Charles Hubbard

[Master Corporal Allen Stewart, May 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, May 11 a special memorial service was held at St. Mary's Church in Miramichi for Master Corporal Allen Stewart who had lost his life in Afghanistan on April 11. Father Fowler hosted the service organized by Dean Lawrence and the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association. The service was attended by hundreds of Miramichiers including present and former members of the Canadian armed forces.

Master Corporal Stewart was only 30 years of age. He was in his twelfth year of service, his fourth overseas tour and a second tasking in Afghanistan. A proud member of the Royal Canadian Dragoons, Allen was from the small rural community of Trout Brook on the northwest Miramichi. After graduating from NSER High School in 1995, service to Canada was his career. His devotion to duty is so reflective of many rural Atlantic Canadians who are serving in our forces.

On behalf of all Miramichi constituents and Canadians, I extend condolences and appreciation for his duty to his family, his mother Blanche Gilks, his father John Stewart, his widow Christa Le Furgey Stewart, and especially his two young daughters Brittany and Sarah.

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, May 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is a shame when the Minister of Finance wants to interrupt somebody on a different issue from what I was talking about. It is a shame. He should apologize to the hon. member from Nova Scotia and not try to disrupt this House.

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, May 7th, 2007]

But these Irish. I have Irish friends and they always attempt to show their real strength.

I am sorry if the hon. member wants to interrupt me on something different.

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, May 7th, 2007]

I wonder where we are coming from in terms of openness, in terms of providing a better government for this country.

Mr. Speaker, I see I have roused a little bit of concern on the other side when I bring those points forward. I think I may have to stop because someone's jacket is on the floor, who is going to step on it? Back home when people talk tough talk like that, they throw their coat on the floor and someone jumps on it.

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, May 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly interesting to hear what is projected for the House with this bill. I know Conservative Party members have problems because when they established themselves as the new Conservative Party, even within the Senate, some Progressive Conservative senators did not want to join the new establishment. So even within the Senate itself I know they perceive some problems with who they think supports them in the Senate.

I am a member from New Brunswick, a region of Canada which has 10 senators. We have to look back at the Constitution of this country whereby Atlantic Canada, the maritime provinces were provided with 24 senators, in other words at that time one-quarter of the Canadian Senate. Over the last 140 years numerous changes have occurred within Canada. We hear people speak about the need to make some changes to the Senate, but I have always been proud of the Senate. In fact when I went home this past weekend I heard as many people criticize this House as I went around the streets of my constituency as I did those who might want to criticize the Senate.

When we look at bills like this and the accountability bill that is tied in with this one, we have to wonder how accountable we are to the people of Canada when we spend the whole day talking about Bill C-43. It is 51 pages long and my impression is that I am disappointed if our justice department wrote this piece of legislation. If the justice department did write it, there certainly must have been a lot of instructions from somebody who had some very different ideas on how the future of our Senate should be determined.

The House of Lords in Britain at the present time is undergoing some changes. Certain restrictions are being placed upon the future of that house. Who should be members of the House of Lords in the future is a matter of great debate within the British parliament .

Two houses are part of our federal system. Each house reflects different ideas, different backgrounds, different concerns. When I heard today about setting up a consultation process, it is simply an attempt by the Prime Minister and the Conservative government to get around what really should be the Constitution of our country. They want to rely on a complicated system of people in an election giving preferences and a long list of who might be a senator in that particular province or region.

I have not heard, for example, a comparison to the United States Senate where each state has two senators. We should look at the costs of running for the U.S. Senate and what the people of Canada might spend on getting a consultation process that might be used for the Prime Minister to appoint somebody to the Senate.

We had a recent debate on justice and the appointments to the judicial system. Will the next step be to have elections of judges as they have in some countries, in fact in parts of the United States? Maybe that is the next step the government is considering.

In my own province recently, talking about the concept of offering party followers some of these appointments, we have had three judicial appointments recently. One was a former leader of the Conservative Party in New Brunswick. Another was the chief organizer for the government and that party in the last federal election. The third one has very close ties to a former member of Parliament.

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, May 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that the bill was brought first to our House December 13. Those of us who saw it at that time wondered if it would ever come back. However, it is back today.

There seems to be some degree of apology from the government that it brought it back to the House for further consideration, hoping for it to go to committee. However, when I listen, I am afraid I hear some members opposite saying they are dissatisfied with some of the senators sitting in the room just across the way from us.

First, the member for Crowfoot says “if the provinces are willing”. Could he explain that? It is my impression that at least two of the major provinces do not want to hear about the bill. Second, could he give us the names of the constitutional scholars who believe this bill is constitutionally correct?

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, May 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, certainly we had a number of very good presentations. The hon. member has brought forward his support for the bill. We on this side of the House have some concerns. I would like to ask him a very basic question.

In Ontario very soon there will be a provincial election. We know that there may be vacant Senate seats in Ontario and according to the bill, anyone from North Bay to Ottawa would be able to put forward his or her name to become a senator. There could be 30 names on the list. The one who got the most support might have 7% of the votes that were cast, and maybe as in Alberta, only about 20% of the people would vote. How would this be a significant factor in terms of making a decision on behalf of the Prime Minister?

If a person from North Bay or any other place, let us say, Sioux Lookout, wanted to be a senator, how would that person contest this consultation to get a fair number of votes across the great province of Ontario? Would he or she be able to achieve his or her objective to become a senator?

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, May 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am rather disappointed today that the debate has reached this level. For example, the hon. member for Peterborough referenced the recent appointment to the Senate of the bagman from Quebec. It is rather surprising because he has had an opportunity to run in two byelections since then, which he has not done. Then we hear the debate on the Wheat Board.

I know that eventually the government is going to try to get around the legislation dealing with the Wheat Board, but today we are talking about accountability in terms of what we are doing in the House. We have before us a bill that is 51 pages in length that talks about consultations.

We have to look at Alberta where a lot of this started. There was a senator appointed on the basis of consultations and a second one is waiting for Senator Hays to get old enough to retire. One wonders what the process is about. What percentage of the voting population in Alberta was actually involved with naming in terms of consultation?

The hon. member has brought up a lot of good points and I am also looking for an opportunity to bring some points forward, but I would like to reference the hon. member for Peterborough and his bagman from Quebec that was recently appointed to the Senate. Would the hon. member for Malpeque briefly give us his impressions about that appointment, a minister of the Crown in the Senate being a bagman from Quebec?

[Criminal Code, April 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not sure that a member can amend his own motion. Could we check the records on that?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, March 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would call this a salt and pepper budget. It increases government spending by $10 billion. It takes an ever greater percentage, ratio, of federal spending to the GDP than we have seen in some time. It advocates very little money for research and development for the future of our country and for secondary education. The list could go on.

I know in terms of what was presented today, we do not see a lot of money allocated for so-called tax relief to those people most in need, the people with low incomes.

We have seen here this week a challenge to our party on the budget. We noticed that the Bloc was able to support it, but I know the people who talk about the people who are most in need in this country are not getting a lot of tax relief.

The tax relief is mainly for those earning a lot of money. It certainly does not help out the working poor. I would like to hear more from the parliamentary secretary on a budget that has no vision, no direction, and no great programs to educate people. It sees an additional tax revenue, additional spending, and not good control of our federal money.