Rob Nicholson

[Committees of the House, April 12th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Conservative Party will be voting no on this amendment.

[Parliament of Canada Act, March 23rd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, members of the Conservative Party will be voting in favour of the motion.

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, March 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Conservative Party will be voting yes to the motion.

[Supply, March 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Conservative Party will be voting in the affirmative.

[Sponsorship Program, March 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, before the government starts spending millions on a lawsuit, and I would bet that all the money will go to Liberal-friendly law firms as well, why does the Prime Minister not get on his feet and admit that this whole sorry mess right from the beginning had little to do with helping Canada, but it had everything to do with Liberals helping themselves?

[Sponsorship Program, March 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that is a bunch of nonsense. For months the government has been telling us that it cannot do anything until we have the Gomery commission report. Now we know it is about to launch a lawsuit. Who is prejudging the Gomery commission now?

The fact is that all the players in this sorry mess are friends of the Liberal Party. Why does the Prime Minister not get on the phone, call his friends at these ad agencies, ask for the money back and while he is at it, why not put a call into Liberal Party headquarters and get back some of the money that was diverted there?

[Canada Shipping Act, March 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, Bill C-3 is an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act.

Bill C-3 was one of the first bills introduced in this Parliament. It was of particular interest to me because at that time I had just been named my party's transportation critic. The previous critic for our party was the member for Port Moody--Westwood--Port Coquitlam. He has a veritable wealth of knowledge in the area of transport issues so I was very pleased to work with him. Quite frankly, I am also very pleased that he has now resumed the responsibility of being our transport critic.

Bill C-3 was tabled on the Friday before the break for Thanksgiving. It is interesting to note that it has now come back to Parliament on the Friday before another break for Parliament.

The parliamentary secretary indicated that the bill is of importance to the Prime Minister. He mentioned twice in his speech that the Prime Minister made the announcement of these changes on December 12, 2003, so it must be important if it happened on the day the Prime Minister was sworn into office. I am sure he was preoccupied by many things on that day, but it was the day on which he announced the changes to the Canada Shipping Act and related statutes that have now become Bill C-3.

I did not have any prior consultation concerning the bill before it was introduced into the House, but when I did have a look at it I was a little surprised at its content. I thought the subject matter of the bill was already within the purview of the Department of Transport.

On further investigation, I found that this was in fact the case up to 1995. Some changes were then made which removed that responsibility from the Department of Transport and placed it with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Eight years after that move was made, the government realized a mistake had been made. In fact, what is taking place here is a re-organization to correct what I think most people would agree was a mistake.

As transport critic, I recommended in the House that we should support Bill C-3. I think that is and should be the spirit of the 38th Parliament. This is a minority Parliament, and I think the responsible role for members of the opposition is to look at whatever is proposed in the House and, if it makes sense for Canada, if it is good for Canada, support it. After having looked at the bill, I have no hesitation in recommending to my colleagues that this is something we should support.

One of the objectives of Bill C-3 is to free up the Coast Guard to focus on its operational mission. I could not agree more with that. Quite frankly, I am of the opinion that the Coast Guard should be doing an awful lot more than it is doing at the present time. I have raised this matter in the House before.

The Government of Canada is not doing enough for border security, particularly along the waterways that separate Canada from the United States. I have made it very clear to the House that I have been upset over the years after realizing that the Niagara Regional Police Service has to take up much of the international security responsibilities in the waterways in the region of Niagara, including parts of Lake Ontario, the Niagara River and parts of Lake Erie.

In my previous incarnation as a regional councillor for the City of Niagara Falls, having looked at the Niagara regional police budget, I was shocked to see how much money it is paying to patrol the waterways. Good heavens above, I said, we do not have to be constitutional experts to figure out that this is the responsibility of the federal government. Whether it is the RCMP, the Coast Guard or other elements of Canadian security, the federal government should be responsible for this.

At the same time, I want to be very clear that the Niagara Regional Police Service has never complained about taking up this or any other responsibility. It is one of those police forces that steps to the front, assists the public and does what is right for whatever role it is given. Nonetheless, in my opinion this is not right.

Bill C-3 focuses on the Coast Guard and on allowing it to get back to its operational responsibilities. Let me tell members that I think its operational responsibilities should be far more extensive than they are. Far more resources should be going to this. The government was very quick after 9/11 to start imposing taxes for national security. Indeed, the Minister of Transport will tell the House about the hundreds of millions of dollars the government made off the security tax just at the airports. Hundreds of millions of dollars come into government coffers and Canadians would like to see some of those dollars get back to what they are supposed to be doing, which is protecting this nation. I will continue to raise this and push for that in the House.

With respect to the bill, it is a step in the right direction. It corrects a mistake that was made back in 1995. Indeed, as I have said before, I wish all the mistakes of the government could be so easily corrected. It is too bad that we could not have some kind of an omnibus bill to reverse all the mistakes that have been made by the Liberal Party in its eleven and half years in office, but we can perhaps save that for another day.

That would be an interesting piece of legislation, would it not? It would probably be a very big bill. That is why I say that to correct all the mistakes that have been made it would have to be an omnibus bill. Certainly this bill would correct one of them and the official opposition will support it.

[Canada-U.S. Relations, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, after years of her anti-American statements, the Prime Minister finally got rid of the member from Mississauga. Now his personal representative on Canada-America relations is using the same kind of comments. Canada cannot stand for this kind of incompetence.

Will the Prime Minister do the right thing and fire the parliamentary secretary?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, March 10th, 2005]

What has become apparent, Mr. Speaker, is that the Prime Minister is incapable of controlling the anti-American sentiment in the Liberal Party. That is too bad, because we have some serious problems, problems with agriculture, softwood lumber and border issues.

Can the Prime Minister answer a simple question? Does he agree with the comments of the parliamentary secretary? It is a simple question. Answer it.

[Canada-U.S. Relations, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's hand-picked spokesperson on Canada-U.S. relations said the other day “let's embarrass the hell out of the Americans”.

The Prime Minister has promised Canadians on a number of occasions that he wants to do things differently, but comments like these are starting to remind Canadians of the old days and the Chrétien government.

Can the Prime Minister tell us how these comments do anything to reduce the trade tensions between our two countries or does he even care?