Feb 17th
- MP
ndpFri 11:15 am | British Columbia, VictoriaAll those opposed will please say nay.
- MPndpFri 10:30 am | British Columbia, Victoria
It being 1:30 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that proceedings on the motion have expired.
Accordingly, pursuant to order made Thursday, February 16, the motion is deemed adopted.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members’ business as listed on today’s order paper.
- MP
conFri 10:25 am | Ontario, Elgin—Middlesex—LondonMadam Speaker, the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie is a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and he has already brought this forward. Everything we discuss at committee has a serious nature to it and it will happen.
There is a mixture of both to that question. Committees are masters of their own destinies and can, through democratic means, do what committees need to do to get their job done. However, today is the day to look at Standing Orders. That one will come forward and we will certainly discuss it.
- MPconFri 10:20 am | Ontario, Elgin—Middlesex—London
Madam Speaker, I do have my bible with me. I was hunting though it for the Standing Order that allows members to ask questions of the chairs of committees during question period today. I could not find it. This is something else we will have to look for, but I thank the members who did that today.
To answer her question, when I finished my speech in the House, that was the last time I will give my opinion on any of the things that will come forward in committee. From now on, I will be the chair and make sure the members do the work.
- MPconFri 10:15 am | Ontario, Elgin—Middlesex—London
Or a telegraph company.
I understand there has not been a private bill that has originated in the House in a few decades, which is probably why this section of the Standing Orders has not been updated. We have heard today about some other areas we need to update, whether it is the fine for a stranger in the House or whatever else. There is a need to take a look at modernization.
I am really interested in the upcoming review. There will be a lot of work done at committee. We have always worked fairly well in that committee. I would like to say it is because of the chair, but truly it is not. It is because of the work of all members. I want to mention what some of them said here today.
The member for Hamilton Mountain started us off and was very eloquent and passionate. She might even have been critical, but she did it with passion. She said that time is the currency of Parliament proceedings and the Standing Orders regulate how we use that time. It was a very profound thought and I will be sure to share it with her when she goes a little long at committee. She also mentioned that a debate on the Standing Orders is a lot like watching paint dry. I think it is a little more exciting than that, but having listened to the speech by the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, she may have had it right.
I would like to also thank the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, who also sits on the committee and is a very active participant. He said we should make sure we look at the complex parts of the questions that are being asked. Sometimes it is more important to ensure that we are not creating unintended consequences by fixing something in the first place. The committee will take great care to do that.
The member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre is always a great speaker in the House. He suggested today that the Standing Orders were like the rule book on how the game is played in the House. I thank him because often he brings us back to the ground in committee by talking in the way that people back home might understand. When we are talking about Standing Orders, it may not be easy.
The member for Kitchener—Conestoga was also very eloquent in his speech today, as he is in committee. I would like to thank some of the other members on the committee, such as the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent who spoke today. We are really happy with her contributions. The member for Windsor—Tecumseh is also a fantastic member on the committee. The member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine has also been a great addition to how we can work together on a committee.
The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, as was mentioned earlier, works a little differently. Members have fun, work hard and get the job done. I am looking forward to the next number of meetings on the Standing Orders to make this place run just a little better.
- MPconFri 10:10 am | Ontario, Elgin—Middlesex—London
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and talk about Standing Orders. As the chairman of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, it has been said I am a bit of a procedural wonk. It is good to see there are some others of those in the room today.
I have been very much looking forward to this conversation today, but I am really looking forward to the work that will happen at procedure and House affairs as the result of today's debate. Once we are done with today's debate, all parties will bring various proposals to the committee on procedure and House affairs. Although some may find it uninteresting, that is a discussion and debate that I will find a lot of fun.
Since I chair the committee, I cannot really bring forward proposals while we are at the committee. Therefore, I would like to throw a few ideas out here today while I have the chance. I also want to say I am trying out a new voice today. I will take a vote afterwards as to whether members like it or not.
I would like to throw out a few ideas that will go to the committee or will give the committee some thought.
One thing is looking at Standing Order 106(4) which requires the chair of a committee, upon receiving a signed request from four members, to convene a meeting within five days provided that 48 hours' notice is given. I do not have any problem with a group of committee members, regardless of party affiliation, being able to get together four signatures and call a meeting. What I am concerned about, though, is the strict five day requirement. Let us keep in mind there is no provision for extending this guideline because of weekends or holidays.
This has the potential of creating a very awkward situation around Christmas, Easter and other holidays. For example, if a request were received on the Wednesday before Good Friday, according to the Standing Orders as currently written, the committee would be forced to meet over Easter weekend or at least on Easter Monday. The same problem would occur if the request were received around December 22. The committee could be forced to meet on Christmas or Boxing Day.
I think we should consider a relatively simple change to the Standing Order that would uphold the spirit of Standing Order 106(4) but make it a little more practical. If we simply made it five business days or five days excluding weekends or holidays, that would give the chair the flexibility to call a meeting on a day that is convenient for members, as many have to fly in from across our great country. It would prevent committee meetings from disrupting our time with our families.
I believe we should also look at the right of a minority on committee to present a dissenting report. One of my colleagues had a bit of a comment on this earlier today. Under the current Standing Orders, if members of the opposition or a minority on the committee want to table a dissenting report to a committee report, they must first get the committee's permission. I think that is something the committee on procedure should look at. Should a party that disagrees with a committee report be automatically allowed to give a dissenting report? Is that something worth considering?
As you know, Mr. Speaker, back when we were in a minority government, the opposition majority on committees used their powers on multiple occasions to block government members from presenting dissenting reports. We may want to look at preventing such occurrences from happening in the future, to anyone.
I also want to discuss the topic of private bills. Before I did my research for speaking today, my knowledge of private bills was quite limited. I learned that there is a whole chapter in the Standing Orders devoted to the subject. In preparation for today's debate I looked through the chapter. It is in desperate need of modernization and updating.
For example, Standing Order 130(2) describes in which newspapers a notice needs to be published in order to build a canal or a railway. It goes on to describe the process to operate a telegraph company. There is a lot of desire for that apparently.
To prove that some of the provisions are out of date, let me read Standing Order 133(4) into the record:
No petition praying for the incorporation of a railway company, or of a canal company, or for an extension of the line of any existing or authorized railway or canal, or for the construction of branches thereto, shall be considered by the Examiner, or by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, until there has been filed with the said Examiner a map or plan, showing the proposed location of the works, and each county, township, municipality or district through which the proposed railway or canal, or any branch or extension thereof, is to be constructed.
I have been the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for a little while now. I have never seen anybody show up with a map to see where we are going to put the next canal. Perhaps it is a bit out of date and we need to look at it.
- MP
conFri 10:05 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake CentreMadam Speaker, I should start by saying that we are in agreement with at least one of the member's suggestions, the final one on the archaic $4 fine for a stranger in the House who has to be removed. For those who are watching or listening, this refers to a situation where anyone, whether on the floor of the House or in the gallery, has been found to be in misconduct of the House and has to be removed by the Sergeant at Arms. The current Standing Order says that in addition to their being removed from the House, that person would have to pay a fine of $4. I am not exactly sure when that Standing Order was written, but it clearly was a number of years ago. We also believe that the fine should be increased. Whether the amount should be $100 or more is up for discussion, but I certainly assure my hon. colleague that we have noted that Standing Order as well.
I want to talk about question period and Standing Order 37(1).
I would point out to the hon. member that my colleague on the government side from Wellington—Halton Hills had a motion last year on possible changes to question period that was being examined by the procedure and house affairs committee. I think we will get into that again, but one of the difficulties I saw in our first examination of that bill was referenced by my hon. colleague, the requirement that ministers always be present to answer questions posed of them. That is not always possible. Sometimes ministers like my hard-working colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, are out of the country representing Canada.
There may be some issues and questions that the members opposite might have when a minister is absent, and so it would be unfortunate if we restricted members to only asking questions of a minister when he or she were present. I believe that would impair the ability of the government to deal with emergency situations. It would also impair the ability of the opposition to ask questions of the government if the minister--
- MPndpFri 10:05 am | British Columbia, Victoria
Order. I would like to give the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville an opportunity to respond.
- MP
con
Fri 9:55 am | Ontario, Kitchener—ConestogaMadam Speaker, it is obvious that we need to see our leadership role, the visionary role the House of Commons plays across our country, as extremely important. That is one of the reasons why some of the initiatives have come forward in the last number of days in the House, as they relate to private members' legislation. It is simply a matter of a leadership role.
However, I am sure my hon. colleague would agree that there are situations where there are no similarities. We just had a question earlier about the Senate and the Senate bills. Obviously, provincial houses do not have that issue to deal with.
This party, on our side, is very committed to modernizing the Standing Orders so they reflect modern reality. We have already indicated that we would welcome input from members on all sides of the House, and we have committed to doing an in-depth study of this at the procedures and House affairs committee. We are not going to hobble consideration of this to just a couple of meetings but are going to give it as much time as we need to get it right. It is important that we get it right because this will help to improve the efficiency of this place.
We have been sent here to get work done on behalf of Canadians, and too often I hear, and I am sure my colleague hears as well, that things seem to move so slowly here. Like the one case I used as an example, if we could improve our efficiency by 60%, that would be fantastic.
- MP
con
Fri 9:45 am | Ontario, Kitchener—ConestogaMadam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to discuss the Standing Orders. We have already heard many good suggestions today that warrant further discussion at the procedure and House affairs committee.
I will bring forward a couple of new suggestions in my presentation, suggestions which I also plan to raise as we serve on that committee. The suggestions which I will bring forward have one simple goal, and that is to make this House run more efficiently.
Before I do that, I want to take note that preparing for this debate only affirmed for me the importance of having this discussion and actually trying to simplify the Standing Orders, because a read through the Standing Orders is very painful and difficult.
Therefore, it is appropriate for me to preface my comments with some thanks. First, your office, Madam Speaker, and the office of the Clerk play an invaluable role to the functioning of this Parliament. Hon. members can only make sense of some of the complicated rules and the maze of procedures with the help of the clerks and analysts, and that does not just apply to this House, but for me as a member of Parliament serving on a committee, I cannot say enough about how much I appreciate, and we appreciate, the work of the clerks who serve there, the work of the analysts and much of the research that is done to help us do an effective job as parliamentarians. My thanks to each of them for that.
I also want to offer thanks to those Canadians who are watching this debate today, if there are three or four, and who might read Hansard.
While the Standing Orders are complicated, they do set the rules of the game for this House and they are vitally important. For that reason, I also want to thank journalists who are following the proceedings of the House who face the challenge of making sense of all of these procedures for their audiences.
To begin with, there are many small alterations to the rules that could make a big difference to the efficient operation of this House and the convenience of its members. Often it is a simple matter of how the order of certain proceedings are presented in the Standing Orders or our order of operations, if you will.
For example, prior to 2001, the order of business for routine proceedings was arranged in such a way that the rubric “Statements by Ministers” came before the rubric, “Introduction of Government Bills”. If the government wanted to make a ministerial statement on a bill that it had just introduced and wanted to do so in the House, it would have to wait until the next day, since it was against the rules to divulge the contents of a bill before it was introduced in the House of Commons.
In 2001, the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons looked into this. The committee's suggestion was to re-order routine proceedings to allow for the introduction of government bills prior to statements by ministers, a sensible little change that opened up a positive opportunity to members of this House.
We now have a similar situation with respect to the process for bills based on ways and means motions. Before taxation legislation can be read a first time, a notice of ways and means motion must first be tabled in the House by a minister of the Crown. The minister, usually on the same day the motion is tabled, makes a request to the Speaker that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion on a subsequent day. Waiting the next day to vote on something that was just tabled makes perfect sense. That day allows members an opportunity to review legislation before they are called to vote on it.
After a ways and means motion is adopted, it stands as an order of the House to bring in a bill or bills based on the provisions of that motion. It is at this stage where I believe we can improve the efficiency of the procedure relating to the introduction of taxation legislation.
Our current difficulty is that on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, introduction of government bills comes before government orders. Ways and means motions can only be moved during government orders, so if we vote on a ways and means motion on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, we cannot introduce the bill based on that ways and means motion until the following sitting day. Depending on where we are on the calendar, the delay could be days, weeks, or even months, and I believe this delay serves no benefit.
While the ways and means motion contains the tax measures in the bill, there are other components associated with the proposal that may be contained in the legislation. In these cases members do not get the whole picture on the same day the ways and means motion was adopted.
In our current rules, there are two days of the week where we could vote on a ways and means motion and introduce the tax bill on the same day: Mondays and Fridays.
I do not want to speak for all the party whips in the House, but as deputy whip for the government, I can honestly say that voting on Mondays at 10:00 or on Fridays is not ideal. I am not suggesting a privileged process for bills based on a ways and means motion. The 48-hour notice required before a bill can be introduced would continue to apply to all bills. What I do want is the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examine the peculiarity of an additional delay to introduce bills based on ways and means motions on some days of the week but not others.
It should be noted that the timing for the introduction of bills that are not based on ways and means motions, whether they be government bills or private members' bills, is the same for each sitting day of the week.
Here we have an opportunity whereby altering the order of business, as was done with ministerial statements and the introduction of government bills in 2001, could increase the efficiency of the House by 60%. As I said in my opening comments, the primary reason to examine the Standing Orders is to improve the efficiency of the House of Commons. In this case, our efficiency and effectiveness would improve by making what is now possible on only two days of the week possible on all five days of the week. In this case, we may not want to move routine proceedings or government orders on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, but we could achieve the same result by simply allowing one proceeding to follow another proceeding, which is not currently allowed under our rules.
My suggestion to the procedure and House affairs committee would be to come up with a proposal that following the adoption of a ways and means motion would allow a bill based thereon to be introduced and made public immediately. If the current rules allow these bills to be introduced on the same day following the adoption of a ways and means motion on Mondays and Fridays, there is no reason not to extend that same convenience and efficiency to Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.
That is my first idea.
My next suggestion deals with the continuance of committee memberships. Currently in the Standing Orders the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is charged with being a striking committee which presents a report to the House outlining the memberships of standing and standing joint committees. When this report is adopted by the House, a notice of meeting is sent so that the business of the committee can begin with the election of a chair.
Standing Order 104(1) stipulates that this is done at the beginning of each session of Parliament, which is entirely reasonable. However, it also requires that the same procedure happen again after each Labour Day. Unlike the situation at the start of a session at this time, after each Labour Day committees already will be in operation. The only result of this requirement is a needless interruption of committee business. It is not clear to me how it helps the committees to fulfill their mandate from the House to have their work interrupted in this way.
The procedure and House affairs committee has the ability to change memberships at any time without being required to do so at a particular point in the calendar. It only makes sense to maintain the current practice at the start of each session, but eliminate the requirement to do it after each Labour Day. This is just one example of some relatively small changes that I believe the procedure and House affairs committee should consider in its deliberations.
I am looking forward to our committee's review as we work to make this House more efficient and modernize our Standing Orders.
- MPconFri 9:40 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Madam Speaker, my colleague made a number of points, some of which I found very interesting, and I look forward to the discussion on these items at the procedure and House affairs committee. I have a couple of comments in response to some of his direct suggestions.
While the e-petition idea is interesting, I would point out that this could also be abused very easily. In this day and age it would not be very difficult to get 50,000 signatures on any petition, whether it be partisan or something that is extremely relevant to Canadians. I note with interest that the NDP may have up to 100,000 members signed prior to its upcoming leadership convention. I say that because it would then be very easy to have all members sign up and any time the NDP wanted to create a petition for debate, it could get 50,000 signatures online very easily. The result would be that the hour of debate would use up valuable House time. I think we have to consider that very carefully.
I do find it interesting, and frankly on first blush I tend to agree with the member's comments on the Speaker elections. If it happened that there were only three candidates left on the ballot, two were tied and they both had to drop off, with the remaining candidate receiving less than 50% of the votes of the House, that would be a bit of a problem. I think we should examine that very carefully.
I appreciate the comments and suggestions. Hopefully, there will be many more of them from all parties that are forwarded to the procedure and House affairs committee for examination. I look forward to a very interesting series of discussions. I am quite sure that from time to time we will agree and from time to time we will agree to disagree. Nonetheless, I do believe that the Standing Orders as we now have them should be modernized.
- MPconFri 9:25 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Madam Speaker, I am not making any accusations; I am just pointing out the obvious. I have given one example of Bill S-5, which was unduly delayed by the NDP opposition. I have many more, but I will just give one because I know we have a limited amount of time here, and that is Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act.
We brought the bill in the same form that it was presented in the last Parliament, which had the bill before committee. When we reintroduced it in this Parliament, after 75 speeches, the NDP opposition still refused to send it to committee. Those members still said that they had more people wanting to speak to it. The ironic thing is they said, at the same time, that they thought the bill needed amendments. Well the committee is the place to make amendments, yet they refused to send it. They forced us into time allocation so then they could turn around and say that the government was being anti-democratic.
The strategy of the NDP is clear. We understand that. I think all Canadians understand it by now as well.
- MPconFri 9:20 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
- MPndpFri 9:20 am | British Columbia, Victoria
Is that agreed?
- MP
con
Fri 9:15 am | Ontario, Kitchener—ConestogaMadam Speaker, I have the honour to present a number of petitions signed by over 500 people from the Waterloo region, northern Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia.
The petitioners call upon the government to recognize the challenges posed by suicide by adopting legislation that would recognize suicide as a public health issue, provide guidelines for suicide prevention, promote collaboration and knowledge exchange regarding suicide, promote evidence-based solutions to prevent suicide and its aftermath and to define best practices for the prevention of suicide.
- MP
ndpFri 9:15 am | Ontario, Thunder Bay—Superior NorthMadam Speaker, today I have the pleasure of presenting a petition on behalf of residents from coast to coast from Halifax, Dartmouth, Cole Harbour, Toronto, Mississauga, Brampton and Coquitlam, all in support of my cellphone freedom act and for taking an important step to providing more consumer choice and to promoting competition in the domestic wireless market.
The petitioners ask parliamentarians to support Bill C-343 so that Canadian consumers are no longer chained by anti-competitive network locks on their cellular phones, locks which prevent them from switching carriers, from getting full value when they sell their phones or from using local SIM cards when travelling abroad.
- MP
ndpFri 9:15 am | Ontario, Hamilton MountainMadam Speaker, petitions keep pouring in from my riding of Hamilton Mountain calling upon the government to take action on the price of gasoline.
Just yesterday, Statistics Canada again reported that rising gasoline prices were the biggest trigger last month that helped propel the country's annual inflation rate up to 2.5%. The petitioners know they are getting hosed at the pumps but, unfortunately, as it stands now, they can only complain to each other because there is no official avenue through which they can seek redress.
The petitioners are calling for the speedy passage of my bill, Bill C-336, which would establish an oil and gas ombudsman. The ombudsman would be charged with providing strong and effective consumer protection to ensure that no big business can swindle, cheat or rip off hard-working Canadians.
The petitioners demand a meaningful vehicle for having their complaints taken seriously with effective mechanisms for investigation and remediation to help consumers fight the squeeze.
I know the rules of the House do not allow me to endorse a petition but I do want to conclude by thanking everyone who has signed this petition and who is actively engaged in working toward the passage of my bill.
- MPconFri 9:10 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to one petition.
- MP
conFri 9:10 am | Ontario, Ottawa West—Nepeanmoved for leave to introduce Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Civil Marriage Act.
- MP
conFri 9:10 am | Ontario, Ottawa—OrléansMadam Speaker, with all due respect for the new member, he should probably have another look at the Standing Orders. With regard to the absence of a member during a vote, that is public information. The list of members who voted is available. In addition, we can see how each member voted and which members did not vote.
- MPndpFri 9:10 am | British Columbia, Victoria
I thank both hon. members for their interventions. However, according to the Standing Orders, we do not mention the presence or absence of a member. The Journals simply indicate who voted yes and who voted no; of course, it is also possible to abstain.
I would therefore ask the hon. member for Peace River to apologize.
As the member is not present, the request by the Speaker stands.
- MPconFri 9:05 am | Ontario, Ottawa West—Nepean
Madam Speaker, let me be very clear: I made no such allegations against the Liberal Party of Canada.
- MP
ndpFri 9:05 am | British Columbia, Burnaby—New WestminsterMadam Speaker, we have had the member for Hamilton Mountain raise this issue. We have the Speaker of course looking into it to determine and investigate who is behind this. Of course, as the member for Hamilton Mountain just mentioned, this could be any political party, any staffer. We do not know.
Given that the Minister of Foreign Affairs accused the NDP and also in his heckling accused a Liberal member wildly, without any basis, it is very clear that unless he has some evidence to present in the House of Commons, as the member for Hamilton Mountain just requested, backing up the wild claims he was making about the NDP and in his heckling of the Liberals, he should stand in the House now and immediately apologize and withdraw those statements unconditionally.
- MPndpFri 9:05 am | British Columbia, Victoria
On another point of order, the hon. member for Sackville--Eastern Shore.
- MPconFri 9:00 am | Ontario, Ottawa West—Nepean
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for this very important question.
We are deeply concerned about reports that the Congolese authorities have stopped peaceful public demonstrations planned by a number of churches to protest irregularities in last November's election. We call on the Congolese authorities to heed the advice of national and international election observers to improve the electoral process in that country. All parties must work together to ensure that the security situation does not further deteriorate.
We encourage all parties there to resolve their differences through peaceful means to strengthen the democratic values that are absolutely essential for a peaceful and prosperous society.
- MPconFri 9:00 am | Ontario, Elgin—Middlesex—London
Madam Speaker, I know that the item has been before the Board of Internal Economy, but, of course, because members of the House do not know what that is, we would not know the answer to this question until such time as it is referred to the procedure and House affairs committee.
- MP
conFri 9:00 am | British Columbia, North VancouverMadam Speaker, our government remains committed to Canada's official languages.
Language training will continue to be provided to those who need it. The private sector, universities and colleges have the ability and the expertise to provide training to the public service at a lower cost to taxpayers. That is the same advice but at lower cost, exactly as Canadians expect.
We continue to search for savings right across government.
- MP
conFri 9:00 am | Quebec, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-ChaudièreMadam Speaker, for more than 30 years, Canada has been promoting the safe and controlled use of chrysotile nationally and internationally, and recent scientific journals report that chrysotile can be used safely in a controlled environment.
- MPndpFri 9:00 am | Ontario, Hamilton Mountain
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order that arises out of question period.
Earlier today during question period, the Minister of Foreign Affairs made unfounded accusations insinuating that the New Democratic Party was responsible for a campaign to expose the details of the private life of the Minister of Public Safety. As we have said over the last number of days, we are not interested in any details of his private life. His public statements are troubling enough.
The House of Commons Information Services has confirmed that the IP addresses in question are public and could belong to any user from any political party or any member of the House administration and the parliamentary precinct. I understand that the Speaker's Office is now looking into the matter.
I would call on the minister to table in this House any evidence he may have to back up his unfounded claims. If he does not have such evidence, I would like him to immediately apologize and withdraw his statements unconditionally.
- MP
conFri 8:55 am | Ontario, Nepean—CarletonMadam Speaker, the reality is that in addition to rendering the gas tax fund permanent, we have made record infrastructure investments throughout the entire period of the economic action plan.
Municipalities were invited to set their priorities, provinces to back them, and then our government matched them with record funds in order to make major capital improvements right across the country. These municipalities and provinces had to make their decisions on what they wanted funded, and we came through.
They can continue to make decisions of that nature, because of the record transfers we are making every single year to both the provinces and the municipalities.
- MP
conFri 8:55 am | Nova Scotia, South Shore—St. Margaret'sMadam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Richmond Hill for his hard work in support of our government's pro-trade plan.
Our government understands deeper trade and investment ties will benefit Canadians, creating more jobs, opportunities and economic growth. The Canada–Panama economic growth and prosperity act would eliminate the vast majority of tariffs between Canada and Panama, directly benefiting Canadian exporters and creating jobs for Canadian workers.
Our government is standing with businesses, workers and families and this agreement is further proof of our commitment. I would ask at this time for the support of the—
- MP
libFri 8:50 am | Quebec, Saint-Laurent—CartiervilleMadam Speaker, the office of the Chief Actuary projects that the federal elderly benefits cost in proportion to the GDP, which is currently 2.2%, will reach a peak of 3.1% of the GDP in 2030 and will decline afterward. The Parliamentary Budget Officer's projections are similar.
Does the Minister of Finance agree with these numbers? Will the federal elderly benefits reach a maximum of about 3.2% in the next two decades before declining?
- MP
con
Fri 8:50 am | Ontario, Haldimand—NorfolkMadam Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer is entitled to his opinion, whatever it may be on a given day, but we will deal with the facts.
We know that as the population ages and fewer people are left in the workplace to pay into OAS, it will become unsustainable. That is why we have to take action now so that today's seniors have their OAS benefits and future generations get them as well. That is our responsibility, one which we take very seriously.
- MP
conFri 8:50 am | Alberta, MacleodMadam Speaker, if the NDP members spent more time worrying about Canadian jobs than they do on the Internet with their sleazy tricks, they would actually know that 90% of those 610,000 net new jobs are full time, many of which are in the community to which he is referring. Those jobs are all across this country. Those people are happy that our government has put in place policies that create jobs.
- MP
ndpFri 8:45 am | Ontario, WellandMadam Speaker, this past Wednesday, the agriculture committee learned that only 2% of food imported into Canada is actually inspected. Yet 100% of the products that we produce and send abroad are inspected. Canadians expected, in fact believed, that all imported food was inspected. The agriculture committee now knows that is not true.
What is the government going to do to ensure that imported food is inspected so that Canadian consumers will feel safe when they feed their families?
- MP
conFri 8:45 am | Saskatchewan, Cypress Hills—GrasslandsMadam Speaker, the member should know that the CFIA enforces the same rigorous food safety standards on imported food as it does for domestic food.
I can give him some examples of what we have done to improve our import system. He should know this if he is on the agriculture committee.
Our recent budget includes an additional $100 million over five years to enhance food safety. We have delivered $223 million to the food safety action plan. To improve controls on imported food, we eliminated the 72 hour notification of inspections of meat imports. We have established an import surveillance team to perform 480 border blitzes.
Madam Speaker, I could go on, but I know my time is running out.
- MP
libFri 8:35 am | Quebec, Westmount—Ville-MarieMadam Speaker, our air force will need a minimum of 65 planes to replace the CF-18, and I say a minimum because that does not even account for attrition. We know that over the next 30 years there will definitely be some attrition.
We are faced with a stark choice. If we get 65 airplanes we will blow past our $9 billion budget by a wide margin or we will shortchange our air force.
What will it be from the government? Will it continue to mismanage this project or will our air force be shortchanged?
- MP
libFri 8:35 am | Ontario, Etobicoke NorthMadam Speaker, after six years, the government's sorry record on the environment stands alone.
At the World Economic Forum, the Prime Minister said, “Canada's investments in science and technology had produced poor results”. What a cheap shot at our hard-working scientists.
Now international scientists are slamming our government for turning its back on science and international agreements.
Why is the government muzzling Canadian scientists and destroying the reputation of Canada for environmental leadership?
- MP
conFri 8:35 am | Ontario, St. CatharinesMadam Speaker, the answer can be found in the very point that the member made. Legitimate refugees have the opportunity to come to this country, begin a new life, bring up their family and become Canadians in the best country in the world in which to settle. However, when we have countries where individuals are making bogus refugee claims, up to the point where 95% of the claims are bogus, that is not a system that works. Those are the people taking advantage of Canadians.
- MPconFri 8:30 am | Ontario, Ottawa West—Nepean
Madam Speaker, we are talking about dirty, sleazy Internet tricks. If the New Democratic Party has nothing to hide, would it grant unanimous consent for the Speaker to look at this issue and report back today on what the evidence is of the NDP's dirty tricks, or does it have something to hide?
- MPconFri 8:30 am | Ontario, St. Catharines
Madam Speaker, the minister did no such thing. In fact, this party and the previous government, in partnership with the opposition, put together a foundation to build upon a refugee system called Bill C-11. This week we introduced a new bill that would build even further on the strengths of what is a great refugee system, one of the best in the world, but it needs to be improved.
It has been pointed out time and time again that our system is being taken advantage of. There have been $170 million in bogus refugee claims from the EU alone. Enough is enough. We need to move forward.
- MPconFri 8:25 am | Ontario, Ottawa West—Nepean
Madam Speaker, there is only one party that is attempting to snoop into the personal and private lives of members of Parliament and Canadians and that is the New Democratic Party.
I encourage the member to accept responsibility for the sleazy, dirty tricks campaign, stand in her place and apologize, identify and take responsibility for who is responsible for this reckless, disgraceful behaviour.
- MP
ndpFri 8:25 am | Newfoundland, St. John's EastMadam Speaker, it is the public activities of the Minister of Public Safety that we are concerned about. Not only would his online snooping bill intrude on Canadians' privacy, it would also intrude on their wallets. The bill would force Internet service providers to spend millions to build extensive systems to spy on their own customers. As we know, it is consumers who will be forced to pick up the tab.
Why is the Conservative government making Canadians pay for the privilege of being snooped on?
- MPconFri 8:20 am | Ontario, Ottawa West—Nepean
Madam Speaker, Canada has one of the most fair and generous immigration systems in the world. Canadians have absolutely no tolerance for those who would abuse our generosity and would take unfair advantage of our country.
Let us look at the facts. Why did the United States have only 47 claims in 2009-10 from Europe, while Canada had 4,700 claims in the same period?
- MPconFri 8:20 am | Alberta, Macleod
Madam Speaker, to clarify the point, the government did get the job done for over 610,000 Canadians. For the NDP to say what it voted against did not help Canadians, I find that sort of a statement incredulous, as do the 610,000 Canadians who are working today who were not working in July 2009.
- MP
libFri 8:20 am | Prince Edward Island, MalpequeMadam Speaker, my question is for the government's chief spymaster who is so intent on snooping into Canadians' private emails and the laptops of the nation. However, Conservatives are not stopping at emails. The minister's bill would allow government agents to enter on an Internet service provider when they wanted, without a warrant and demand to see absolutely everything and even to copy it all.
Why does the government see every Canadian as an enemy of the state and why has the minister given Conservative agents absolute power to pry?
- MPndpFri 8:20 am | Ontario, Hamilton Mountain
Madam Speaker, we voted against the Conservative budget because it did not get the job done.
Let me be clear. Building more prisons is not going to put food on the table or help pay the bills. Here is just one example. Gas prices are 6.8%, driving up inflation and making it even harder for families to make ends meet.
When are the Conservatives going to take action on gas prices? Why will they not pass my Bill C-336 so drivers will not be hosed at the pumps?
- MPconFri 8:15 am | Ontario, Ottawa West—Nepean
Madam Speaker, this government will continue to be transparent and it will seek authority from Parliament on a range of budget issues.
What we are doing, though, is reviewing every expenditure within government to ensure we can find savings and ensure we can balance the budget to keep Canada strong.
Obviously, when that exercise is complete, the Minister of Finance will stand in this place and present the financial plan for the following year. It will be subject to the estimates process and to the full financial scrutiny that has always been the case with this government.
- MPndpFri 8:15 am | British Columbia, Burnaby—New Westminster
Madam Speaker, yesterday we learned that the Treasury Board has imposed a gag order on all departments regarding public service cuts. Who gave this order? The same minister who plans to cut up to $8 billion, which will mean the loss of many services. This is also the same minister who tried to hide a $50 million slush fund. So much for transparency.
Canadians have a right to know: is the government muzzling the departments because it is afraid of how Canadian families will react?
- MP
conFri 8:10 am | Alberta, Peace RiverMadam Speaker, two days ago the NDP MPs from Thunder Bay stood up to their downtown, big union executive bosses' marching orders and voted against the ineffective long gun registry. One of them even said:
I am counting the days, hours, minutes and seconds until we get a new leader...Hopefully a good one.
Given the NDP's track record, we all understand why this MP feels that a new leader may not change anything at all.
However, the NDP MP for Western Arctic, and even the former leadership candidate from northern Quebec, chose not to show up for the vote on Wednesday, perhaps in order to avoid retaliation. It proves that the NDP punishes the MPs who speak up for their northern and rural constituents.
This is yet another worrying example that the disunited NDP's reckless and irresponsible policies are a danger to rural and northern Canadians.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 ... 382 Next »
