Jeff Watson

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to make Certain Payments, June 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I salute my colleague on his comments about foreign aid and good governance. I have to say that there is almost a sense of irony. I am a rookie here. I am just finishing up my first year as a member of Parliament. We hear about the government of the day and the political party, the Liberal Party of Canada, passing around envelopes and suitcases full of cash. It is a government steeped in corruption. Two properly framed motions of non-confidence in the government passed in the House and the government said, “We will pencil you in for what we think is a confidence vote, sometime after the Queen leaves, maybe a week later”. That same government is exporting its concept of good governance around the world.

Does my colleague think that is the kind of governance that countries around the world actually need? Could there be a better government to replace the Liberal government and provide true good governance, not only to Canada, but around the world?

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has said that it supports a national system of child care and early learning. I think it is interesting that Buzz Hargrove of the CAW, a major proponent of this, authored Bill C-48, along with the leader of the NDP and that group over here. They left child care out of the agreement.

The CAW's estimate for a national system of child care is $10 billion to $12 billion a year. This is important, because the members were talking about fiscal forecasts, how many surpluses are still ahead of us and how big these surpluses will be. This national system of child care would produce a $10 billion a year funding black hole.

Bill C-48 is going to eat some of these surpluses beyond $2 billion or, if our amendment is successful, $3.5 billion. That means less money available for national child care and early learning.

I have a question for the NDP and my colleague opposite. Are they giving up on national child care to get Bill C-48? Or do they want the high taxes, program cuts or deficit spending that will be necessary to pay for child care? Which principle are they giving up, fiscal prudence or child care?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, June 15th, 2005]

The fiscal agenda made sense in the election campaign, didn't it?

[Petitions, June 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to present two petitions representing hundreds of constituents mostly in my riding of Essex who are in support of the traditional definition of marriage.

The petitioners draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that marriage is the origin of the family. They go on to say that marriage is a natural institution that predates all social, legal and religious systems and which has at its roots the procreation and education of children.

The petitioners call on the House to recognize and protect the traditional role of the family. They also strongly emphasize that marriage must remain a union of one man and one woman.

[Supply, June 14th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, child care and early learning advocates place the cost of fully implementing the national child care plan at somewhere between $10 billion and $12 billion per year. I know this because I sat with the Windsor and District Labour Council recently. The Canadian Auto Workers plan is a minimum $10 billion per year.

The Minister of Social Development, however, has embarked on a plan concealing the true cost to Canadian families who will pay the taxes to support the fully implemented plan. He is only offering $1 billion per year or what he calls a drop in the bucket.

This is a $9 billion to $11 billion per year black hole over five years. There is a shortfall of $45 billion to $55 billion, a cost that will be borne down the road by taxpayers when the government decides to spring the full plan on taxpayers.

How will a hidden cost of that magnitude be covered? Will it be covered by higher taxes, fewer programs and cutting spending in other areas or will the government have to borrow the money and drive us back into deficit to do it?

[Committees of the House, June 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for bringing forward this motion, and I thank all opposition colleagues on the committee for such a critical motion. I find it ironic that with a government that has brought forward a whistleblower protection act as one of the earliest pieces of legislation in this minority Parliament, it is the Conservative Party that is standing here today protecting and advancing a tough defender of access to information, a true whistleblower on the misdeeds and the shroud of secrecy that surround this Liberal government.

Access to information is such a vital part of opposition parliamentarians being able to do their job. Perhaps that government over there does not want a strong opposition. It just wants us to roll over and play dead, but no, we need to be able to do our job well. Canadians expect us to hold this government to account. That is why they elected us as opposition members of Parliament.

As a kid, I was always warned whatever one does secret is ultimately going to come to light. That is why it is important to have a motion like this coming forward. What this government has done in secret for 12 years needs to come to light. It is not just the sponsorship scandal that I am talking about. I am sure there are all kinds of scandals waiting to be uncovered. That is why the Liberals do not support the extension for this Information Commissioner.

Ultimately what really sticks with me is that this current Prime Minister was supposed to be a champion of transparency and openness. That is what he kept telling people on his nine year climb to power as he stepped over Liberal body after Liberal body to become the Prime Minister.

My question is simple. I look to my colleague. Why is this Liberal government so afraid of extending the term of this tough Information Commissioner for even one year? Does it not want a tough whistleblower constructively criticizing its lust for secrecy and its tendency for cover-up?

[Audiotaped Conversations, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is time they updated their talking points. A leading audio expert has confirmed that the full recordings are “clean and unedited”. What is not clean is the Prime Minister's right-hand man, Tim Murphy, who apparently offered plum government positions to poach an opposition member for a crucial vote. The government will stop at nothing to stay in power.

Will the Prime Minister finally admit his right-hand man was caught red-handed in these recordings?

[Audiotaped Conversations, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's chief of staff and closest adviser, Tim Murphy, has gone into hiding as tapes of his illicit conversation with an opposition member have been fully released and fully authenticated.

Tim Murphy has offered no explanation, no documentation, nothing to dispute apparent Liberal offers to poach an opposition member's vote.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Why Murphy's silent treatment? Is it a guilty conscience?

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Chair, the minister said tonight that the system can be “accessed by all”, or in other words, just make the choice. Currently many parents choose grandparents or other relatives to watch and teach their kids. Through taxes, these parents pay the cost of these programs. They have no choice in that. To access them, they must break other family relationships. Why does the minister force a real cost but give no real choice to these parents?

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Chair, let me quote the minister, who said tonight that a child's central developmental relationship is with parents. Further, he said that it is the case and it will always be the case. Why then does the minister promote a program that separates parents and children, thereby harming this central developmental relationship?