House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2021, with 50% of the vote.
Rail Transportation November 26th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport promoted himself from lobbyist to radio announcer to urban planner. But Jean-Claude Marsan, a respected professor at Université de Montréal, does not share his speculative views on CP, which he considers a backwards 19th century vision, like the Liberals' attitude about Mirabel.
Is the minister trying to favour friends of his riding at all costs?
Supply November 25th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the remarks made earlier by the Minister of Transport, when he was passionately defending the interests of his party. Why is he not just as passionate when it comes to defending the interests of farmers, of Quebeckers and of all Canadians?
Supply November 25th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the first time, the hon. member engaged in a fit of rhetorical gymnastics that took him to an entirely different subject. This time, he is trying to distract from the issue by engaging in an administrative distraction.
We believe that all of these processes can be worked through in a justifiable and workable fashion, but, at the same time, the hon. member ought to recognize that these farmers deserve to get their way of life back. For him to use bureaucratic obstacles as a reason to stop that from happening is really disappointing.
Supply November 25th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his intervention, crafty as always. I do note that the hon. member changed the subject dramatically. Is it not interesting how he did that?
I wonder if other members in the room noticed that. I see some heads nodding. When I asked someone on that side of the House to stand and acknowledge the pain and suffering that his Liberals caused, the only response he could give was that there is a program to dispense Liberal handouts, which he alleges does not have support from other parties. Wow: what an amazing leap from one subject to another. That, I would suggest, is a fairly breathtaking accomplishment, that he could make such a rhetorical jump from one point to another. I think I am praising the hon. member too much, but the point is that it is very impressive that he could make that linkage.
We stand for rural Canada and let me tell the hon. member how. We stand for rural Canada. We will scrap the gun registry that seeks to make criminals out of farmers. We will fight to get our borders open and we will stop insulting the biggest consumer of Canadian beef. We will defend the interests of agricultural industries that are protected by supply management. And we will step up to the table and find real solutions to the trade problems that western farmers as well have when they try to export their products.
We will fight for rural Canada as we always have and we urge the hon. member across the way to change his position and do the same thing.
Supply November 25th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, on all of these issues it is important to remember, as the hon. member across the way pointed out, the need for us all to work together to advance the interests of all Canadians.
In so doing, I would like very briefly to mention on behalf of all parliamentarians our congratulations to the 10 finalists in the As Prime Minister Awards, who were just congratulated here in the House, in the Parliament of Canada, and who have succeeded in bringing forward terrific new ideas for the future of our country. They are: Ashley Androsoff, Paul Beaudry, Sean Keating, Jason MacLean, Alim Morali, Yongxin Quan, Cameron Sabadoz, Juda Strawczynski, Tian White, and Wendy Yu.
I would also like to congratulate the member for Vaughan—King—Aurora for creating this opportunity for young people to contribute their ideas and make proposals for improving our country.
We have before us a very important motion.
This motion shows that the Conservative Party is the only party that defends the interests of all Quebeckers. Quite obviously, the Minister of Transport has forgotten his province. It is also true that all parties here are working together to find a just solution for the farmers. It is really sad and unfortunate that the Liberals do not want to cooperate with us to solve this real problem. They have elected to be totally partisan and to place their partisan interests ahead of those of Quebeckers.
I am proud to be here as a Conservative.
Let us review this situation. We have farmers who have had their property expropriated by the Liberal government to propel forward a boondoggle, a massive waste of taxpayers' money and what has turned out to be a complete failure. This of course is the result of the tradition of waste and mismanagement in this Liberal government.
Today we propose, in working with our opposition colleagues, to bring justice to this file, to redress the injustice that has been done to the farmers of Quebec around the Mirabel airport, the farmers whose land was expropriated and who now would like to restore their way of life.
But there is a broader question at work here.
The Liberal government has abandoned the interests of Quebec, and those of the farmers, too.
They are against the interests of farmers and this is a prime example: their failure to acknowledge the essential nature of property rights.
Property rights are a core principle of human liberty and that party across the way has continuously denied that right. It runs to the very core of any free and democratic society that if any man or woman works to cultivate and then enjoy the ownership of property, that right is inalienable. That right ought to be protected. It is the core of any free society that we should have property rights. The government thoughtlessly abandoned that key principle of a democratic society when it expropriated this land in the first place.
Where do we go from here? The Conservative Party has put forward a motion which would redress this egregious injustice and allow the land to be sold back to those from whom it was expropriated and those who wish to buy it back.
Of course the Liberals cannot support this motion for political reasons, because to do so they would have to admit that they were wrong in the first place by expropriating it. And of course they will not admit they are wrong. They never do.
They did not admit they were wrong when they lost a quarter of a billion dollars in the ad scam. They did not admit they were wrong when they harassed farmers and sports people with a $2 billion gun registry that cost taxpayers a thousand times more than it was supposed to. They did not admit they were wrong then. They did not admit they were wrong when a billion dollars went missing at the HRDC department. It was a massive HRDC boondoggle. They did not admit they were wrong then.
I see that some hon. members are so afraid to admit they are wrong that they would rather escape from the problem all together.
That is why I am proud of the fact that we are working with other opposition members on this motion. I do not hesitate for a second to say, “Yes, there are other opposition parties that support this motion because it reflects the interests of both farmers and Quebecers and ultimately Canadians”.
It is also interesting that the transport minister, one of the founding members of the separatist Bloc, would stand in the House and allege an unholy alliance merely because the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party, along with the NDP, are supporting the same motion. In fact, the only thing unholy is his party's utter disdain for property rights, for basic decency, for honesty and for redressing what has been a terrible injustice to these farmers.
This evening I will be speaking to a group of farmers in my own constituency. The Ottawa Federation of Agriculture has invited my leader, with me, to address their concerns. They are angry that the Liberal government refuses to support their aims to reopen the border to live Canadian cattle. They are angry that the government has not sufficiently defended the system of supply management that keeps their quality of life in place. They are angry that while commodity prices go up, taxes continue to go up and the Liberal government seems to have no interest and no agenda for rural communities.
That is why the Conservative Party will go to them with a real rural agenda to support the aims and goals of supply management, to fight to get our borders open through strong bilateral relationships with our most important trading partner, to scrap that billion dollar boondoggle, the gun registry, and divert those dollars into security so that we can really protect the way of life and the public safety of our people.
We are going to be fighting for farmers tonight at that meeting. I wish some Liberals would come along to fight for farmers, but unfortunately there are none across the way who have any interest in doing so.
That brings us back to this motion. Farmers who had their property expropriated now merely wish to have the right to repurchase it at a fair value to resume the way of life that was so terribly interrupted by the interference of the Liberal government and its predecessor Liberal governments.
We see that there is no sympathy for those farmers on that side of the House. Earlier today one of my colleagues asked the transport minister why he never speaks of the farmers whose land was expropriated. He speaks of all of the great things he wants to do with the property, all the grand schemes he has. Why does he never address the plight of the farmers who were displaced from their way of life? He stood in response to that question and he continued to avoid that question.
This government has never acknowledged the suffering it caused, the families that were torn apart, the businesses that shut down, even the deaths that were caused because of the immense burden of stress forced on people after they learned that their way of life would be tragically and brutally interrupted.
We have a chance to begin to right that wrong. I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, to join with all of us as we attempt to redress the wrong that was done.
We have here a motion that unites all the opposition parties to redress that problem. In fact, in one moment of non-partisanship, I ask that someone on that side of the floor stand and reveal to us that they will change their position and they will support this motion, they will admit they were wrong and they will right this injustice.
Mr. Speaker, I--
Department of Canadian Heritage Act November 24th, 2004
Shame.
Department of Canadian Heritage Act November 24th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, in this discussion of Parks Canada, it is very interesting that the hon. member failed to raise the concerns of the people of Nichols Island.
Nichols Island exists in the core of my constituency just north of the village of Manotick, in an area that is controlled by Parks Canada. On Nichols Island runs a road that over the years has been decapitated by the flow of the river that runs alongside it. Due to these changes, it is no longer safe for this road to exist for the residents of Nichols Island. In reality, it is now prohibited for fire trucks and some other emergency vehicles to pass on this road. Were there a fire, we might have a real emergency on our hands because fire trucks could not reach the point of emergency.
What is the federal government's response? It claims it is the city's responsibility. The city claims it is the government's responsibility. The federal government, under Parks Canada, is even considering charging the residents of the island to pay for the repairs to the road. I think that is outrageous.
This has gone on for over a decade. For over a decade these people have waited for this road to be repaired. It has put them in peril and has added stress to their lives. It has affected their real estate values. It is generally reflective of a government that just does not care.
I would like the hon. member to rise in the House and do two things. Will he stand and assure the residents of Nichols Island, the good people who live just north of Manotick on the Rideau River, that they will not be responsible for paying for the upkeep of this public road? Second, will he stand and guarantee that this problem, this menace to the safety and security of some of my constituents, will be resolved in the very imminent future?
Department of Social Development Act November 23rd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member discussed the Liberal failure to build social infrastructure in this country. Can he address the government's failure to confront the physical infrastructure problem in our country? For example, the government has failed year after year to provide support to build the Strandherd to Armstrong bridge which results in enormous commercial traffic through the village of Manotick. That is just one example of how the physical infrastructure of this country has been neglected by the government.
I would like to return to the issue of social infrastructure. The hon. member gave a passionate plea in favour of the government run babysitting bureaucracy that the government intends to set up. Our party is going to be the only party that will stand in the House in defence of parents. Our party is the only party that actually trusts parents. Let me give members an example why. Why does that party over there refuse to take child care dollars and give them directly to parents and let those parents decide what to do with those child care dollars?
The first reason the hon. member gave was that big American corporations were going to take over the raising of our children if we let parents decide what to do with their own kids. The hon. member believes that parents do not know how to decide what to do with their own children.
We on this side propose that any child care program ought to be universal, contrary to the proposal which that hon. member and the government put forward. It would apply only to those parents who put their children in a government run babysitting program. Those parents who decide to send their kids over to grandma or decide to stay at home and raise their kids or go to a local synagogue or church for their child care would not be covered by the government's babysitting bureaucracy. Thus it would not be universal; it would not be national. It would apply only to that narrow group of people who would entrust the government to raise their kids.
Why would New Democrats oppose a universal system of child care?
Department of Social Development Act November 23rd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, what we are really discussing here is people. That is why I want to address a number of important questions that affect real people in my riding as they relate to this sort of legislation
For example, I would like to hear what the hon. member thinks about the way in which people with dystonia are treated in this country. It is a debilitating disease and it is one about which there is not a lot of public knowledge. We learned this week that people will not be covered through public health insurance when seeking treatment for their children who are suffering with autism, an equally debilitating condition.
We have heard from the immigrant communities in our country that they are suffering with the reality that their foreign credentials are not being recognized by the government.
While the government has put its members forward today to defend its record and promote its legislation, Bill C-22, I wonder if the government could expound upon its commitment to these sorts of issues that affect real people, people who are suffering from diseases like dystonia, children who are not covered for their autism treatment, or in another area not related to health so much, immigrants whose very hard-earned foreign credentials are not recognized here in Canada. Perhaps the hon. member would like to comment.
Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act November 22nd, 2004
Madam Chair, what an astounding example of a failure to address the question posed to the member. In fact, he was stuck on the last scandal. I was talking about the next scandal which is the government's refusal to come clean on its plans with respect to the location of the Department of National Defence.
Instead of answering that question, the member went straight into a pre-written document clearly prepared for him by backroom Liberal strategists, whose job it is to defend the reputation and enhance the political interests of the Liberal Party.
I return to the question that I posed. What studies have been done to assess the financial liability, the strategic security, and the overall practicality of moving the Department of National Defence or any other government department to the JDS Uniphase building in south Nepean?