his party stood for the same Bushenomics that is taking place south of the border where it will be engaging in deficit spending. What the Conservative Party is pursuing with its large tax cuts in combination with massive spending will crush the economy of this country.
This government will not tolerate that for one second because, in doing that, not only would we be compromising our social programs but we would eviscerate and damage the private sector, which is a major economic generator. That is something we will not tolerate.
I ask the member to look at the facts. He might want to look at the $41 billion we put into health care. He may want to look at the gas tax rebate that we worked on with the provinces and the municipalities. He may want to look at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities that said very clearly that they were profoundly grateful, deeply honoured and pleased to be working with the government to ensure those moneys get down to the ground for the infrastructure needs that the member is talking about.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I welcome this brief opportunity this morning to address Bill C-43, the budget implementation bill. I want to acknowledge the member for Central Nova for giving me the opportunity to be next to speak. I am sure my constituents appreciate that.
I have to say that, as I heard the last exchange between the parliamentary secretary on the government side and the deputy leader on the official opposition bench, I ended up shaking my head and thinking no wonder Canadians cannot make sense out of what on earth is going on in this Parliament today.
I am not going to follow the rabbit tracks and use up my time to try to reconstruct the absurdity of that member, who sat first in the Reform and then in the Alliance caucus, pushing and pushing the Liberal government to cut and cut until there was nothing left of some of our most basic services, such as infrastructure, as the member himself acknowledged, post-secondary education, health care and the broken child care promise. All those things that the government promised in 1993 that it would do if elected to office, his party across the way, the ultra cons, kept pushing the government to cut further.
Now he stands up and says that they on that side will repair the damage. However he does not quite say that he had a major role in pushing for the government to make these massive cuts in the first place.
This brings me to four brief points I want to make in the few minutes available to me. On the issue of the Atlantic accord, the government members and the official opposition members keep leading Atlantic Canadians to believe that they support the speedy delivery of the resources to Newfoundland and Nova Scotia that are contained in that accord.
However it is clear that instead of making this Parliament work, instead of taking the fact that if not every member, at least the vast majority of members are committed to doing that, the government, for its own cynical reasons, has tied up the Atlantic accord in the implementation bill in such a way that it is costing the people of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia dollars that they cannot afford out of the most basic services that they desperately need rebuilt as a result of the hacking and slashing by the Liberal government, egged on by the Conservatives.
If the government were serious about making this Parliament work, it would immediately do what it has been urged to do by the New Democratic Party. In this instance, one of those rare instances where we actually agree with the Conservatives, the government must take it out of the budget implementation bill, get the commitment of dollars flowing and remove the uncertainty and the threat that the Atlantic accord may go down the tubes because of the government's cynical and ham-fisted handling of it.
I want to pick up on the government member's bleeding heart comments about how important the government's commitments are to infrastructure. In my riding a few nights ago, hundreds of people came together in the fire hall in Ketch Harbour to say that they were desperate to get the new water and sewer facilities that have been withheld from them for 40 years.
The following statement was accurately reported by the provincial daily paper, the Halifax Herald , which reads:

While the municipality is kicking in $5 million, the provincial and federal governments are giving a little over $2 million combined.

In other words, the combined contribution from the federal and the provincial governments is less than one-third.
For many years we were able to put together infrastructure projects that were about clean water and sanitation with a formula of one-third contribution from the federal government, the provincial government and the municipal government.
The reality is that what is such a disgrace about the inadequate contribution of infrastructure funding to this project in my riding in Halifax is being repeated again and again all over this country because the government has systematically decided to give billions and billions of dollars in tax breaks to big corporations and the wealthiest of Canadians over the years, still including in the budget $4.3 billion in tax cuts to corporations while people go without the basics of clean water and adequate sanitation services. Those are the priorities that are still reflected in the provisions of the budget implementation bill that we have before us.
I want to say that hope springs eternal. Last night we heard the Prime Minister basically say that we had to get on with the job and do what needs to be done. I think every Canadian wants to see the government cooperating with the opposition parties to do what needs to be done but that starts today, this hour, this moment with indications from the government that it is prepared to do what needs to be done to make changes in the budget implementation bill that is before us.
I hope the government will not literally drop the promise made by the Prime Minister last night across the airwaves and the very next morning turn its back on the commitment made. Let us see if the Liberals mean what they say, and that means changing the legislation that is within their control and the budget that is before us and begin to get the job done, which requires the government changing some of its ways.
The next thing I want to speak to is post-secondary education. During the election, the Prime Minister, in a desperate bid for votes in an all Canadian job interview targeting youth, the post-secondary education students, said he would return $8 billion to post-secondary education funding. I do not think anyone expected that he would return $8 billion of post-secondary education funding all in one budget.
We are dealing here with a Prime Minister who loves to talk about targets and timetables and who says that if we mean the commitments we make, we develop an implementation plan, develop timetables and targets and say how we will keep this promise of recommitting $8 billion to core funding and education, and at least begin to ease the burden that has been heaped on our students.
Has the government done this, even in the budget implementation bill now before us? Absolutely not. Not one red cent was recommitted to rebuild core funding for post-secondary education in the budget, and we know the disastrous results. The results are that tuition hikes continue. Students at Dalhousie University in the heart of my riding have seen almost a 10% tuition hike as a result of the $8 billion broken promise that was made by the Prime Minister on the eve of the election.
Finally, I tried to speak to what is happening locally and to what is happening nationally and internationally. It has to be one of the biggest disgraces of this budget that the Prime Minister and the government yet again have turned their backs on the long established commitment made by a previous prime minister, Lester Pearson, that Canada would lead the way in committing 0.7% of our GNP to overseas development assistance.
Again and again people before the foreign affairs committee have pleaded the case for us to honour our commitment to the millennium development goals, honour our commitment to actually be a good global citizen and commit to that 0.7%.
Not only was there no indication that they were prepared to do it in general, there was absolutely no implementation plan, no targets and timetables, to the utter disgrace and humiliation of Canada in the international community.
The Speaker: There will be five minutes in the time remaining for questions and comments for the hon. member for Halifax when this matter next comes before the House.

Statements By Members
Multiple SclerosisMrs. Susan Kadis (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I recently participated in a very positive, inspiring event as the honorary co-chair of the Richmond Hill-Thornhill Super Cities Walk for MS. Richmond Hill Deputy Mayor David Barrow and I had the distinct pleasure of meeting many of the people who were involved in organizing this event, as well as many of those who have been affected by MS.
The Super Cities Walk for MS occurs across Canada annually, including over 75,000 participants in more than 150 communities, fundraising over $9.7 million. Our event had over 600 participants who together raised over $65,000.
Every day in Canada three more people are diagnosed with MS. Although there are many different forms of treatment for MS, much more still needs to be done to combat this disease.
It is the success of events like this which will eventually result in a cure being found.
I would like to heartily congratulate all those who organized the event as well as all those who participated with such great energy, dedication and determination. The commitment of all those individuals to this cause certainly brings great hope to the thousands across Canada who have been affected by MS.
InfrastructureMr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, three days before the last election campaign, Ottawa Liberals held a fancy press conference in Barrhaven, where they promised $200 million in infrastructure.
One year later, they have broken their promise. The money still sits in the federal vault. The federal Liberals have not even signed a contract, just a press release.
Now they are playing politics again. The Liberal mayor and Liberal helpers on council have teamed up to threaten that if local voters do not choose the Liberals in the coming election, they will lose the dollars altogether.
Liberals could put an immediate end to this fear campaign by simply transferring the dollars now. No delays and no more excuses: they should just keep their word and pay up.
Our community cannot afford these political games. We need the Armstrong Bridge to serve Riverside South and Barrhaven residents. People in South Gloucester need to get across the river to the west side. This needs to happen. As their member of Parliament, I am--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville.
Parkinson Society CanadaMr. Wajid Khan (Mississauga—Streetsville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to mention to my colleagues that April is Parkinson's Disease Awareness Month in Canada and around the world. Yesterday marked the 40th anniversary of Parkinson Society Canada.
Today more than 100,000 Canadians suffer from Parkinson's disease. Sadly, experts are predicting that this number will more than double over the next decade. Also troubling is the fact that there is a diminishing number of neurologists who are able to assist and treat those who are suffering from the devastating impact of Parkinson's.
Please join me in offering our support to Parkinson Society Canada as it works to fund research for a cure and to deliver support programs that are essential to those battling Parkinson's today.
Homelessness in QuebecMr. Robert Bouchard (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the City of Saguenay forum on homelessness provided an alarming picture of the extent of that phenomenon in Quebec and in my region.
In my riding of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, and in many other places in the Saguenay, there are twenty or so agencies in need of $5.5 million that have only $1.8 million.
The issue here is of people being unable to meet their basic needs, unable to put food on the table or find suitable housing. I need not say more. The government has to make a commitment. Period.
The Bloc Québécois urges the federal government to make a promise right now to renew the SCPI program in order to help the least fortunate in our society.
Organ Donor Awareness WeekMr. Lloyd St. Amand (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize National Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Week.
I was fortunate to attend the Brant County Organ Donation Awareness curling bonspiel held April 9 at the Brantford Golf and Country Club. It was very moving and inspiring to hear from those who had received the gift of life through organ donation.
Canada has one of the lowest rates of organ donation in the world at 13 donors per million population. Some areas, such as Toronto, have only 10 donors per million population.
In Canada, up to 30% of people waiting for a solid organ transplant die on the waiting list. There is a chronic shortage of hearts, lungs, kidneys, livers and bowels for transplant in Canada. There are more than 3,500 people awaiting organ transplants in this country.
In recent months there has been much attention focused on the idea of creating a living will. It is my hope that all Canadians will take the time to speak to their families about organ and tissue donation.
Liberal Party of CanadaMr. Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the citizens of my riding to voice their disgust at the sight of the Prime Minister of Canada cowering in the shadow of the Gomery inquiry. May we never again witness the spectacle of a Prime Minister desperately pleading for permission to cling to power, arguing that he should govern Canada because Gomery might not convict him.
This is a Liberal government in crisis, stewing in its own fraud and corruption.
This is a Liberal Party that has debased our democracy through the theft of public money, the abuse of public trust and the commission of fraud, conspiracy and public money laundering. The Liberals have campaigned with dirty money, violating the rule of law, breaking electoral laws, referenda laws and the Criminal Code.
This government has damaged our country and its institutions. Today it can only feign moral authority to govern. This is a Liberal Party of cowardice and avarice.
Gomery is the judge, but Canadians will be the jury. An election will come, a judgment day which shall bring an end to this squalid Liberal Party that has embarrassed our country.
Earth DayMr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on April 22, 1970, the world celebrated its first Earth Day. On this the 25th anniversary of Earth Day, I commend all Canadians in communities across this country for their efforts in demonstrating their care and concern for our natural environment.
I know that in my riding of Davenport various events are planned around the community, including the planting of tree seedlings. These actions are practical and important ways for all people to show that they honour and have concern for our environment and the world.
It is what Earth Day is all about. This is our home. Today especially, we are reminded of our obligations to take care of it.
Soil Conservation WeekMs. Denise Poirier-Rivard (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the 20th anniversary of Soil Conservation Week, observed from April 17 to 23.
Let us use this week to reflect on the importance of protecting this critical resource, our soil. This conservation effort aims not only to protect the soil as the foundation for a sustainable agricultural industry, but also to promote its environmental role as a natural tool for reducing greenhouse gases.
Healthy soil can act as a natural carbon sink and, as such, may contribute to providing at least 20% of the solution in mitigating greenhouse gases.
If it is true that from the soil comes life, then the sustainability of our planet relies greatly on the health of this fragile veneer. May National Soil Conservation Week be an opportunity to live up to these forward-looking ideals and to recognize all those who give back to the earth to keep the soil healthy and productive for future generations
Earth DayMr. Russ Powers (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today over 500 million people from 180 countries will celebrate Earth Day.
This year Canadians have many more reasons to be hopeful about our environment and to continue to experience pride in Canada. Canada and this government boldly pursued Kyoto's objectives on the international stage, while here at home the Conservative Party denounced Kyoto and attempted to prevent its ratification.
Last February, thanks to the efforts of this government, Kyoto became international law. Immediately afterward, this government tabled Canada's greenest budget to date, followed by an ambitious and achievable plan that will allow us to honour Kyoto and ensure a competitive, innovative and prosperous green economy for generations to come.
Canadians are not fooled by the Conservatives' attempt to camouflage their opposition to Kyoto. Let me quote the Leader of the Opposition:

What I am supportive of is, frankly, not ratifying the Kyoto agreement and not implementing it.

The Conservatives' position on Kyoto is just another reason why the Conservatives are so out of touch with Canadians.
VolunteerismMr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize National Volunteer Week. This week is set aside to honour and recognize the 6.5 million Canadians who volunteer throughout this country.
In my riding of Elgin--Middlesex--London, I have met many great volunteers in many organizations. These are people of altruistic thoughts and deeds. Their actions are to make their home communities better places, to provide opportunities to their families and others that otherwise would not occur and to provide the community capacity to accomplish great things.
I would like to thank many of my friends in organizations as far-reaching as our local youth centre, the not for profit endeavours of our local Junior B hockey team, all the great coaches in minor sports programs and all the great mentors in organizations like junior achievement.
I ask members to please join me in celebrating 62 years of National Volunteer Week.
FamiliesMr. Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, recently, I had the pleasure of seeing a play put on by the children at Les Débrouillards child care centre and the Énergiecentre in Val d'Amour, New Brunswick. This play, entitled Famille sans respect, famille sans success was part of the program “Moi, je contrôle mon agressivité”.
This play was part of a project to find positive strategies to curb aggressiveness in children.
I want to congratulate the children who put on this play: Marie-Pier Savoie, Joshua Pitre, Emmanuel Borris, Véronic Thibeault, Anthony Maltais, Jean-Philippe Savoie, Valérie Ouellette, Émilie Maltais and Derek Lurette, under the supervision of Angeline Gaudet.
Post-Secondary EducationAlexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, during the 2004 election the Prime Minister promised to reinvest $8 billion, which he in fact had cut, back into post-secondary education core funding. In a spectacular betrayal, the 2005-06 budget did not contain a red cent toward keeping that promise. Another promise made, another promise broken, with disastrous consequences.
At Dalhousie University in my riding for example, medical, dentistry, law and international students face tuition hikes of over 9% this year. Some medical students, graduating with debts in excess of $100,000, are faced with a government that will not even extend interest relief while they are completing their residencies.
Last week Liberal members voted down my private member's bill that would have reversed Liberal imposed discrimination and at least would have allowed the most desperate students to qualify for bankruptcy relief two years after completing their studies. My plea to government members to send Bill C-236 to committee to allow MPs--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary West.
The Prime MinisterMr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in 1970 Prime Minister Trudeau spoke to the nation to address the FLQ crisis. In 1990 Prime Minister Mulroney spoke to the nation to announce the failure of the Meech Lake accord. In 1995 Prime Minister Chrétien spoke to the nation in advance of the Quebec referendum. Yesterday the Prime Minister spoke to the nation to save his career.
In a desperate and diversionary ruse to buy his moribund government more time, the Prime Minister promised an election, but only in 10 months. Why do we not first take a look at what he has done in the last 10 months: no meaningful tax cuts, no democratic reform, no dealing with the fiscal imbalance.
The Prime Minister has become an expert at making promises, but keeping them is a whole different matter. The Prime Minister has dithered so often that he does not ever actually get anything done. We must judge our politicians not on what they say, but on what they have done. The Prime Minister has shown that the only thing he does is break promises.
ColombiaMr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on April 14 and 17, the town of Toribio, Colombia, came under attack. The guerillas left the town in ruins. Houses, the church and the hospital were destroyed.
The internal armed conflict in Colombia started over 40 years ago and has led to the widespread violation of human rights and international law. There have been massacres and murders at the hands of the guerillas, paramilitary groups and the armed forces. There have been numerous kidnappings in Colombia too.
Currently, over 3,000 Paeces Indians are calling for the return of their land. They have returned to Toribio, with the support of a United Nations delegation. These people are an example of peaceful resistance to war. They reject war as a means to resolve the country's social and political crisis.
I want to pay tribute to these 3,000 men and women who believe in peace and who are promoting peace in their country.
Workplace SafetyMr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Weyburn and District Labour Council in my constituency has invited me to attend their annual ceremony for the April 28 National Day of Mourning. It is a day of mourning to recognize workers who have been injured or killed on the job.
Each year in Canada an average of 1,000 workers are killed and hundreds or thousands of others are injured or suffer illnesses as a result of workplace related diseases. It is a time to mourn, to reflect, and to the extent we can, to share the horror, the trauma and the emotion that workers and those close to them have had to face.
We must, because we are in a position to do so, commit ourselves to fight for healthy and safe workplaces. Our human resources are the most important fundamental cog in our expanding and ever-changing economy that defines us as who we are. We must fully understand that human life in all of its aspects is precious and is our most precious commodity that must be treated with respect. We must do everything we can to ensure a safe and healthy workplace.
Conservative Party of CanadaHon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are now trying to pretend to be friends of new Canadians, but they are not fooling anyone. Just look at the facts.
That is the same party whose members fought against the right to wear a turban in the RCMP, who wanted to cut immigration numbers because of the jobs they were supposedly stealing from Canadians, and who have long wanted to cut funding altogether for multiculturalism.
It is the same party where a certain leader once referred to immigrants as “people who live in ghettos” and whose Conservative colleagues once advocated going to the camps to pick and choose those who should be allowed in Canada, not to mention a former MP of the same gang who wanted to put Oriental and other immigrant employees in the back of the store.
As we say in Glengarry--Prescott--Russell:
“The more things change, the more it's la meme chose ”.
National Day of MourningThe Speaker: I now invite the House to rise and observe a minute of silence to commemorate the National Day of Mourning and to honour the memory of workers killed or injured at work.

Oral Question Period
Sponsorship ProgramPeter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, last evening the Prime Minister looked Canadians in the eye and asked them to believe him this time.
In sworn testimony before the Gomery commission he told Canadians he did not know Mr. Boulay very well. Yet according to Mr. Boulay's wife, they were part of the family that the Prime Minister worked with on his 1993 campaign. They worked at his office. Following the election the Prime Minister joined 11 other campaign workers for an intimate brunch at the Boulay home. Of course, we know the Prime Minister wrote a highly personalized and even flirtatious letter to Mr. Boulay and his wife.
How can the Prime Minister with these glaring contradictions on the record expect Canadians to believe him?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will have ample time in this question period to explore that and other questions.
However, I would like to note that yesterday the communications director for the Conservative Party drew an absolutely horrendous comparison between the Prime Minister of Canada and Osama bin Laden. Surely this defies all the rules of civility and decency.
As we begin today, I would invite the deputy leader of the Conservative Party to disavow that comparison.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister should come here and deal with that situation himself.
Diane Deslauriers, Claude's wife, was known as the queen of ticket sellers. She was very active in the fundraising efforts of the Liberal Party and on behalf of the Prime Minister. In her spare time from selling tickets she even organized a fundraising golf tournament for the Prime Minister. It is interesting to note where the former Prime Minister's balls are now.
The Prime Minister was the senior minister in Quebec and we know his leadership campaign was well underway.
It is just not believable when the Prime Minister says he barely knew some of the most active Liberal fundraisers in his home province. Just how stupid does he think Canadians really are?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, members of the Conservative Party might recall an incident in the last election campaign where they made horrendous assertions against the Prime Minister and they paid a very important political price for that.
The Prime Minister's testimony is on the record with respect to Mr. Boulay. He stands by that testimony.
I think we are all best advised to let Mr. Justice Gomery review all of the facts of this matter to get to the bottom of it in a thorough independent way. When we have his judgment, when we have his view of what transpired, then we can all draw conclusions.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, those are more desperate attempts at distraction from the Liberal Party.
Claude Boulay says he worked on the Prime Minister's 1990 leadership fund. He was at the 1993 election campaign. In fact in the 1993 campaign Mr. Boulay claims he met with the Prime Minister a couple of times a week, and his wife met with him daily at times during that campaign. They dined together at the Boulay home, yet the Prime Minister says it was a casual acquaintance.
Is it not the real truth that the only casual acquaintance the Prime Minister is having is with the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact is that what Madame Deslauriers said is that 12 years ago she hosted a brunch, a thank you brunch for campaign volunteers after the election.
The fact is that the Prime Minister has said in his testimony that he met Mr. Boulay occasionally as part of groups at political functions. That is entirely consistent because that was a political function. The Prime Minister is being completely honest, unlike that party which compared the Prime Minister of Canada to a mass murderer and a terrorist.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister had every opportunity during his remarks last night to clear up some of these glaring contradictions between his testimony and others.
The Prime Minister said that he only met the Boulays in 1990 and that their relationship was “short term”. He said, and I also quote, “I did make his acquaintance at the beginning of the leadership in 1990 but it didn't last for long”. Yet the Boulays both testified that they worked extremely closely with the Prime Minister on his 1993 campaign.
Why did the Prime Minister mislead the Gomery inquiry?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is a very successful politician. The fact is the Prime Minister has been involved in a number of very successful campaigns. Part of successful campaigns is having a large number of good organizers involved in them.
They are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. They spent most of the week talking about birthday greetings from a Prime Minister who sends out 50,000 of them a year.
It is important to remember what the member for Prince George--Peace River said last year, “If we took action to remove a person every time someone is accused of something, there wouldn't be many politicians in this country”. He was defending a colleague at that time.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty sad when the Prime Minister and his ministers equate being a successful politician with the fact that they are avoiding answering these types of questions.
When asked about his relationship with Claude Boulay and his wife Diane Deslauriers, the Prime Minister said, “I do not know Mr. Boulay very well, nor do I know Ms. Deslauriers very well”. Ms. Deslauriers, however, testified under oath yesterday that she worked every day with the Prime Minister on his 1993 campaign, that they were like family.
Can the Prime Minister explain the glaring contradiction in his sworn testimony?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, Ms. Deslauriers said that the campaign organization felt like a big family. That is a big difference from what the member is inferring. Mr. Boulay said in fact that he never met with the Prime Minister one on one, only at political functions. That is entirely true.
The opposition members are once again misrepresenting daily testimony. They are taking selectively from testimony to support their own narrow partisan argument. That is the true dishonesty. Our Prime Minister is interested in the truth and he stands with Canadians to support Justice Gomery.
1995 ReferendumMr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for the former director general of the Quebec wing of the Liberal party, it is clear that the government broke Quebec law during the 1995 referendum. Benoît Corbeil has said that the $4.8 million Ottawa paid to Option Canada, and never accounted for by the No campaign, was used to organize the Montreal “love-in”.
In connection with the sponsorships, the Prime Minister said “I was Minister of Finance, and needed to be more vigilant. Public money was misdirected and misused”.
Will he now recognize that he was equally negligent with Option Canada, which used Ottawa's money to break Quebec law?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, every bit of evidence on the public record indicates that the contracts that the hon. gentleman referred to were properly handled through the Department of Public Works according to the ordinary competitive processes.
If there are any questions left to be determined beyond that, that is why we have a judicial inquiry that will determine all of the facts to the satisfaction of all Canadians.
Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, an odd reply from a minister from whom I requested an investigation into the sponsorship scandal. Here in this House, that minister told me such a thing was pointless, and accused me of lacking confidence in the Auditor General and the RCMP. That was what he said then, but now he has changed his tune.
He has misunderstood. I was not asking about the Prime Minister's contracts. I was talking about Option Canada, and the untraceable $4.8 million used illegally during the 1995 referendum. This was under the direction of Claude Dauphin, the present PM's right-hand man.
What is his comment on this? Will the Prime Minister admit that he was negligent here as well?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if there are any such allegations to be made with respect to any of the contracts referring to advertising or sponsorships, that is precisely the mandate of the Gomery inquiry. That is the way to determine the facts, independently and fairly.
I think it is obvious in a political forum such as this, on one side or the other, there are political interests to be advanced. That is not where the issues can be determined, such as those in front of Judge Gomery. He is the one who can make an independent and fair judgment.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Option Canada, a not-for-profit organization funded by the taxpayers' money, was created by the Council for Canadian Unity. Option Canada has been identified as being at the centre of the Liberal network. That organization was knowingly in violation of the Quebec referendum legislation in spending $4.8 million on behalf of the No campaign.
Can the Prime Minister, who was at that time Minister of Finance and vice-president of the Treasury Board, confirm that Option Canada was the vehicle used to violate and trample over Quebec's referendum legislation?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if Mr. Corbeil or anyone else has allegations to make of this nature, they are properly made to Judge Gomery. Judge Gomery will determine the facts.
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister admit that Option Canada provides us with one more illustration of the extent of that Liberal network identified by the former director general of the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada, Benoît Corbeil?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Corbeil has made a number of allegations. He will ultimately be called before the Gomery commission. We need the judgment of Judge Gomery to determine the facts. He will compare the testimony of every witness against other testimony and will determine the facts.
Government of CanadaHon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government.
Yesterday the Prime Minister said on national TV that he wants Parliament to work. The NDP wants Parliament to work and has made a number of suggestions. Parliament has made a number of suggestions.
I wonder if the Minister of Finance, who seems to be answering for the government today, can tell us whether there is going to be a change in attitude and whether the government can commit now to enacting those things that Parliament has passed, which as of today the government has yet to implement and in fact has ignored.
The minister knows the motions I am talking about. Will Liberals now commit to doing what Parliament has said the government should do?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday in response to a question from the hon. gentleman's leader, I would be more than happy to examine any specific suggestions that he or the NDP has to make.
Obviously the government has laid out the principles upon which we intend to proceed through, originally the throne speech and then the budget. If the opposition has suggestions, particularly if the NDP has suggestions, I would be more than happy to see specifically what they are.
Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the minister is confusing questions. I am not talking about what my leader asked yesterday about the budget. I am talking about what Parliament already told the government to do.
Maher Arar InquiryBill Blaikie: My supplementary question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
It has to do with evidence that the Government of Canada knew that Maher Arar was in Syria and instead of being concerned about whether he was being tortured, all it could do was demonstrate an interest in the information that was being gathered through torture instead of inquiring as to how that information was being obtained.
Is the government not embarrassed by this and will it at least say today that this kind of thing will never happen again?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman will know that we have established a public inquiry. Mr. Justice O'Connor is in charge of that inquiry. We have every confidence that Mr. Justice O'Connor has both the mandate, and all the skill and professional expertise to ensure that this matter is thoroughly ventilated, as the hon. gentleman would want.
Sponsorship ProgramMr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Benoît Corbeil, the former director general of the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada from January 1999 to 2001, told us that a 90-minute meeting was held in January or February 2002 with the Prime Minister, as requested by phone by Lucie Castelli, the Prime Minister's riding assistant. It happened. Such is the reality.
Why did the Prime Minister not tell Justice Gomery the whole truth?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Corbeil did meet with the Prime Minister at that meeting. He indicated to the then finance minister that he would not be supporting him during the leadership race of 2003. Frankly, given what Mr. Corbeil has indicated he has been involved in, we are very pleased with that decision because the Prime Minister of Canada plays politics very differently than the way Mr. Corbeil plays politics.
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Corbeil tells us the meeting took place at the behest of Lucie Castelli on behalf of the Prime Minister. Lucie Castelli was involved in sponsorship; Mr. Corbeil was involved in sponsorship.
How can the government expect Canadians to continue to believe that the Prime Minister himself was not also personally involved in sponsorship?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, how can the Conservatives expect Canadians to believe a party whose communications director compares the Prime Minister of Canada to a terrorist and murderer, Osama bin Laden? How can they expect Canadians to believe them when their leader says that the Prime Minister of Canada supports child pornography?
If their leader had one-tenth of the integrity of our Prime Minister, he would stand in the House and apologize to Canadians, and apologize to the Prime Minister.
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that Canadians should wait about eight months before they make up their minds on ad scam. It did not take him that long to figure out that public funds had been misused, that public funds had been wasted and, in short, that this is an unjustifiable mess.
I bet it took the Prime Minister about eight minutes to figure that out. Why does he think Canadians need eight months to figure out the same thing?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, let us review what the Prime Minister has done in this matter.
He, himself, voluntarily and very quickly upon receiving the report of the Auditor General launched the Gomery commission. He cancelled the impugned sponsorship program on his very first day in office. He eliminated the agency that ran the program. He ordered the release of 12 million pages of normally confidential internal documentation. He launched legal action against 19 defendants to recover public money. He strengthened the rules on ethical standards and he restored the office of Comptroller General. That is action.
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said he is sorry about misspent public funds. There is one thing for which he has not apologized. All the evidence shows that the Liberal Party did everything in the province of Quebec in the last election to ignore all the rules and to, in short, buy the results of the last election.
My party and others ran candidates who were honest and who abided by the law. What chance did they have running against candidates who were bankrolled by a corrupt Liberal establishment?
I want to know, when will the Liberals apologize to all the honest candidates who ran in the last election in Quebec?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, Canadians--
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. There seems to be a lot of other conversations going on around the questions being asked and answers being given. The Minister of Public Works and Government Services has the floor to answer the question.
Perhaps the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam would calm down so we can hear the answer. I ask the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam to control himself. The hon. Minister of Public Works has the floor.
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, when will that party apologize for comparing the Prime Minister of Canada to a mass murderer and a terrorist? When will that party apologize for saying that the Prime Minister of Canada supports child pornography?
The harder members opposite try to smear the reputation of the Prime Minister, the more they smear their own because Canadians know that our Prime Minister is a man of integrity, decency and honesty. Canadians know that they can trust our Prime Minister to get to the truth and they cannot trust that party over there.
Mrs. Carole Lavallée (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister was asked in this House why he fired Alfonso Gagliano, the Prime Minister said the purpose of his decision was to protect Canada's image abroad, and that it was not a judgment on the former ambassador's behaviour in the sponsorship scandal. Yet, yesterday on television, in his address to the public, he clearly cited the dismissal of Gagliano, a Liberal, as a response to the sponsorship scandal.
Can the Prime Minister tell us which of the two versions is the right one?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has always been very clear. All ambassadorial appointments abroad are “at the pleasure of the government”, as we say. In the case of the ambassador to Denmark, the pleasure of the government had reached its limit. Accordingly, given the allegations and that the country's reputation was at risk of being affected in the time it would take for the Gomery inquiry to clarify the facts, the ambassador was recalled. Such is the reality.
Carole Lavallée: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister admit that the sponsorship scandal has less to do with Alfonso Gagliano and more to do with the entire Liberal network, as admitted by Benoît Corbeil, the former director general of the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, this question really gets to the fundamental reason for why we have the Gomery commission. A very large number of allegations have been made. The Gomery commission was struck by the Prime Minister himself to get to the bottom of all those allegations, to hear all the witnesses, to determine the facts and to make recommendations as to what the appropriate consequences ought to be.
The Gomery commission is vital to the determination of this matter and it must complete its work.
Mr. Guy Côté (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says he hardly knows the Boulays, whom he describes as mere acquaintances. However, Diane Deslauriers says that she saw the Prime Minister daily during the 1993 election campaign.
In light of Diane Deslauriers' statements, does the Prime Minister still maintain that Claude Boulay and Diane Deslauriers were just acquaintances?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been very clear on this. In fact, his statements have been entirely consistent on this and not inconsistent with the spirit or the specifics of the statements from Madame Deslauriers and Mr. Boulay.
What they are doing is trying to find a scintilla of fault or problem with testimony when in fact they know they are drawing the wrong conclusions. They are doing anything they can to smear the reputation of the Prime Minister because they know our Prime Minister stands tall as the leader who has the best reputation of any federal leader in Canada.
Guy Côté: Mr. Speaker, there is something else we want to verify. Benoît Corbeil says that he had a meal with the Prime Minister and Joe Morselli in 2002 at Chez Frank, a restaurant.
Can the Prime Minister confirm this statement by the former director general of the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, any allegations Mr. Corbeil has he ought to make before the Gomery commission and, as such, he will be able to do that and those allegations will be considered along with other testimony in the coming weeks and months by Justice Gomery. He will analyze those statements, will consider contradictory testimony in many cases and, at the end of the day, provide Canadians with a reasoned, rational approach and the truth, which is what our Prime Minister stands for, getting the truth for Canadians.
The Prime MinisterJim Prentice: Mr. Speaker, last evening Canadians witnessed a desperate and furtive Prime Minister admitting that he had not been vigilant when he was finance minister and pleading for permission to cling to power.
Canadians have heard the testimony at Gomery. They know about the Liberal fraud, the theft, the illegal lobbying, the false election returns, the money laundering, the dirty money, the questionable judicial appointments and the kickbacks. All of this happened under this Prime Minister's nose.
Could he clarify his plea today. Was he culpable or merely incompetent--
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made a very compelling argument last evening. He spoke directly to the concerns of Canadians about the crucial work of the Gomery commission and why 7 or 8 out of 10 Canadians believe it is vitally important to have that whole work completed. He spoke about political responsibility and accountability and about the calling of a national election quickly upon the publication of Judge Gomery's report.
I think Canadians will find the Prime Minister's case to be both reasonable and convincing based upon the complete unvarnished truth.
Public Works and Government ServicesMr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the sanctimony of the Minister of Public Works is becoming just a little difficult to stomach.
It turns out that on September 28, 1998, he referred to the current Prime Minister as Genghis Khan. On February 3, 2003, he is quoted in the National Post as comparing the current Prime Minister to Osama bin Laden, saying that apparently he just released a tape from his cave.
How can the Minister of Public Works stand here with that kind of hypocrisy and sanctimony day after day?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. We will have some order. The Minister of Public Works and Government Services is rising to answer the question asked by the hon. member for Calgary Southeast. He has the floor. How can we possibly hear him and how can the member for Calgary Southeast hear the response with all the noise?
The hon. Minister of Public Works and Government Services.
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, a couple of months ago that member said that there were forms of just discrimination. I am proud to be part of a party that does not believe that discrimination is just, a party that believes in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
A rough day as a Liberal is better than a good day as a Conservative and a party that does not believe in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, not only is he a hypocrite but he has now come out against affirmative action apparently.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Southeast I am sure is aware that calling another hon. member a hypocrite is not in order. Sometimes their answers are hypocritical but members are not hypocrites. The hon. member for Calgary Southeast I am sure is well aware of that and will want to withdraw that remark.
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, a hypocrite says one thing and does another. That minister says one thing and then says another. On the one hand, he criticizes a comment from a political staffer that he himself made.
Would the minister care to retract comparing the current Prime Minister to Osama bin Laden and to Genghis Khan, or is he just going to stand there and talk out of both sides of his mouth like usual?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. What they do on a daily basis is try to smear the reputation of the Prime Minister, a Prime Minister who they have been unsuccessful in trying to place blame on, a Prime Minister who stands above all the other federal leaders in the House at getting to the truth for Canadians.
They should be ashamed of themselves. Canadians know that they can trust the Prime Minister of Canada who has more integrity in his little finger than the leader of the Conservative Party does in his entire body.
The Prime MinisterMr. Dean Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly clear from sworn testimony in public accounts that the Prime Minister was not only aware of what was going on, but was treating contracts in the same way as Alfonso Gagliano, using Chuck Guité to funnel money not only to Liberal friendly firms but to the current Prime Minister's leadership campaign.
Is it true that he has hidden his own scandal from Gomery because he does not want Canadians to know the truth?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, what we are experiencing today in question period is a very good illustration of why the Gomery commission is important. We have a swirl of insinuations and allegations that have all been contrived to create the most negative impressions without the facts having been found and the truth being known.
I would quote distinguished Ottawa journalist Susan Riley who said recently in the Ottawa Citizen , “What is going on is hysteria, a lynch mob mentality, a potent mixture of genuine public outrage and political opportunism that threatens to derail”--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell.
Official LanguagesDon Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Official Languages in order, once again, to ask for his help.
Yesterday, for the second time in three days, the Conservatives refused to allow Bill S-3, to improve the lives of minorities in Canada, to move forward.
Has the minister finally succeeded in convincing the Conservatives to put an end to the real hypocrisy we are witnessing here in Parliament?
Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for Official Languages, Minister responsible for Democratic Reform and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative official languages critic issued a press release in which he quotes his own words, which I will now also quote, “Conservatives will work hard in committee to make S-3 acceptable to all parties”. This is an excellent example of saying one thing and doing the opposite.
I think that the members of the official opposition who voted for that party should talk to their official languages critic so he stops saying one thing and doing the other. Otherwise, they might all end up ashamed of their own behaviour.
InfrastructureAlexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Infrastructure and Communities.
Before gutting infrastructure funding, the federal government contributed customarily one-third of water and sewer infrastructure costs.
Today, Herring Cove residents in my riding face prohibitive costs for long-awaited services because the federal government has reduced its contribution to less than one-sixth of the cost.
Will the minister agree to get beyond the rhetoric and ensure concretely that Herring Cove residents will finally get their service and water at a cost they can afford?
Hon. John Godfrey (Minister of State (Infrastructure and Communities), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to look at the situation in Herring Cove, a community I actually know reasonably well.
I can state that the policy of our existing infrastructure program is one-third, one-third, one-third and the good news is that the policy for our new gas tax programs, having launched the first one in British Columbia last Friday, is 100% federal money.
However I will certainly look into the question raised by the hon. member for Halifax.
Commercial BankruptciesMr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, when Liberals had the opportunity to ban the immoral practice of using scabs, they sided with the Conservatives to defeat the bill. When asked to intervene in Wal-Mart's unprecedented attack on workers, Liberals stood silent.
Now we hear that the Minister of Labour and the Liberal House leader will oppose the workers first bill, legislation that would protect workers' pensions.
The NDP is here to make the minority government work for people. The all party steel caucus supports sending this bill to committee. Why will the government not keep its promise to protect workers' pensions?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, this government will always defend Canadian workers and will continue to do so. The fact is we consider all proposed legislation through the perspective and from the goal of doing our best to ensure that Canadian workers' rights are protected and at the same time we encourage a dynamic and competitive economic environment. We have done that and we will continue to do that.
The Prime MinisterMr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister shamefully begged Canadians last night to allow him to stay in power until Justice Gomery reports later this year. That is like asking a fox to guard a hen house.
The Prime Minister admitted that he was negligent and ultimately responsible for ad scam, and well he should. He was the minister of finance at the time, the second highest ranking Quebec minister and Jean Chrétien's right-hand man.
Is the Prime Minister negligent, incompetent or has he been misleading Canadians?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the Prime Minister has been aggressively pursuing this matter. He cancelled the sponsorship program on his first day in office. He launched the Gomery inquiry. Instantly upon receiving the Auditor General's report he terminated the agency that administered the program. He released an unprecedented amount of internal confidences of the Privy Council in order to assist all of the investigators. He has launched lawsuits to recover any money that may have been misspent. He has ordered an independent forensic examination of the financial records of the Liberal Party. On and on the list goes.
Government ContractsMrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last night the Prime Minister told Canadians, “I'm sorry I wasn't more vigilant”. Why is he not paying attention as one of his own cabinet ministers ducks straight questions about evidence he acted as a lobbyist without registering as required by law?
Let us test the government's commitment to truth telling. Did the transport minister ever arrange a meeting for François Duffar or any member of Cossette Communication with a current or former member of this House, yes or no?
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member read the Globe and Mail yesterday. Campbell Clark wrote in an article that Michel Lemay says that he also emphasized that Mr. Lapierre is an old friend of Mr. Duffar, and that he was not paid for having organized the meeting with Mr. Gagliano.
It is extremely clear. I was not paid for setting up this meeting—not this meeting or any other.
Joe Preston: Mr. Speaker, here are the facts. It is a violation of the law to lobby without registering as a lobbyist. The law defines lobbying as “organizing a meeting with a public official”.
The Minister of Transport organized a meeting between a client, François Duffar of Cossette Communication, and former minister Alfonso Gagliano. The Minister of Transport was paid by Cossette Communication and therefore the Minister of Transport violated the law.
Does the Minister of Transport deny any of those facts?
Jean Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, his facts are totally wrong because I was never paid to arrange any meeting whatsoever.
Sponsorship ProgramMr. Daryl Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister repeatedly promised to get to the bottom of the sponsorship scandal and yet he deliberately excluded chapter 5 of the Auditor General's report dealing with contracts between the Prime Minister's Office and public opinion research firms such as Earnscliffe.
In so doing, he has deliberately removed his campaign manager and chief of staff from the scrutiny of the Gomery inquiry. That is not only simply inexcusable, but by withholding key information from this public inquiry, what is the Prime Minister trying to hide?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the issues with respect to public opinion research have been examined on many occasions already. They were examined in an audit report in 1996 done independently by the firm of Ernst &amp; Young. They were examined most recently by the Auditor General in her report in 2003 and she said this:

For the most part, we found that the federal government was managing public opinion research in a transparent manner and with adequate controls. The activities were centrally co-ordinated, as required by policies. Selection of suppliers for standing offers followed the competitive process.

Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, during his testimony, Claude Boulay said that the Department of Finance imposed Pinnacle on him as the subcontractor for a contract exceeding half a million dollars, without a call for tenders. A document addressed to his policy adviser, Karl Littler, supports the fact that this contract had been discussed with the former Minister of Finance at a meeting on December 21, 1995.
In light of such revelations, how can the Prime Minister still say he lacked vigilance and that he is sorry? Is he sorry he got caught?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, this issue was discussed in the House many months ago. The evidence is very clear, from the written material that was before the public accounts committee and otherwise, that the facts are just not as described by the hon. gentleman. In fact, all of the evidence on the written record would demonstrate that competitive processes were followed and that the normal practices of the Department of Public Works were honoured.
André Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, the facts are there. Claude Boulay, who campaigned for the Prime Minister, revealed that he pocketed a hefty 17% commission on that contract, simply for passing it on to Pinnacle.
How can the Prime Minister, who said he was sorry yesterday, explain that he turned a blind eye to all the rules so his “dear Claude” could pocket several tens of thousands of dollars along the way—a voluntary lack of vigilance, no doubt?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is making an extreme allegation. The facts of the matter are, from what is on the record and indeed what has been said in the House from time to time, that all of the appropriate competitive procedures were applied and there were no rules violated.
FisheriesMr. Randy Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in both the recent fisheries committee report and the post-season review, inadequate enforcement was identified as one of the key factors leading to the collapse of the 2004 Fraser River sockeye fishery.
Both reports strongly recommend that the number of enforcement officers be increased. Instead, an internal DFO document confirms the reduction of up to 80 fisheries officer positions in the next three years.
Could the minister tell us how doing exactly the opposite of what the reports recommend and reducing enforcement will protect this valuable resource?
Hon. Raymond Chan (Minister of State (Multiculturalism), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister in charge has received the report and is working diligently to meet all the suggestions. We will try our best to meet them to enforce the operations in the river.
Foreign AffairsMr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am appalled to read that two Canadian companies are helping China to colonize Tibet. Nortel and Bombardier will assist in building a railway line in Tibet, a railway line designed to strengthen China's illegal occupation of Tibet. These companies are giving the same excuses that were given when South Africa was fighting for independence.
Why will the government not tell these companies their actions are against Canadian values? Why?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well the approach that we are taking.
We always discuss with the government of China the reality of Tibet, the quality of the human rights that are absolutely essential there, but this is a government that at the same time allows the private sector of Canada to develop around the world. We absolutely demand that our Canadian companies continue to work well on international markets. The private sector has some autonomy in the world. We know that as well they reflect Canadian values as much as possible.
Citizenship and ImmigrationJean-Claude D'Amours: Mr. Speaker, the three announcements this week from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration were welcome developments. They will do much to help process citizenship applications faster, to provide a bridge to employment and citizenship for international students and to reunite families.
However, I know concerns have been raised with regard to the prioritizing of parents and grandparents and the potential costs to the health care system. Could the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration address the issue with the House?
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think everyone welcomed those three announcements, but in particular that latter one, because it allowed Canada to fulfill its commitment to all the skilled workers who came into the country with the expectation that they would then eventually be joined with their parents.
The announcement allowed parents and grandparents to come here on multiple entry visas. Those multiple entry visas are contingent upon health care insurance that is provided by the applicants. It is not a burden on the system. As well, it gives us an opportunity to strengthen the families and the concept of family that those members opposite do not understand--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley.
Wallace Harbour LighthouseMr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, for decades the fishermen in Wallace have used the Wallace Harbour lighthouse as the only navigational aid to get into the long harbour leading up to the Wallace wharf.
Now the Coast Guard says it does not have enough money to buy a light bulb for the lighthouse and it is going to change the system and put in a less effective system.
The same fishermen who are worried about this matter watch television every day about the graft and the corruption and the kickbacks of millions and millions of dollars. They cannot understand why the Coast Guard and the Liberals will not buy them a light bulb for their lighthouse.
Will the Liberals announce today that they are going to maintain the Wallace Harbour lighthouse and put a new light bulb in it?
Raymond Chan: Mr. Speaker, the minister is very much on top of the file. In the recent budget, the Coast Guard's budget has been increased by $276 million over five years. I am sure the minister will apply those moneys according to the priorities in the department. He will do his best to meet all the requirements.
Government ContractsEd Komarnicki: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the transport minister. The question he was asked was not whether he attended a dinner as a paid lobbyist. The question was, did the Minister of Transport arrange a meeting with a cabinet minister or former cabinet minister and François Duffar or not? Yes or no?
John Godfrey: Mr. Speaker, the minister answered two questions very clearly on that point. If the member opposite is not satisfied with the answer the minister gave, he can direct those inquiries to the registrar of lobbyists. The registrar of lobbyists administers the Lobbyists Registration Act in a completely independent manner. His reports are made public.
If the member opposite wishes to pursue the matter further, he should address his complaints to the registrar of lobbyists.
The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.
Is the hon. member for Central Nova rising on a question of privilege arising out of question period?
Points of OrderPeter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I rise in response to an issue arising in question period. On behalf of the Conservative Party of Canada and in particular a highly respected communication officer for our party, Mr. Geoff Norquay, I would like to offer a retraction with regret and an apology for the inaccurate comparison made between the current Prime Minister and international terrorist Osama bin Laden.
In keeping with his vaunted and sometimes besieged leader's contrition last evening, I would offer a similar opportunity to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to restore some semblance of lost lustre, a face-saving exercise, so to speak. I invite him to similarly withdraw and apologize for the identical comparison that was made, and in fact in far more scathing detail, against a man who rewarded him with a cabinet post, a staggering and ungracious slight on his part.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Central Nova has made his withdrawal. I am sure the long request he is making has been heard.
The hon. Minister of Public Works and Government Services is responding.
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, as for the allegation made during question period by the member for Calgary Southeast, in fact I do not have any recollection. My staff has in fact confirmed that the member referred to the National Post . It has been verified that in fact there was not a comparison.
If there was something taken out of context, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I would never compare our Prime Minister to Osama bin Laden in a reasonable context and I would certainly apologize. The fact is that I trust, as Canadians trust, the Prime Minister of Canada, somebody who is getting to the bottom of an important issue and making a difference in the lives of Canadians.
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a separate point, but to comment on the last one, I thought he was shameless. It seems he does blush.
I have a comment respecting the answer given just recently by the minister responsible for cities or urban infrastructure. I am not quite sure why he is answering questions with respect to questions put to the Minister of Transport. In any event, he referred yesterday in question period to the lobbyists registrar as an “officer of Parliament”. I am sure he would like to have an opportunity to correct the record that the lobbyists registrar is in fact not an officer of Parliament.
John Godfrey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is completely correct. I had it wrong yesterday. I apologize. He is an independent official operating in the industry department. He is not technically an officer of Parliament although his reports are delivered to Parliament.

Routine Proceedings
Certificates of NominationHon. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 110(2), I have the honour to table four certificates of nomination.
Order in Council AppointmentsKaren Redman: I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order in council appointments made recently by the government.
Committees of the HouseAlexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present, in both official languages, the fifth report adopted by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, urging the government to send a monitoring team to Ethiopia to observe and report on the general elections taking place on May 15, 2005.
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 35th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on an amendment to the Standing Orders.
Criminal CodeHon. Ed Broadbent (Ottawa Centre, NDP): 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-369, an act to amend the Criminal Code (legal duty outside Canada).

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce a bill entitled an act to amend the Criminal Code, legal duty outside Canada.
The bill is about the health and safety of workers employed by Canadian companies outside of our country. It would internationalize the present Westray bill and extend to foreign workers of Canadian companies the same health and safety protections that are guaranteed to their workers in Canada.
Essentially, when it comes to health and safety, companies and their directors would no longer be able to do abroad what they are not permitted to do on Canadian soil.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Committees of the HouseJay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I move that the third report of the Standing Committee on Finance, presented on Monday, December 20, 2004, be concurred in.
I want to state at the outset of the debate today on this concurrence motion that I am very pleased to split my time with my leader, the leader of the official opposition, the member for Calgary Southwest.
Since it has become a national story, despite the poor performance, I would like to begin by making a few comments about the Prime Minister's pitiful performance last night. He confused a crisis in the Liberal Party of Canada with a national crisis. He abused the office of Prime Minister to have a national television event, which normally would be reserved for times of crisis for the nation when the prime minister, the leader of a nation, would have to communicate very clearly to the people, in both official languages, on something that would threaten the very survival of the nation. That is not the case.
We are talking about is a scandal, the worst in Canadian history, that threatens the very existence of the Liberal Party of Canada.
He has said and has maintained that we should cut him some slack because he is the one who launched the Gomery inquiry. I think it is obvious to all Canadians that he had no choice in launching the Gomery inquiry. We need to be very clear about this.
The current Prime Minister wanted to have an election last year, early in his mandate as Prime Minister, as Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, to get his own fresh mandate. He knew the only way he could go to the people of Canada last year in an election was if he called that inquiry. It was his only defence. Therefore, he called it. He set it up and then he determined that he would have to circumvent it.
There was an inquiry taking place at the public accounts committee, as we all know, it was televised, but he shut that down. He had his members on that committee shut down the only inquiry that was ongoing. Then he went to the people last May and June in an election campaign without waiting for one witness to appear before the Gomery inquiry. Very clearly, he had to do that. It was his only defence in the election campaign that he knew he would call.
The other reason he wanted to call it is he wanted to get even with the former prime minister of this country. He wanted to seek revenge when the former prime minister happened to time his retirement just before the final report of the Auditor General. He left the whole mess for the current Prime Minister. The current Prime Minister decided that a good way to get even with the former prime minister, Jean Chrétien, was to call an inquiry and point the figure.
However, last night we found out the truth about one thing at least. He finally accepted the responsibility that he was negligent as finance minister in not watching over the public purse. He had to know what was going on and he chose to look the other way.
He finally admitted last night to the Canadian people that he should have been more vigilant. Therefore, I would as the question. If he should have been more vigilant when he was number two man, when he was finance minister, in watching over the public purse, why in heaven's name would Canadians want to wait eight more months for that Prime Minister when he is in control of the federal treasury? Imagine how much money will be wasted in the next eight months?
People say that we should not have an election right now. It might cost $250 million to $280 million. How many billions will the Liberal government blow over the next eight months if Canadians were to let it stay in power?
The last point I want to very quickly make is a reality. It is how this place has become dysfunctional and who is to blame.
As House leader for the opposition, I can say we have acted responsibly. We have tried to make this Parliament work. The leader of the official opposition took the unprecedented step of having the official opposition in this Parliament abstain on the budget to ensure the survival of this Parliament. That had never been done in history. Our leader did that because he wanted to try everything possible to make this Parliament work.
What do we get for it in return? On Monday night the government House leader cancelled opposition day motions, one of the basic tenets of democracy in this place. The basic tenet of democracy is opposition parties having the opportunity of holding the government accountable, and the government cancelled those days.
As we move forward, let us ensure that Canadians clearly understand who is to blame for this place being dysfunctional.
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this has been a remarkable week that began with an unprecedented decision by the government to cancel opposition days, one of the fundamental rights in this House. During the rest of the week, we hardly saw the Prime Minister, here or in public. Last night, the Prime Minister delivered a public address, as if in a national crisis, but it was solely for partisan reasons. It was a partisan speech broadcast on television to the entire country.
It is remarkable when the Prime Minister does not appear here in the House or in public and communicates with the public only via a tape recording. It is incredible.
It has been a remarkable week. Even more remarkable were some of the things in the Prime Minister's speech last night. The Prime Minister effectively went on the air to give a partisan speech and to launch an election campaign. It is a campaign which he says he wants to set for some 10 months out, if I calculate correctly, that is if the Gomery report is ever tabled, since half of the Liberal Party is going to be before the federal courts trying to quash the Gomery report within the next month.
We have a Prime Minister who has already decided we should have an election at a time of extremely unusual choosing, a Prime Minister who has acknowledged corruption in his own party. The question that we face as the official opposition, the question that all Canadians face, is can a corrupt party remain in power while all this is going on? Can it remain in power month after month? The question we have to face as the official opposition is, can we prop up that party in power? Can we prop up a corrupt party at this time, particularly when, as my colleague the House leader has pointed out, that the two other opposition parties have already voted non-confidence in the government?
I do not use the term “corruption” lightly. What we are hearing at the Gomery inquiry is sworn testimony, in many cases sworn unrefuted testimony that certainly points to widespread corruption, but we have incidents outside of the Gomery inquiry that are not even subject to the Gomery inquiry. We have illegal lobbying done by the Prime Minister's Quebec lieutenant. We heard once again evasive answers today. There was improper contracting done by the Prime Minister's campaign manager at Earnscliffe. The campaign manager and the chief of staff just happen to be common law partners. We have investigations going on into that. We have the accusations, allegations of the partisan use of judicial appointments.
I would point out that a Liberal member said to me that people do not believe it. Virtually all of these allegations are coming from senior members of the Liberal Party. I repeat what I said earlier this week. If each group of Liberals says that the other group of Liberals is a group of crooks and liars, what does it really matter which group we choose to believe?
We have a principle in our parliamentary system. That principle is that the government must maintain the confidence of the House of Commons to remain in office.
We all know what the supply day manoeuvre was about earlier this week. Late last week the government removed Bill C-43, the budget bill, from the notice paper. I smelled right away an attempt to avoid a confidence motion at all costs, so I moved that our supply motion would make sure supply days would exist. That is what the government cancelled. Clearly the government has in mind, and it will do more manoeuvres, to avoid any kind of confidence motion in the next month.
This is not an option. This is a violation of the principle of our democratic system. If the government cannot maintain the confidence of the House, it must seek the confidence of Canadians. It cannot circumvent this fundamental principle through procedural manoeuvres. We will do whatever we can to ensure that when we return and have heard from the population of Canada that all options are available to us.
With that in mind, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following:
The 3rd report of the Standing Committee on Finance, presented on December 20, 2004, be not now concurred in,
But that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on Finance with instruction that it amend the same so as to recommend that the government resign over refusing to accept some of the committee's key recommendations and to implement the budgetary changes that Canadians need.

The Deputy Speaker: The amendment is in order.
Questions and comments. The debate is on the amendment.
Points of OrderScott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to something that was said by the member for Calgary Southeast during question period in which he alleged that I had compared the Prime Minister to Osama bin Laden.
In fact we were able to find the National Post piece by Paul Wells from 2003 in which Paul Wells referred to a release of a tape to Al Jazeera. It was not me. In fact I did not have any recollection of having said it. I knew I did not say it. When we researched it, in fact it was Paul Wells who said it. Both the member for Calgary Southeast and the member for Central Nova said in this House that I had said it and they said that this was in the National Post .
I would urge them to apologize for having said that and for having the gall to refer to that article when in fact they knew full well that I had never said that.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the minister for that clarification.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in the amendment that the hon. leader has just moved. I have not seen it and I am sure I will in due course, but I believe the gist of it is to say that there were some recommendations of the Standing Committee on Finance having to do with the budget that the government did not implement, and the Leader of the Opposition takes exception to that.
In fact in the preparation of the budget, I went through one by one all of the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Finance. I found, given the rather raucous nature of the committee, that sometimes the recommendations made by the NDP were not consistent with the recommendations made by the Conservatives. Some of the recommendations made by the Conservatives did not match the recommendations made by the Bloc Québécois. Sometimes the government and opposition parties agreed. Sometimes they disagreed. There was quite a potpourri of recommendations from the finance committee. Quite frankly, it would be absolutely impossible for this government or any government to implement all of the recommendations of the finance committee without totally contradicting themselves.
I would say that the work of the finance committee was very helpful. Indeed the majority of the recommendations made by the committee, at least where there was a consensus among the political parties, were in fact implemented in the budget. Therefore the factual basis for the hon. gentleman's motion is simply not in existence.
Let me take a moment or two to address the broader context in which this motion is made and the context that was described by the Leader of the Opposition and by the House leader for the opposition in putting this motion on the floor. It has to do with the current political environment and the issues that preoccupied us in question period a few moments ago and indeed for much of the last several weeks.
Nothing in political life is more important than the public's trust. To me, and I am sure to the Prime Minister, to all members of the cabinet and to all members of the government, earning and keeping that trust is now and always has been our first and most basic principle. I share completely the concerns of the vast majority of decent Canadians upon hearing the various descriptions of events, some of them contradictory, all of them, to date at least, uncorroborated, coming from the various witnesses appearing before the Gomery commission.
The commission, as all Canadians know, is conducting a transparent and comprehensive judicial investigation into certain publicity activities of the previous government prior to the year 2002. Where such activities crossed legal or ethical boundaries, they must be exposed, condemned and punished to the fullest extent of the law. There can be no defence of the indefensible.
The trail does have to be followed wherever it may lead. Any and all wrongdoers must suffer the full consequences of their misconduct, whoever they may be. That is why Judge Gomery must finish his entire inquiry and reach his final conclusions about exactly what happened and who carries the responsibility. A partial story is not good enough. The judge's mandate is to get to the whole unvarnished truth. Nothing less will do.
While this work is ongoing, it is significant to note that the Gomery commission was launched by the Prime Minister himself, voluntarily and very quickly upon coming into office. That in itself is a strong indication of two key points.
First of all, the Prime Minister has nothing to fear and nothing to hide from this inquiry. The issues under investigation are not ones that he created.
The Prime Minister is a man of principle and conscience who is determined, and his actions prove this, to root out these problems regardless of the political consequences. The Prime Minister is also the one who cancelled the impugned sponsorship program and eliminated the agency that ran it.
In an unprecedented move to help investigators, he ordered the release of more than 12 million pages of normally confidential internal documentation from within the Privy Council. He launched 19 legal actions to recover any public money that was improperly spent.
The Prime Minister also ordered the independent forensic examinations of the financial records of the Liberal Party, the results of which are now available to the public on the Internet. He strengthened the rules on the ethical standards expected of cabinet ministers and public officials. He provided the independent ethics commissioner with more clout. He restored the office of the Comptroller General of Canada. He bolstered government-wide internal audits. He provided automatic public disclosure of government contracts.
I hear the deputy leader of the opposition once again interrupting rather than participating constructively in the debate. I would point out that in his last intervention he said that it was the Liberal Party that took away the office of the Comptroller General. I would remind him that the initiative to eliminate the office of the Comptroller General was introduced by the previous Kim Campbell government.
It was the Prime Minister and the government that terminated a number of crown corporation CEOs and implemented tough new standards of governance. All of that is a clear reflection of the Prime Minister's respect for the public trust and his absolute determination to safeguard the public interest ahead of all personal or partisan considerations.
Last evening in his address to the country, I believe the Prime Minister made a very compelling argument. He spoke directly and honestly to Canadians about the crucial work of the Gomery Commission which he himself created. He spoke about political responsibility and political accountability. He spoke about calling a national election quickly upon the publication of Judge Gomery's report.
I think Canadians will find the Prime Minister's case to be both reasonable and convincing, based upon the complete and unvarnished truth.
In sampling public opinion, I know that political parties like to revel in the outcomes of public opinion polls, which vary. They go up, they go down and they change from time to time. I have had a sampling of the opinion of prominent Canadian journalists over the course of the last couple of weeks while these issues have been very prominent in the media. Let me just put a few of those views of people who watch the political process on a daily basis and who have some background and knowledge in these matters, on the record.
There was an article not long ago by Mr. James McNulty in the Vancouver Province. The headline on that article was “Early election call will snub public opinion; opposition should heed public support for Gomery inquiry to finish”. About the same time there was an article in the Calgary Herald that said “Canadians may well get to the bottom of the scandal, just as Martin promised”. Third, from the
Regina Leader Post:

There was an election only last year and we detect no public appetite for another so soon. We believe that in the real world, a majority of Canadians want the government to get on with running the country, the opposition parties to hold them to account on their policies and Justice Gomery to complete his work and report his findings.

Then there was this commentary from University Dean William Neville appearing in the Winnipeg Free Press. He said:

--it would not be entirely unprecedented to have a verdict first and a trial afterwards. It happened, after all, in Alice in Wonderland.

Then there was a comment from CanWest Global in the National Post not long ago where this was said:

At the time the Prime Minister created the Gomery inquiry, he knew a feeding frenzy like this might result. And so you have to give him a good deal of credit for ignoring the politics and doing the right thing.

Then we have an editorial today in the Globe and Mail that makes the case for hearing everything that Judge Gomery has to say when his report is finalized.
Even earlier the Globe and Mail said this:

Whoever pulls the plug has to have a good reason to put the country to the expense and disruption of another election only one year after the last. If the most compelling reason is political opportunism, and if the voters sense they are being summoned to the polls prematurely, they may not reward the perpetrator.

Let me also refer to the Ottawa Citizen and an article that was written not long ago by Susan Riley. She noted she was no particular friend of the government or the Prime Minister, but this is what she had to say:

What is going on is hysteria, a lynch-mob mentality, a potent mixture of genuine public outrage and political opportunism that threatens to derail the disinterested pursuit of justice and the whole truth.

Then there is the Montreal Gazette which not long ago had this to say:

The election buzz is largely a media invention, rather than a measure of reality. The public has no interest in a quick election; we had one just 10 months ago.

Let me refer to the Halifax Chronicle Herald . The Halifax newspaper had this to say:

The case [the Prime Minister] laid out in his own defence is stronger than any case mounted against him. He is the one who cancelled the sponsorship program on Day 1 of his tenure. He is the one who set up the Gomery inquiry...

Right across the country there is consistent editorial opinion that simply says as a matter of fairness and justice, as a matter of letting the whole truth be known, that the proper course of action here is to allow Judge Gomery to finish his inquiry, to find the facts, to make his recommendations and on the basis of those recommendations, then all of us will have both the information and the obligation to act and to act appropriately. That is essentially what the Prime Minister said last evening.
There is another reason why it would be appropriate, I believe, for this Parliament to take a more considered course, as we approach the days and weeks immediately ahead, rather than some blind and irrational rush to judgment, and that is because the House has before it some very important business. I know various ministers want to sponsor and promote their portfolios of activities.
I would simply refer to the budget. It is a budget that provides $5 billion for cities and communities to build the healthy infrastructures that they need for the future. It is a budget that puts in $5 billion--
Ms. Bev Oda: Not this year.
Ralph Goodale: Yes, indeed this year if the people across the way have the capacity to pass the budget bill.
We have heard from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. We have heard from Saskatchewan municipalities. We have heard from British Columbia municipalities. We have heard from Quebec municipalities. They say that they want the budget passed. They want the new deal for cities and communities and they want it now. We have signed one agreement with British Columbia. British Columbia wants that program, nearly $700 million, if my memory serves me correctly.
This Parliament will have lots of time to debate the hot political points that flow back and forth across the floor, but now is the time to deal with the budget, now is the time to ensure that money flows to the cities and communities across this country.
There is more in the budget. There is child care, establishing a $5 billion program to ensure that there is early learning and quality child care across this country, child care that is high quality, that is universal, that is affordable and accessible and that is developmental, not just a form of babysitting or storage, but that brings education and life skills development to the youngest of our citizens.
I would encourage members of the House to listen to the child care advocates, to listen to the social service groups across the country, to listen to provincial governments. The Hon. Joanne Crofford, who is the minister of social services in the province of Saskatchewan, has said that the child care initiative is bold, innovative, and exactly what Saskatchewan needs, and she wants to see it passed.
Then there are provisions for senior citizens. These are extremely important. We have undertaken to increase the guaranteed income supplement. That will be worth $2.7 billion to senior citizens over this next five year period, as we implement it in the next two years and then the flow of funding over the following three years, to the oldest and the poorest people in the country.
We also have provisions in the budget for the disabled to try to improve the credits and the benefits that flow to those who want to be more self-sufficient, to find their way into the workplace, to have a more comfortable and high quality of life. That is one of the things in the budget that ought to be passed.
There is also a provision to double the credits available to the caregivers of seniors and disabled Canadians. We want to give those caregivers some recognition of the benefit and the value of the huge supports that they provide to those in their families who need that kind of assistance.
There is also $1.4 billion in the budget for measures dealing with aboriginal Canadians. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has pursued an ambitious program over the course of the last number of months and it has some further months to run. The minister will be consulting with aboriginal Canadians, with all ministers of the cabinet and with the provinces.
There will be a retreat toward the end of May, where a number of bold new ideas will come together about how to rebuild and re-establish a better relationship between aboriginal Canadians, the Government of Canada and all Canadians.
There will be a first ministers meeting in the fall of this year, where governments can specifically lay their plans to move this important file forward. In the meantime, the budget provided $1.4 billion to begin on issues such as housing, the care of children and education to move the files forward. That too should be passed at the earliest possible date.
Then there is what we had to say about the environment. I was rather pleased when the Coalition for Clean Air and Renewable Energy made the comment that it thought the only thing wrong with the budget was the date. It was in February. They said that it should have been on March 17, on St. Patrick's Day, because it was the greenest budget in Canadian history.
All together there is about $7.5 billion in the budget directed toward environmental issues. It is very important that those proceed, not necessarily to satisfy the technical requirements of some international treaty, as important as that is, but to ensure that Canadians have clean air and clean water and a high quality of life for them, their children and their grandchildren.
The budget also dealt with foreign affairs and with foreign aid. The budget dealt with the Canadian Forces. It contained the biggest investment in the Canadian Forces in 20 years, $13 billion to rebuild and refurbish the Canadian Forces.
Then we have the measures on productivity, workforce training, immigrant settlement, training and skills and literacy. We have the innovation agenda, $1 billion for science and technology and to ensure that Canada stays in the forefront of the knowledge based technology driven and highly skilled world of the 21st century.
The budget brings forward tax reductions to try to ensure that Canadians are fully competitive with the forces of competition that they have to face from around the world.
There were reductions in personal taxes. Especially there, the government will take 860,000 of the lowest income Canadians off the tax rolls all together, a quarter of them, 250,000, are senior citizens and most of them are women. That is a very progressive measure and it needs to be implemented.
For all of these reasons, as well as the importance of the Gomery commission, there is no need in the House for a rush to judgment. It is time to do serious work on behalf of serious Canadians who do not particularly appreciate the heckling and the hullabaloo that comes across the way. They want to see respect, they want to see civility and they want to see a Parliament that works. We are dedicated to that.
The Deputy Speaker: Before I move to questions and comments, I have a notice of a question of privilege from the hon. Minister of Public Works.
PrivilegeScott Brison: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is with regard to a statement made by the member for Calgary Southeast during question period. He attributed words to me that I had not said and that in fact were said by a journalist, Paul Wells. He was absolutely wrong. He was attributing words to me that I have never said and he violated my privilege as a member of Parliament.
I would urge him to be a little less repressed with the truth in this case and to actually provide to Canadians the dignity of the House that they deserve and retract what he said because he knows full well that he misled the House when he said that.
Paul Wells said, referring to the Prime Minister, “who is said to have released a new tape to Al-Jazeera”. That is what the journalist said. It is not what I said and the hon. member knows that he intentionally misled the House during question period and tried to smear my reputation with that intervention.
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, that was marvellous coming from the man that the former Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario, Hal Jackman, refers to as “an utter disgrace to Canadian politics”.
I stand by exactly what I said. I did in fact cite words precisely used by that member in the House of Commons in 1998, where he referred to the current Prime Minister as “Genghis Khan”.
Perhaps he would like to retract that. And further, I stand by the comments in the 2003 article in the National Post which refer to this hon. member having said that the current Prime Minister was sending tapes out to Al-Jazeera. A very clear reference to the one and only, Mr. bin Laden. Therefore, I would further ask the member who is known to be--
[Intervention]
An hon. member: Sit down.
Jason Kenney: I know the member has only been here for eight years and does not understand procedure, but he cannot interrupt a point of privilege.
I would further submit that it is unparliamentary for the member to accuse a member of having deliberately misled the House. I know that he will retract that.
I clearly stand behind my words. Should a prima facie case of privilege be found, I am sure we would all be interested to hear Mr. Wells' recollection of what the minister said to him.
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to table the article from the National Post , where I was quoted saying what he said I said. I would ask him to table that document. If in fact he were to read that document, he, as someone who is supposedly at least somewhat learned, would understand that I did not say that and that in fact a journalist said that. He owes me an apology because he has violated my privilege as a member of the House.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Again, briefly from the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a document that the hon. member has refused to table because he knows what that document says. I would like to table the document in which I did not say what the hon. member accuses me of saying. I would like to table the document--
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am going to deal with the point of privilege in just a moment. The minister can certainly table a document at his leisure. I encourage him to do that.
As for the point of privilege itself, as members know, I was not here during question period. I will review the record. I will take under advisement the interventions here today. I would ask members to examine the record and think about this perhaps over the weekend and if necessary, I will return to the House to deal with this when the House resumes.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I will be the first to admit in a totally non-partisan way that there are some minor things in this budget plan 2005 that I would agree with, albeit, as I noted in my speech to the budget, all of them tend to be three, four, or five years down the road. That is very disconcerting and discouraging for taxpayers that are and have been waiting a long time now for tax relief.
I have pointed this out many times in this chamber. As I travel across the country, what is a surplus to a Liberal is overtaxation to a Conservative. It is pretty basic and it comes down to that.
I saw the Minister of Finance rise in his place and give an off-the-cuff, eloquent defence of his budget for 20 minutes. He talked about the changes and tax relief. Let us take a look at that, right from his own document. The basic personal amount will be increased over a five year period as follows: $100 in 2006, an additional $100 in 2007, $400 in 2008, and $600 in 2009.
I ask the Minister of Finance a simple question on behalf of overtaxed Canadians, especially those whom I am always honoured and privileged to represent in Prince George--Peace River. What would lead him to believe that we, the Canadian people, should leave this corrupt government in power for eight more days, let alone eight more months, and not give them substantial tax relief now?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the provisions that he refers to are just part of the tax relief measures that are included in the budget, but even the ones that he referred to will add up, over the five year implementation period, to tax relief for ordinary Canadians of $7.1 billion. That is not insignificant. When they are fully implemented, those tax measures will take 860,000 of the lowest income taxpayers off the tax rolls all together.
Included among those who will receive this benefit, there are 240,000 senior citizens. Those senior citizens are largely single, elderly women living alone. Therefore, there are benefits that flow from the tax measures. All of these too come on top of $100 billion in tax reductions that we have implemented over the last five years.
I am very proud to say that since we balanced the books in 1997, in every budget we have reduced the tax burden on Canadians and we intend to continue to move in that direction.
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a substantive question about the direction of the government. The government promises to spend at least $5 billion on a day care bureaucracy. Experts in the field, advocates who support this plan, actually say it will cost ultimately $10 billion a year to bring in a fully institutionalized day care bureaucracy, the kind the government is ultimately promising. That is $10 billion per year which is a massive cost for Canadian parents through higher taxes.
Why will the government not have the modesty to just give those child care dollars directly to parents, so that they can make their own decisions as to what is in the best interests for their own children?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I have heard this argument from not only other members of the opposition but other Canadians, and indeed, I have listened to that argument very carefully.
We want a system, in terms of supporting families and children, that is equitable to all concerned. That is why, when we implemented our tax cuts over the last six or seven years, we have focused on families with children. I will do the calculation between questions and come back with the exact arithmetic, but the largest portion of the benefit of those tax reductions up to now has flowed to families with children, particularly low income families.
We recognize that need to bring down that tax burden and thereby leave more flexibility in the hands of those families to make their child care decisions. However, at the same time, the national system of child care is clearly underdeveloped. We need more spaces. We need more skilled workers who are properly positioned to provide the kind of duties that they are called upon to perform.
We want a system that is high quality, universal, affordable, accessible and developmental. That is what this $5 billion is for, and it is not instead of tax reductions but in addition to tax reductions.
Hon. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite talks about child care and seniors. The women's caucus of the Liberal Party worked for two years to ensure we had a good increase for seniors. The bulk of unattached seniors are women who are living in poverty, who cannot pay rent, who cannot buy medicine, and who cannot buy food. We are talking about basic survival. The GIS increase helps seniors, especially female seniors in our society.
Regarding children, we worked for a long time, for 10 years, to get provinces to agree on a child care program. In 2000 we had the early education program with $2.2 billion. Now we finally have an early education program that is national, with $700 million and then $5 billion.
Tax cuts to individuals do not build infrastructure. It is like saying, “Give me a $300 tax cut for health care”, but then who builds the hospital? Who knows? Who gets the equipment? Who knows? We need infrastructure. Early education and care is fundamental to give every child equal opportunities.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance to tell me today, what will happen to those seniors and children if this budget does not pass?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the budget that we presented on February 23 was intended to do a number of things. It was intended to reflect largely the advice of the finance committee, which it did. It was intended to reflect the consultation that I held with literally hundreds of Canadians across the country and all of the provincial governments. It was intended to reflect the priorities of Canadians as they had stated them directly to me.
Canadians have said very clearly that they want to see improvements in the support systems for senior citizens. That is why in the election last summer we made our commitment to increase the GIS to bring back the new horizons program and to establish a national seniors secretariat. All of those investments will cost $2.7 billion. It is important for those investments to be approved by this House so that program can go forward.
It is absolutely clear that our country will not have an adequate child care program unless the provisions contained in this budget are allowed to proceed. That is not just my view. I would quote ministers of social services and family services across the country, including the Hon. Joanne Crofford, from my own province of Saskatchewan, who has said the social measures in this budget are among the most progressive that she has ever seen.
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had two questions, but the minister was kind enough to respond to the first question of GIS with respect to seniors.
I was elected in the greatest city of Toronto. A strong city makes for a strong province and a strong country. I know he has been speaking with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. My second question is, what are we doing with the city of Toronto and other cities, and what are the mayors saying because they need support? What has the minister done in the budget with respect to cities?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to defer to my colleague, the minister responsible for cities and communities.
We have in the last two budgets taken some very bold initiatives. We have provided a 100% rebate of the GST to all municipalities on all their purchases. That is worth $700 million per year to the municipalities of this country.
Second, we have taken the existing infrastructure programs and we have condensed them, particularly the municipal and rural program, from what used to be 10 years, down to 5 years so the money will flow more quickly.
When the budget gets passed, we will be begin to share the gas tax. That will amount to a huge new flow of long term predictable revenue to municipalities.
Let me just make two quick points. All of this is in addition to our existing infrastructure programs. Our intention is that funding will be ongoing permanently and it will be there for the municipalities of this country to rely on.
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to split my time with the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl and to make a few comments on this issue.
I have to pick up on one of the things the Minister of Finance said about the gas tax money for the cities. I have to say that this is one of the most disappointing things that I can remember in public policy announcements in the last couple of years.
A little over two years ago I was in Winnipeg when the Federation of Canadian Municipalities held a meeting. The Prime Minister, who was the finance minister at the time, made an announcement about gas money for the cities. I thought it was a great idea because the municipalities could use more funding as they are underfunded and the provinces are underfunded. This was in the spring of 2003.
The spring became the summer, the summer became the fall and the government made another announcement that it would move toward giving gas tax money to the cities. However 2003 became 2004 and still no cheques were in the hands of the municipalities.
This then became part of the Liberal platform for the 2004 election. I thought we would wait to see what kind of progress would be made. The election of 2004 came and went, the summer became the fall and then we heard another announcement. My problem with all this is that we cannot eat announcements, which is all we seem to get.
I want to know where the cheques are. When will the cheques finally be put in the mail, or will this be an announcement for the next election? Let me guess.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: It sounds like it.
Rob Nicholson: That is right. Part of the unveiling of the election campaign for the Liberal Party will be that it is going to give money to the municipalities. The municipalities have been waiting months and seasons and will probably have to wait years to get it. That is the problem I have with all announcements.
I remember almost 30 years ago when a former Liberal prime minister said that he wanted to do something about the marijuana laws in this country. He wanted to decriminalize or legalize marijuana. For Heaven's sake, it was 30 years ago. I disagreed with it then and I still disagree with it.
What happens is that this is announced by every Liberal government. In fact, one voter told me that he was voting for the Liberals because they were going to legalize marijuana. I told him that he would have to vote for the Liberals all his life because they just keep announcing it but nothing ever happens with it.
Quite apart from the problems that the Liberals think they are having with their agenda, that bill has moved through the system and we in the official opposition oppose it. This is part of the government's agenda. I disagree with it but it is one of the government's hallmarks, one of the centrepieces of the 38th Parliament, that it will bring in marijuana legislation and move it forward. However nothing ever quite happens.
It is like the money for the cities. The cheque never gets sent. That is the problem with all these announcements.
The minister talked about the day care provisions. We do not agree with what they are doing. I suppose the great thing about opposing it is that nothing ever happens. I was asked in the 2004 election what I thought about the Liberal day care proposal and I said that about the same as I thought about the last three or four times the Liberals put it in their platform. More money for day care goes back to 1993.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: 1988.
Rob Nicholson: Does it go back to 1988? I stand corrected. The Liberals started promising more money in 1988 and thank goodness they did not form the government that year. However it was certainly part of their platform in 1993 and again in 1997, 2000 and 2004. Has anybody ever seen a dime?
The only expense has been setting up the press conferences and putting out the coffee and cookies for these announcements. The only thing we get are announcements on day care and other things.
The Liberals say that they are moving ahead on these things and then we wait and wait. They get buried somewhere and become part of the Liberal platform for the next election. They will have their hands full because they have a lot of explaining to do.
One of the things I want to hear them explain, which I did not hear earlier when I raised this matter, is the whole question of organization in the Liberal Party with respect to the elections in the province of Quebec. This is one of the most disgraceful things that has come to light in our democracy in a long time.
Hon. members complain and say that they want to wait for Mr. Justice Gomery's report. I want to tell the House that it is not members of the Conservative Party or the New Democratic Party making these accusations. What is fascinating about this is that it is the Liberals own organizers who are making the allegations on all of these things.
One of the things that has become very clear in all of this is the corruption that exists within the Liberal Party and specifically how it conducted the election campaign in the province of Quebec.
I want to say what is very disappointing about this. I have been involved in public life in this country for many years. People have said to me that it was too bad my party did not do better in Quebec. They would ask me why we did not elect some candidates in Quebec because it would help our party. I agreed with them.
However, after hearing the testimony that came out this past week, I have to ask what chance honest candidates in the Conservative Party have in running when the fix is in. We would be running against a corrupt political machine. The Liberals can bleat, they can blare, they can cough and they can yell but they cannot get away from it. The Liberals have put together a corrupt political machine and that is a disgrace.
The Prime Minister says that he wants the election in eight months. The Bloc Québécois and the NDP have already voted for an election. It has only been the Conservative Party that has not made a move on this. The Liberals want the election in the middle of winter in the middle of a snow storm. They would like to have it on another planet, no doubt about that. Somewhere else, some other time, is what the Liberals want. They have already told Canadians that they want the election. Members of the New Democratic Party and the Bloc have already voted against the government. They have made it plain that they want an election.
However when the election does come we will be very vigilant. The same tricks, the corruption, the misused money, the cash under the table, the cash on top of the table, those kinds of things will not work again. Our honest candidates from coast to coast will be carrying the message that this country is greater than the Liberal Party and all of its corruption. We will prevail I am quite sure of that.
I want to emphasize that this is sworn testimony, not just members of the opposition coming up with this. It is their own members, their own organizers, their own activists who have taken an oath. This is all in public. They can laugh but Canadians will have the last laugh on those people, and it may come sooner as opposed to later.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the government wants Canadians to be in a position to make a judgment on the political process and they will be able to do that with all the facts before them once Judge Gomery has been allowed to produce his report.
I would like to ask the hon. gentleman about his comments with respect to cities, communities and municipalities. I wonder what he would say to Mayor MacLean from Nova Scotia who is the president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, or Mayor Campbell from Vancouver, or Mayor Fiacco from Regina, or Mayor Miller from Toronto, or Minister Sorbara from the province of Ontario, or Minister Audet from the province of Quebec, all of whom have said that the new deal for communities is welcome, that this is not just a new deal, it is a real deal. It is in the budget. It is before the House at this very moment.
Why, on behalf of all of those municipalities, will the opposition not allow it to happen?
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I guess I would ask those mayors what they would rather have. Would they rather have a plan by a new government, a Conservative government, where they might actually see some improvement in their financial situation or would they prefer another decade of promises from the Liberals?
I have a feeling that I know the answer. The hon. Minister of Finance talks about the minister of finance from Ontario. I can tell the minister what Mr. McGuinty, the premier of Ontario, says. He says Ontario has not been getting a fair deal from this government. He says this government is out of touch and, in particular, the Prime Minister is “out of touch” with the electorate of Ontario. That is not a Conservative talking. That is not a New Democratic. That is not somebody else; that is a member of his own party.
That is the problem the Liberals have. The Liberal premier of Ontario is unhappy with what this Liberal government has done.
Why does the minister not take Mr. McGuinty up on his offer to meet and talk about this? This province of Ontario is a great province. I am very proud to be one of Ontario's members here and it concerns me when I see the comments of the premier of Ontario in which he says how out of touch this Prime Minister is. Members can check it out. It was right there on the front page of the Toronto Star . I am not the one making it up. The Toronto Star has taken these comments by the premier of Ontario and I find it very unfortunate.
I would say to the Minister of Finance to get on the phone, sit down with the premier of Ontario, see what he has to say and see if it can be worked out.
John Godfrey: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member what he will say to the mayor of Niagara Falls when he attempts to explain why, in last month's Conservative policy convention, a motion to share a portion of the gas tax for public infrastructure was voted down?
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I can tell him and all mayors and provinces that they will not get the empty rhetoric they have been hearing from this government for the last 11 years, because that will be the very first change to take place with a new Conservative government. When we put something on the table, they will know they can count on it. They will not be waiting for years checking their mail every day to see whether anything arrives. That is what has been most unfair about this government.
I know the members of the Liberal Party. Their strategists are somewhere saying, “Let's cook this up one more time. Let's trot it out for another election campaign”. But it did not sell very well last year and I do not think it is going to sell in the next election.
Hon. Bryon Wilfert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that the member, who was part of the Mulroney fiasco for 10 years, could stand up and say that. As a former president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, I know that the government under Mulroney did nothing for infrastructure, nothing. The member says they will put in a new plan. If it is like the old plan, it will be nothing. The cupboard will be bare.
That member and his party have never, ever supported cities and communities in Canada. We have had numerous infrastructure programs. In fact, this government, and I would take it to the people, has done more for communities and cities than any government in history.
I want to ask the member this. What new plan does he have given the fact that his party voted against the gas tax and the fact that his party has never supported infrastructure? How can he stand up and say such nonsense to Canadians with a straight face ?
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I can say a couple of things. One of the things I want to say to the member is that despite all the noise we have heard this afternoon in the House of Commons, I would ask the hon. member this: where is last year's budget? The Liberals are still not through the last budget, never mind the new one for 2005.
That is how ridiculous it is. I would like to submit that as exhibit A that they are not serious about what they are telling the Canadian public. They do not even have last year's budget passed. Who are they going to blame for that? Why do they not call their friends down in the other place? They could ask them to step on it and get it passed, but they have not done that. I think that sums up the whole sorry mess that we are looking at across the aisle.
Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in what could be a very record-setting debate. It may be the last sensible debate we have in this place.
Before I get into the gist of my speech and the comments on the speech made by the Minister of Finance, I want to refer to the last speaker from the opposite side. He talked about infrastructure and infrastructure agreements and the lack of involvement by the former Conservative government under Prime Minister Mulroney.
I cannot speak for the hon. member's province of Ontario, but I can speak for my own province of Newfoundland and Labrador. During that time, when I was a member of the provincial government, we had two major funding agreements on infrastructure for the province, very substantive ones, which certainly improved the infrastructure throughout the province, particularly in relation to highways. The last one was back in the 1980s. Since then, we have not had one cent coming to our province by way of major infrastructure agreements with the federal government.
Ralph Goodale: Nonsense.
Loyola Hearn: It is true. Check your records. You were the minister. You should know, unless you are like the former minister--
The Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. I have to interrupt. The hon. member should make his comments through the Chair, and we will keep things quiet, I am sure.
Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Minister of Finance that he should know. He is the Minister of Finance. But if he is like the former minister of finance, he probably does not know either what is going on in light of his department and the funding that flows through to provinces or to agencies or to friends.
Having said that, I note the record will show that the last major infrastructure money that went to Newfoundland and Labrador came from the Mulroney government.
In his speech, the Minister of Finance would want the people of this country to believe that should his party be put out of power, all the topics that would be covered by the budget, money for seniors, money for cities, money for homelessness, money for child care, would disappear. No one in his right mind would even think that any government, even--I will not say even--the NDP, the Bloc--
[Intervention]
An hon. member: You said it.
Loyola Hearn: If I said it I will leave it on the record. I will not bother to withdraw it. Anyone worth his or her salt representing the people of Canada in this House will deliver for the needs of the people of the country.
There is an interesting thing about it, and it is why people are more interested now in looking at this side of the House forming the government than in bringing back what they have seen over the last x number of years. It is that not only will we put money where it is needed, into seniors, into homelessness, into the veterans, into infrastructure and into municipalities, but we would have more money to put in. We would not be giving away money to our friends and ad agencies. We would not be letting other people rip off the people of this country. We would not be spending $2 billion on the gun registry.
Let us look at some of the other issues.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: How many Conservative cabinet ministers resigned in disgrace?
Loyola Hearn: I had a meeting yesterday with representatives of the Canadian Coast Guard and--
[Intervention]
An hon. member: Tell us who they are.
Loyola Hearn: The Gong Show
is playing around me, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday I had a good session with representatives of the Coast Guard. One of the concerns they had with the budget is that a lot of money has been cut out for the Canadian Coast Guard. They raised the question of what would happen if the budget does not pass.
Before I had a chance to answer it, they answered it. They know that the money in the budget for the Coast Guard came strictly as a result of a tremendous report done by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, a report that forced the government and embarrassed the government into dealing with one of the greatest agencies in this country, particularly now in light of the movement of oil around our coasts, in light of the security needs of this country, in light of the fishing that is going on off our coasts, where, because of mismanagement, more and more fishermen are being forced further and further to sea in small boats.
These people know that the report was done because of the people on this side of the House, with the support of other good, conscientious members on the other side of the House, and it had nothing to do with government. They know that we would remember the Coast Guard, as we would remember the cities and as we would remember the seniors. The records will show that this party over here has stood up more for seniors and more for students who are trying to achieve an education in this country. The record speaks for itself.
Members can check the number of times education has been raised in this House and see where it came from. They can check the number of times the word “seniors” has been raised in this House and see where it came from. It was certainly not from the governing party.
As for all this bit about the fearmongering, the scare tactics and how unless people vote for the Liberals everything in the budget will be gone, no, not at all, because conscientious people sit in this House of Commons, conscientious people who are here to represent their constituents and who are here to make sure that the people of this country are looked after.
Forget that foolishness about who will do what. It is who will do it better. That is the question and it is the question the people of Canada will soon get a chance to answer.
Before I run out of time, I want to mention two other important topics. One is agriculture. Again, who has been the champion for agriculture in the House? The answer to that is quite clear. The people on this side of the House.
The one advantage for the people to my left is when the election is over, if any of them are looking for jobs, there is no doubt about it, it is one of the best comedy shows I have seen in quite some time. They can do very well.
The other issue is the Atlantic accord. Last year during the election our party committed to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia that should our party be elected, they would receive 100% of their share of revenues flowing from offshore development.
The Prime Minister when he was in St. John's and under great pressure from his candidates made the same commitment to Premier Williams in a phone call at seven o'clock in the morning, after a hard night's pressure. He said to the Premier that he would accept his offer. Then he did the same thing in Nova Scotia the day before the election.
We came back to the House and it was like pulling teeth. We had to beg, borrow and steal to try to get the government to make a commitment. The premiers had to try to embarrass government to get a commitment. In our case in Newfoundland and Labrador, the flags were taken down to create attention.
John Cannis: That was shameful. No respect.
Loyola Hearn: People are saying that it was shameful. It drew attention. There was no disrespect to the flag or country. It was a sign to the government that it had better pay attention to the provinces.
That is the attitude our provinces faces, the attitude that it is only Newfoundland and Labrador, it is only fish, it is only oil. Who cares? We do not. We care. We will make sure, when the election is over, that the funds will flow from the agreement that has been signed already.
When the agreement was signed, we still had to force the government to try to deliver. It brought in the bill, part of an omnibus bill, which it knew would not go through the House.
Let me give one example why the budget bill will be slow in going through. One of the clauses gives the Department of Public Works the right to manipulate all contracts. If we look at the news today, we see the same department has rented a building for $1 million a month with no one in it just because it is owned by a friend. That is terrible.
There is so much more to talk about and we will get the chance.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman said that if we went through Hansard and looked up the word “education”, or the words “Coast Guard”, or the word “agriculture”, or the word “offshore”, we would see those words were uttered most often by members of the opposition. That would be an interesting academic exercise in word processing, but I would submit that the hon. gentleman has missed the point.
Is it more important to count the words or to count the dollars, the cold, hard dollars that are in the budget for innovation, skills learning, the Coast Guard, agriculture and offshore? Beyond the words, we put our money where our mouth is.
Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, if that minister wants one word, which he has said more than anyone else, certainly on this side, the word is “no”. It is not hard to count the dollars that we do not get.
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings on the motion at this time. There is one hour and 41 minutes remaining for debate of the three hours provided by Standing Order 66. Accordingly the debate on the motion will be rescheduled for another sitting.
PrivilegeScott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a copy of Paul Wells' blog in which he says categorically that it was he and not me who said that which the hon. member for Calgary Southeast said that I said during question period. I can contribute this to the consideration that you have, Mr. Speaker, as to the violation of my privilege and the appropriateness of the hon. member's apology to me.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. minister can table a document at any time. He knows the rules for doing that.
It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from February 16 consideration of the motion.
Lloyd St. Amand: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to private member's Motion No. 170. I am sure I speak for all of my hon. colleagues when I say that occasionally forget things. We forget the names of former college friends or where we put our glasses or our car keys. This is a normal occurrence that we can honestly say has happened to all of us. However, a person with Alzheimer's disease may forget things that have happened yesterday or an hour ago and soon forget what day, month or year it is. Eventually those affected stop recognizing family members and friends.
Alzheimer's patients have difficulty performing regular tasks, have problems with language, disorientation of time, disorientation of place and have varied mood swings and many more symptoms that are not a normal or typical part of the aging process.
It was in 1906 when Dr. Alzheimer, a German neurologist and psychiatrist, first discovered Alzheimer's disease. The disease is a progressive, degenerative brain condition with no known cause or cure. Since 1906, many organizations have been created to study, to educate and to offer support for Alzheimer's patients and their families. For example, the Alzheimer Society of Canada was founded in 1978. It has grown and expanded to serve Canadians from coast to coast.
The education of the early warning signs of any health problem is of great importance to people of all ages. There is a growing influx of Canadians who are showing signs of Alzheimer's and other related dementias, and people are being diagnosed at much earlier ages. With proper consultation and programs, Canadians will be able to recognize the signs of diseases such as Alzheimer's and many others which may affect their daily lives and the lives of their families and friends.
In my riding of Brant alone, approximately 1,800 residents have been diagnosed or who have shown signs of Alzheimer's or other forms of related dementia. By the year 2021, in Brant the estimated portion of the population over the age of 65 suffering from Alzheimer's or a related dementia will increase by 50% from the year 2000.
With our high percentage of an aging population, Alzheimer's and dementia are issues that will in time affect all of us. Whether a personal diagnosis or a diagnosed member or friend, our lives will be changed by a disease that will and has become an epidemic.
It comes as a great surprise to most individuals when they learn that Alzheimer's disease and dementia are the fourth leading cause of death in our elderly. With proper research facilities and federal, provincial and territorial support and funding Canadians will be better suited to address issues such as Alzheimer's and many other diseases which may affect us.
Many educational organizations and groups already exist. I would point to groups such as the Alzheimer Society of Brant, which provides a wide variety of support in my community through support services, counselling, education and training of caregivers and of those affected by Alzheimer's and dementia.
The Alzheimer Society of Brant has members present in many of our local long term care facilities, in our seniors residences and in our hospitals, but more needs to be done. Individuals such as Vic Prenderjast, president, Janet Lovekin, executive director, and Wanda Dzierzbicki, community development coordinator of the Alzheimer Society of Brant, to name just a few, are present in many of our health facilities training staff and speaking directly to those who are affected by Alzheimer's.
Many of these organizations survive through the kindness and generosity of others. It is evident that the need for research, education and community support is a vital part of Alzheimer treatment and care.
In order to accomplish significant steps in treating this debilitating disease and many other illnesses which affect the lives of so many, governments, medical professionals, communities and individuals must continue working together.
While Alzheimer's is a disease that can affect any of us with little or no warning, many other chronic ailments exist. Through a combined strategy and partnership, we as Canadians may one day be able to win the difficult battle against Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia and the many other diseases that affect our lives.
Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was really anxious to speak to the motion by the hon. member for Thornhill. I congratulate her for thinking of the many people with this terrible disease, particularly at a time when the Canadian population is ageing. It is really an honour for me to have this opportunity to speak about this terrible disease in relation to my colleague's motion.
In the Outaouais region, the Alzheimer society is a very dynamic organization. I have been involved with a number of their activities over the years. We all have people in our family or family friends who are struggling with this terrible disease. There is nothing worse than losing one's own memory, or realizing that a loved one no longer remembers who we are. We have all had to cope with such experiences, which is why this motion is so important. It is wholly justified, given the number of people in Canada affected by Alzheimer's.
I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to salute all those who work in the background. We are coming to the end of volunteer week, so I would like to take this opportunity to salute, among others, Alain Tremblay of the Société Alzheimer de l'Outaouais, Robert Courchesne and Yolande Gravel. I could never manage to name all those who give of themselves day after day, including those who raise funds for Maison Fleur-Ange, which is already no longer able to meet the need. That is why I am so pleased to be able to support my colleague's motion.
I encourage my colleagues in the House to work together on this, as we did for hepatitis C. Times like this are what make me proud to be a member of this 38th Parliament. There have been plenty of times when we have been less proud, for example when we see the kinds of games that go on here. In the case of the motion on hepatitis C, however, and this motion my colleague, as well as many other instances, it is interesting to see how what we do as MPs can impact on the everyday lives of those who have sent us here to represent them.
That is what I wanted to say today about this motion. I will be pleased to support it. I really encourage everyone to follow suit, because this dreadful disease and related dementias must be addressed. That is why the motion deserves our support.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Newton—North Delta, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Newton--North Delta to participate in the debate on Motion No. 170, which reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government, in consultation with the provinces and territories, include Alzheimer's disease and related dementias as a significant and integral component of the Chronic Disease Strategy.

I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Thornhill for bringing forward the motion and giving Alzheimer's disease the attention it warrants. I am pleased to say that my colleagues and I in the Conservative Party will be supporting Motion No. 170.
Alzheimer's disease is a brain disorder that affects thinking, memory and understanding. It creates changes in personality, mood and behaviour.
Alzheimer's is the most common form of a group of degenerative brain diseases known as dementia. Other forms include Pick's disease, Creutzfeldt Jakob disease, Lewy body dementia, vascular dementia and primary progressive aphasia, among others. Although these illnesses affect other parts of the brain, most of the symptoms resemble those of Alzheimer's disease.
Several changes occur in the brain of a person with Alzheimer's disease. The brain cells shrink or disappear and are replaced by dense, irregularly shaped spots or plaques. Another indicator of the disease is thread-like tangles within existing brain cells. These tangles eventually choke healthy brain cells. A person with Alzheimer's disease has less brain tissue than a person who does not have the disease. This shrinkage will continue over time, affecting how the brain functions.
As Alzheimer's disease affects each area of the brain, certain functions or abilities are lost. This results in specific symptoms or changes in behaviour. People who have the disease gradually lose their independence, becoming incapable by degrees of performing simple tasks, remembering recent events, controlling thoughts or moods or relating to others.
Eventually people with Alzheimer's disease can no longer remember the names of family and friends or find their way around in places that are not completely familiar. They may avoid social contacts because they cannot follow the drift of a conversation. At this stage, many people can still live well using simple routines in a familiar environment but they may experience a sense of powerlessness and frustration that can lead to emotional turmoil.
Three hundred and sixty-four thousand Canadians aged 65 and older have dementia, with Alzheimer's disease representing about two-thirds of all dementia cases. It is estimated that by 2031 this number will increase to 778,000 cases. In B.C., over 50,000 people have dementia with that number expected to nearly double by 2031.
At least 1 in 12 people aged 65 or older have Alzheimer's disease or a related dementia. The rates of Alzheimer's increases with age: 1% of people aged 65 to 74; 7% of people aged 75 to 85; and 26% of people aged 85 and older.
Alzheimer's disease and related dementia cannot be cured, reversed or stopped in their progression. Today's treatments, which may include medications, are designed to reduce the symptoms and help both the patient and the family live through the course of the illness with greater dignity and less discomfort.
Canadians spend about $3.9 billion each year for the treatment of persons with Alzheimer's disease and other dementias.
The advantages of a coordinated, national approach to addressing Alzheimer's disease, in fact any disease for that matter that afflicts a large number of Canadians across the country, are huge.
A broad based national approach to disease achieves economies of scale not possible with several different plans running in parallel or at cross-purposes. With national coordination, redundancies and duplication can be eliminated, freeing resources to be shifted elsewhere.
As well, with national coordination, best practice guidelines for consistency and equity of care across Canada can be developed. This is a system that has worked well in Europe for cancer care. Various autonomous jurisdictions, through a system that transparently reveals what practices they follow and to compare with others, are inclined to adopt best practices. Working together and sharing information has led to improved care.
A national strategy would also allow stakeholder engagement and coordination among stakeholders to be maximized. Major diseases require a sustained platform that will provide focused and ongoing attention. It is not enough to commit to an ambitious program and then lose enthusiasm in a couple of years.
Creating a national strategy will help establish a platform. Why now? There are several reasons why the time is right for national disease strategies now.
First, our population is aging. As I stated earlier, unless something is done, we are looking at the number of cases of Alzheimer's going up threefold in the next 25 years.
Second, due to recent scientific breakthroughs, many new efficiencies and effective treatments have become closer to reality. A national strategy would increase the likelihood of a breakthrough.
Third, there is a growing momentum to develop national strategies for a variety of diseases. We need to take advantage now of this growing momentum.
Of course, any strategy must respect provincial jurisdiction.
The Canadian strategy for cancer control provides a perfect example of how a national coordinating effort can focus resources and efforts while allowing the provinces, the regions and the communities the freedom to apply shared knowledge in a way best suited to their individual needs.
Canada urgently needs a national strategy on Alzheimer's and related dementias. This is our best hope for developing new medicines to help those with the disease and to ultimately find a cure. Unless we invest in Alzheimer's research now, the disease will become a bigger and bigger drain on a health care system that is already at the breaking point.
We know that the population of seniors is increasing in Canada and so are their health care needs because of the diseases that are directly related to old age. Now is the time for us to do something about it.
Next year will mark the 100th anniversary of the naming of the disease by Dr. Alois Alzheimer. This is the right time to focus our resources on the diseases that are particularly related to old age and our growing population of seniors. I hope we will be able to mark the occasion of the 100th anniversary with a national strategy on Alzheimer's and related dementias, as proposed by Motion No. 170.
I support the motion strongly and I urge all members to support the motion.
Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted this afternoon to have an opportunity to speak on the motion that is before us, and to indicate my personal support and that of my caucus for Motion No. 170 that addresses the desperate need for a national strategy on Alzheimer's disease and related dementias.
I am delighted to have an opportunity to do so because there are a number of things that need to be said if we are serious about making this Parliament work. This is very practical and concrete. It is something that would make an enormous difference in the short, medium and long term for those who are now struggling with Alzheimer's disease. It will also assist support workers who are helping families deal with the disease and over the longer term for those who are working very hard on research to find a cure.
This is something about which I have a great deal of personal experience. My dad died of Alzheimer's disease. It was a great sadness to me. I was born in Ottawa and my father worked on the Hill as the first researcher of the CCF, the forerunner to the New Democratic Party. We moved back to Nova Scotia and lived there. He passed away just before I became the federal leader of the New Democratic Party. Had he still been alive, sadly, he would not have understood what that meant.
It is a devastating disease that literally wipes out memory and cognitive abilities. He was aphasic, could not speak and was immobilized in a wheelchair in his latter days. He was fiercely devoted to health promotion and prevention. Just as tens of thousands, in fact hundreds of thousands of people who have been struggling with this disease and lost the fight against Alzheimer's, the latter days of his life were very difficult.
That experience makes me very supportive of the cry for a national strategy for Alzheimer's disease. I want to pay credit to the member for Thornhill who introduced this motion, as well as to the health critic of the New Democratic Party who is very supportive. We know this is the kind of issue that simply cannot fall prey to divisions of any kind among members of the House.
I am very proud of the research that is being done by an outstanding medical research team in Nova Scotia associated with Dalhousie University. They are doing superb research while also offering amazing teaching to health professionals and support workers who are constantly learning about how best to support patients and families who are dealing with Alzheimer's.
Recently, the Nova Scotia Alzheimer's Society, like similar societies right across the country that have been doing yeoman service with totally inadequate resources, held a breakfast fundraiser, but probably more important than the fundraising potential of that particular event was the community education that was offered.
When I looked at the program, I groaned and thought, “Good heavens, over breakfast we are going to hear six speeches from six medical researchers and we are going to be here all day”. This was an event chaired by Bill Carr, a close friend and colleague, who is the official spokesperson for the Alzheimer Society of Canada, and speaks with enormous passion to the challenges of dealing with Alzheimer's and does it with the most endearing humour that I have never known.
It may be hard for people to imagine. Maybe one has to struggle with Alzheimer's in one's family or someone near and dear to understand why humour is such an important part of the tool kit needed to deal with Alzheimer's.
After a very humourous introduction, Mr. Carr was a very tight MC who allowed each of six speakers three minutes each. Mr. Speaker, you would have been impressed with six speakers who could speak for no more than three minutes each and in that time allotment give us an amazingly clear glimpse of the important research that is being done.
If it were not for the Alzheimer's Society working to drive this agenda all the time, if it were not for the National Advisory Council on Aging and the many others in the broad human services field who have worked together, families struggling with Alzheimer's and Alzheimer's patients today would not be living with improved quality. There have been important breakthroughs in terms of drugs.
One of the things about a national strategy is the importance of our having a national pharmaceutical program, a national drug program. As it exists today, shamefully, there are five provinces in this country that do not make those drugs available under existing drug programs. That is one of the many reasons we need a national strategy. We need a national strategy that deals with the education in the sensitization not just of decisions but all health care workers.
I have personal knowledge of how devastating it is for a family to have the spouse of someone struggling with Alzheimer's go to the family doctor and say, “I really feel there is increasing evidence that my spouse has Alzheimer's”, and have the doctor say, “Well, why do you want me to try to diagnose it? Because you can't really do anything about it anyway. Just live with it”.
That was probably the single most devastating thing that my mother had to live with in the early stages of my father's Alzheimer's. Yet, it is the person, the loved one, the family member closest to the Alzheimer's patient who always can see, usually before the evident memory loss, mood changes, behavioural changes, uncharacteristic outbursts of difficult behaviour, irritability and unreasonableness.
We need to ensure that the educational support is there and is assured across the country. It is not episodic or accidental as to whether every single person working in the health care system, in human services, has that kind of education that allows them to be part of early detection as well as providing the kind of care needed. We need to address the compassionate care leave inadequacy in the current legislation that the government has brought in.
My colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore must take a huge amount of credit for pressing this issue to ensure that there is a way in which a family member dealing with a victim of a debilitating disease and nearing death can be supported in terms of being able to take leave from a job, for example, if that is what is required and have some income replacement. However, what the government has done is totally inadequate in that regard.
I know the member for Sackville--Eastern shore has already tried to press the government further to deal with the virtual abandonment of the promise and the commitment made. The government has made the eligibility so restrictive that there are family members who want and are able to devote themselves to the care of a victim and a dying family member, but who are outside the narrow definition of what family members can qualify.
Further, the narrow time of six weeks compassionate care does not come anywhere close to addressing the realistic needs of families. We are talking about the dying days of Alzheimer's patients and about the whole range of debilitating diseases that are resulting in death, and where that compassionate care is desperately needed. If we want to make this Parliament work and impress upon Canadians that we are serious, we will deal with the inadequacy of that compassionate care.
Finally, home care was promised in 1993 by this government and in every election since. We still do not have what is remotely adequate in the way of a national home care system. It needs to be part of the national strategy.
We are pleased to support this motion. We hope we can cooperate with early passage to send a clear signal to the government that it needs to get on with dealing with this matter.
Merv Tweed: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 170. I too want to congratulate the member for Thornhill for bringing the motion to the House today and accepting the amendments.
It is important to understand that when a motion gets to this position where we seem to have agreement from all members of the House, a lot of the national strategy that will be discussed and developed over a period of time will deal with some of the issues raised by some of the members.
The member should be commended for the fact that it reached the House with agreement from all parties and we are able to speak to it today.
This is a national issue and it is an issue that affects all people of Canada. It does matter where one lives, be it in Canada, in North America or around the world, it has an impact on every family. There used to be a saying, “you never really understand something until it impacts you or your family personally”, and we are at that point.
I have had the opportunity to experience this, not only first-hand in family issues, but with friends and family of friends. I have seen the struggles that families go through to not only understand the issue but to accept it and deal with it. I have seen parents and brothers and sisters who really anguish over the fact that a member of their family, who they have known all their life, has suddenly become someone else and, through no fault of their own, can do nothing to bring back these family members to what they once were.
It is devastating to the family and it does create hardships. The fact that we are identifying it as a national issue and prepared to discuss it will help everyone understand it better and to get a better comprehension of what we can do currently and what is available to us, but also what will be out there in the future in order to make the lives of the people afflicted by this disease, not just the individuals, but the families of these individuals and how we might develop a long term plan to help meet their needs.
The local organizations in my communities have brought me up to speed on this issue and made me very aware of it. I told them that if I had the opportunity to present on this motion, which they were certainly aware was in the system and being discussed, that I would raise the voice of the people that I represent and hopefully create an interest in all Canadians as to what we can do.
I do not want to go on forever but I do want to suggest that one of the benefits in talking to this motion today is that we are looking at coordinating a national approach. So many times in health care, provincial governments and provincial bodies move forward on specific issues of health care and, unfortunately, we forget to share the benefits or the good things that we are developing within our system. Therefore we get people moving or provinces moving ahead in some areas and others fighting to catch up. By sharing the information and by working together with a national strategy, I believe we will see the understanding and the development of solutions, or at least the care and the opportunities that will be offered to people will be enhanced greatly.
I would be remiss if I did not suggest that by doing this we will create an economy of scale that will allow more money to be applied within the system as opposed to within the bureaucracy and the management of the system. Whenever we can eliminate the duplications and share the information, we can save a lot of steps and it frees resources to deal with the issue in many other ways. Also, from my own experience dealing with health in other provinces and sharing those good ideas is of benefit to everyone.
Canadians will benefit from the system once it is finalized. This is not just limited to Canada. It allows us to discuss the issue, the solutions and what is being done not only in Canada but in other countries. It certainly helps us in creating a national strategy to develop a platform to provide this service.
I look forward to the motion going forward. Members on this side have said that they will be supporting it. I will certainly be supporting it. I encourage other members of the House to support it. It is a good motion and Canadians will be very proud when it is finally realized. The families and the people impacted by this disease will be very thankful that the national government and their members of Parliament see that and have worked together to make this happen.
Susan Kadis: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to encourage all hon. members of the House to support my motion to include Alzheimer's disease and related dementias as a significant integral component in the existing chronic disease strategy. Other chronic diseases currently within this initiative may likely share some common preventive measures which may prove mutually beneficial.
I would like to recognize and pay high tribute to all the families, caregivers, volunteers, often unpaid, and health care professionals who work tirelessly to provide those with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias the dignity and the caring environment they deserve.
As our population rapidly ages, a significant number of the Canadian population is and will be affected by this catastrophic disease directly and indirectly.
I would also like to thank all hon. members who have spoken passionately in support of this important issue They have shared their own experiences in their ridings and in their families with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias.
I am confident that by taking this important step forward today we will build steadfastly on the progress that is being made. With the convergence of two realities, the increase of incidence of Alzheimer's disease and the possibility of an extended delay and hopefully a cure within our grasp, action now is undeniably the right thing to do.
Canadians will gain more needed knowledge, share best practices and enhance the potential for greater availability and options of care. Supporting this motion today will be a recognition that we do embrace this challenge, that we will fight vigorously in the name of all our courageous loved ones who have been taken from us as a result of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias and for all those who will hopefully never ever have to experience this devastating disease.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the amended motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to)
Business of the HouseMauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, at their meeting last week, the parliamentary House leaders proposed holding a take-note debate on democratic reform and, in particular, citizens engagement on Tuesday, May 3.
With the unanimous consent of the House, I would like to give notice of the following motion:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, on May 3, 2005, a take-note debate shall take place on the subject of citizens engagement.

This debate will be held as agreed by the parliamentary House leaders at their meeting last week.
The Deputy Speaker: The minister does not need unanimous consent to move the motion. The motion has been proposed. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to)
The Deputy Speaker: It being 2:10 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, May 2, at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:10 p.m.)