It was a work of genius.
Lost his last election, in 2004, with 41% of the vote.
Supply February 24th, 2004
It was a work of genius.
Supply February 24th, 2004
Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member for Calgary East a very specific question. He talked about the fact that whenever governments invested in infrastructure or special projects to help make our cities, our communities better, this was government buying votes.
The member is from Calgary. Does he feel that the billions of dollars over the 10 to 12 years that have gone into the oil and gas business in his community, through direct grants and tax cuts, and the hundreds of millions of dollars that have gone into the agricultural sector in his province, is also considered as the Government of Canada trying to buy votes? Does he not believe that those industries are entitled to this chamber, the House of Commons, working hard to ensure that they can compete and are supported so that they are globally sustainable?
Resumption Of Debate On Address In Reply February 12th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would get me the details on that pedestrian walkway in Windsor, I would give him an undertaking that we would work with Infrastructure Canada and the transport department and do our best to fix it, ASAP.
Resumption Of Debate On Address In Reply February 12th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I first of all would like to acknowledge the new member of Parliament from Windsor, Ontario, and wish him well in his journey here in this very special place.
I am very familiar with that road area he is talking about near Assumption College High School in Windsor. I think it would be very important to clarify to the people listening to the debate that the Government of Canada does not have the responsibility to do crosswalks. This is essentially generated from the municipality. If this were a pure responsibility of the Department of Transport and no other jurisdiction were involved, then I think he would have a point and we would be happy to take it up with the Department of Transport. I wish he would clarify that matter, because in all my experience I have never seen a situation where the national government was involved in pedestrian walkways.
Reinstatement of Government Bills February 10th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying through you to the member for Rimouski--Neigette-et-la Mitis that as long as she is present in the House of Commons, Quebec's voice will never be diluted. As I reflect back over the last 16 years I have served in this chamber, one of my special joys has been meeting members from different parties for whom I feel great admiration for the work they do. The member is one of the special contributors to helping this place be a better place.
On the point of the motion, I humbly disagree with my colleague from the Bloc Québécois. It is important that we let Canadians know what we are trying to achieve. It is an easy thing to pick and choose the bills that we are trying to reintroduce to the House in this motion.
I heard one of the members from the new Conservative Party this morning put a big focus on Bill C-38, the marijuana bill. This is not about reintroducing just the marijuana bill. There are a number of bills on this motion that we are trying to reintroduce.
We should tell Canadians the reason we are trying to reintroduce these bills that lapsed in the last session is we want to pick up where we left off, especially with those bills on which we probably have a consensus, such as: Bill C-10B, cruelty to animals, which I will come back to in a minute; Bill C-17, public safety; Bill C-18, an act respecting Canadian citizenship; Bill C-20, protection of children; Bill C-26, the railway safety act; Bill C-33, international transfer of persons found guilty of criminal offences; Bill C-43, the Fisheries Act; Bill C-52, the Radiocommunication Act; and Bill C-56, an act to amend the Patent Act and the Food and Drugs Act. There are many more like these bills.
If we are going to be candid with the Canadian public who are listening to this debate today, we have to let them know that it has been a convention for hundreds of years that in a new session the government has up to 30 days to introduce bills that died on the Order Paper when the previous session ended. This is a convention that has long been practised. It does not mean that when these bills come back we will vote on them all at once. Members will have a chance to say yea or nay on each individual bill.
The idea of delaying this has an adverse effect on citizens in every riding of the country. Some of those bills touch every riding in the country. A case could be made on the electoral boundaries. We all know what that is about. That is an attempt to delay the election. I personally would not have any problem if we delayed the election for a while, but the reality is that we will have a chance to vote yea or nay on all of these bills when they come back. I do not think this delay tactic serves the opposition party well.
I want to talk about a very specific bill on the Order Paper that has concern in my riding and has had national attention in the last couple of weeks. It is Bill C-10B, cruelty to animals.
As hon. members may know, Withrow Park is in my riding. It is a fairly large park. It certainly would not be large by the standards of the member for Rimouski, but in my little community in downtown Toronto, Withrow Park is a major park and is probably about 10 to 15 acres big. About two weeks ago someone put poison in the park where people walk their dogs and from time to time let the dogs off the leash. The one that hit national media was T-Bone, a King Charles spaniel. He was quite well known.
In my constituency there are over 10,000 pet owners. Those pets are sources of comfort and have special relationships with many of the seniors and families in my riding. The attachment, the love and the affection for these animals is in many respects similar to that of parents with children. The notion that someone would drop poison is overwhelming. In fact the poison is not even available in Canada; it can only be obtained by licence in the United States.
It is that kind of insensitivity with which a bill like Bill C-10 deals. The notion that this House would work at delaying reintroducing a bill like that is not in my mind a constructive way to go.
I am hoping that through the motion that is on the floor today we can create some new consensus so that we can move forward on getting these bills back on track.
A lot of people would feel pretty anxious if an election was upon us and we let a lot of these bills die before the election. When we came back, I believe we would have to go through the entire process again. What is that process? Probably a lot of Canadians do not realize that hours and hours go into getting a bill to this stage. Witnesses come to the various committees of the House of Commons and give members of Parliament from all parties expert advice on designing the bills.
In the manufacture, preparation and formulation of a piece of legislation in the House, we do not just snap our fingers and a bill is put together by the legislative branch. Bills are built after receiving hundreds of hours of input from citizens across Canada. Some of them use their own money to come here to give expert testimony. The House of Commons committee system funds some of them to come here. The notion that we would just scrap all of that work is most disrespectful to the work of all of those witnesses we have heard with respect to the 40 or 50 bills that we are trying to put back on the Order Paper.
I would appeal to the leadership of the Conservative Party and the leadership of the NDP. The NDP should take a strong stand on this because I know there are bills here on which the NDP has had a strong influence. Those members should stand and say they support the government in moving these bills forward.
There are bills that affect every region of our country, such as the administration and accountability of Indian bands. Look at all the great work that went into putting that bill together. Look at all the travel time from every region of the country, especially the long distances from the north. Look at the ethics bill. How could the opposition not want us to proceed on the ethics bill? There is also the whole area of the Food and Drugs Act.
These are bills that affect the health of the citizens of every riding in the country. The notion that there would be opposition to bringing these bills back and passing them is counterproductive. It is part of the reason that people lose trust in this place, because stalling just for the sake of stalling I do not think serves anyone very well.
Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply February 5th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, for starters, that is shameful. One of the great challenges that we have in the House of Commons is the fact that our population base has shifted to a point where 80% of our nation is now living in larger communities, which essentially represents the structure of this House in terms of MPs.
I am a city MP but we worked together when we did the family farm tributes, one, two and three. The greatest communications challenge we have in the House of Commons is to sensitize urban members that the quality and the security of the food and the supply of food that is produced here is more of an urban issue than it is a rural issue.
Sensitivities, like somebody having to find 16% equity, does not make any sense to me. I would appeal to the new Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food because he is a pragmatic minister.
Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply February 5th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, Jack Layton and I are warriors from many moons ago. We have had a friendship for a long time. I taught in his classes at Ryerson. The one thing Jack and I agree on is the level of foreign investment in this country. I share his view that there is too much of it and so we will put that debate aside.
However I will tell the member the one area where Jack and I differ. I consider serving in this Parliament the greatest privilege I have had in my entire life. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why, in the last year and two months, the leader of the NDP has passed on five separate occasions, where he could have gone into almost an acclaimed environment, to be sitting in the House, respecting the House and asking questions here. I am not saying that day will not come for him, but to pass on it for 14 months is a mystery. I will leave it at that.
Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply February 5th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the NDP for the last four elections and I obviously will be jousting with it again in the next election. The one thing that I have always experienced in the last four elections with the NDP are the moments when one can get a bit into the zone, and I am not talking about this specific member, where it can be a bit nasty. Obviously a mistake was made in terms of the initial numbers and the mistake is being corrected.
I started off by using the word trust. I am happy to give the member of Parliament from the NDP all of these documents. I have received these documents from various departments in the Government of Canada and I trust that the officials who gave me these numbers submitted them to the best of their ability.
I have worked on the Hill now for 20 years and we have the best public service in the world. However, in every institution mistakes are made and, from time to time, they can be sensitive and embarrassing mistakes. On this side of the House and in this party we have always corrected them. I believe part of the reason we always come back here is because we always try to take the higher ground.
Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply February 5th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, it is a great point and I tried to acknowledge that point in my initial remarks.
As members on that side will acknowledge, when there were specific needs for the farmers of this country we in Toronto tried to press the nerve of the government to spring additional dollars forward. We acknowledged the fact that the Trans-Canada Highway needs more infrastructure support. In no way, shape or form am I begrudging any federal presence in the province of Alberta. I would continue to be in favour of doing things that support every region, especially those regions and provinces that are not advantaged provinces.
I am not going to differ with the member. That is part of the reason I said that all of us as members of Parliament should know where all the federal dollars are going in all of our own communities. I do not know the total number of federal dollars that are going into the province of Alberta, but I would make the point to the member that there may be federal dollars going into his province that he may disagree with and may think should be re-profiled for the Trans-Canada Highway. That is my point. I think that re-profiling existing dollars is a very important exercise for all of us.
Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply February 5th, 2004
It is absolutely more than any region of the country.
However, we must remember the fact that this is the economic engine of the country, and I say that humbly. We do not mind that there is another $10 billion that is shared with the rest of the country. If we keep that economic engine healthy, we will continue to throw off much more than we receive. As national politicians, it is our responsibility to share with the rest of the country.
I want to go through a few examples of some of the agencies of the Government of Canada that actually spend tens of millions of dollars in the GTA. Even the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency spends money in Toronto in substantial areas. So does the Canada Industrial Relations Board, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Canadian International Development Agency, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages and all of the agencies of government.
The point that I want to make has to deal with responsible government. As elected members of Parliament, it is important to know where every dollar goes in our communities. It is not right that we are unaware of the dollars that go into our communities.
I know for a fact that three years ago we gave about $20 million to chartered banks for a program called labour adjustment. Not a single member of Parliament would vote for money going to banks that are making large sums of money when there are other needs for children, housing, shelters or whatever. This is the point that I want to make. It is about responsible government as well.
From time to time we have to look at government expenditures and ensure that they are meeting the priorities of the House of Commons. It is important for members of Parliament to know what is going on in their communities because they might need to cut in a certain area because there may be a greater need for people in pain. The point that I am trying to make here is that our system of government should be designed and managed in a way where we can ensure that those dollars are being spent wisely.
The second point that I want to make has to do with the communication of this large sum of money, or any sum of government money in whatever riding in this country. One of the reasons there is tension right now, whether it be provincial or municipal, is because there is a lack of understanding as to what government departments and agencies do in their communities.
It is incumbent on all of our public servants in whatever department or agency of government to ensure that they are doing their work on behalf of Parliament and communicate in a constructive way with the region or the community so that there is no misunderstanding with the media, no misunderstanding with the general public, about the activity of the House of Commons and how that work is executed.
I lay that down as a foundation for the fact that when we talk about a new executive, a new Prime Minister, a new government, it is important that when we look at this Speech from the Throne and see the commitments that are being made to municipalities, that we see that these commitments are on top of an already existing foundation of federal presence. This foundation is something we should not forget. We should ensure that when we are interacting with municipalities and working with their needs, that we also bring to the table the other work that we are already doing.
If we are going to create some momentum over the next few months around this focus on communities, cities, hamlets, we are only going to do that if the collaboration respects and understands the existing presence of the Government of Canada.
In other words, we cannot get into a discussion on new moneys or new commitments without acknowledging the foundation that is already there. One of my greatest fears is that people will isolate the new commitments from that foundation of, in our particular case, the $22.5 billion that has already been spent in the greater Toronto area.
This morning, on a radio show in Toronto, the new leader of the NDP said that this Speech from the Throne represented crumbs to the greater Toronto area and that people will eventually wake up and find that the Government of Canada does very little in our community.
That is really not constructive. What we have to do is, and I hope my colleagues in the greater Toronto caucus will support this idea, appeal to the Public Service of Canada, who is already spending that $22.5 billion, that we show that because it is $22.5 billion plus what is being committed in the Speech from the Throne and probably, in the not to distant future, the budget.
I want to leave with this House today the fact that we are moving into a new season. I have enjoyed the time that I have had in this House over the last 16 years. We hope that in the next election we continue to win the trust of our community.
Having said that, I will never forget the reason why I came here in 1988. It was because of the debating skills of John Turner on free trade. I enjoyed three special moments with Jean Chrétien, specifically, his commitment to Kyoto, his commitment to say, “No, we are not going to war with Iraq”, and for me, the work that he did on the clarity bill was something very special that this House will one day recognize as being a special moment in this House.
I want to say that my hope for our new Prime Minister, the new leader, is that he will become our first green Prime Minister, with a commitment to the environment.
I am also hoping that our Prime Minister never forgets that the people who make $15 an hour or less are the heart and soul of this country and all our policy should be designed in a way that all those people are in the loop, respected, and that they are listened to.