Dave Batters

[Committees of the House, February 12th, 2007]

For 13 years you created no spaces.

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the time to commend the member for Etobicoke North for the great work he has done on committee.

After all, as my friend pointed out, there has to be some use for committees in this place. Our committees need to have some teeth. At committee members hear from all the witnesses and are the experts on this issue. The member for Etobicoke North is not going to flip-flop on the issue, as will many members opposite. I would like to ask the member a brief question.

For compelling reasons, he voted that the investigative hearing and recognizance with condition powers should be extended for five years. Given that he believes these measures should be extended for five years, and given that we are debating whether they should be extended for three years, will he commit today to meeting with the leader of the official opposition and discussing the matter with him, discussing the witnesses' testimony that he heard at committee and the reasons why, in his expert opinion as a committee member, these provisions should be extended? Will he perhaps write to the rest of his colleagues as well and express that? Will he meet with the leader of the official opposition and explain his perspective?

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, from his conversations with the Liberal members opposite, who were also on the same subcommittee, the members for Etobicoke North and Scarborough Southwest, does the member believe they will vote with the government to support an extension of these provisions, which help in our national security, or will they be part of the Liberal flip-flop and do the opposite from what they did immediately following 9/11? Does the member believe the members of the committee will continue to vote in the same fashion as they did at committee?

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member. She made the comment that she bases her opinion and the way that she is going to vote on facts, but the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville pointed out that the Liberal members who sit on the committee, and who, I assume, also base their opinions on fact, voted for these provisions to be extended. Is the member saying that Liberal members on the committee did not base their opinions on fact? That is my first question.

Second, some comments from members opposite allude to the fact that perhaps these measures shortly following the tragedies of 9/11 were not constitutional, so is the member saying that the Liberal government at the time was wrong to bring in those provisions? We on this side of the House believe it was the right thing to do and we commend the previous government for doing it. We believe these provisions should be extended and we believe it is still the right thing to do. Was the government wrong then? Are the Liberal members of the committee wrong now?

[Canadian Forces, February 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, one year ago, Palliser residents voted for a government that would get things done for Canadians.

As the home to 15-Wing, the people of Moose Jaw know that they now have a federal government that will support our armed forces and ensure that the men and women of our military have the equipment they need to get the job done.

Since being elected last year, our government has made a major commitment to strengthening the Canadian armed forces.

Our $17.1 billion “Canada First” procurements to date include: $5 billion for strategic and tactical aircraft; $2 billion for medium to heavy-lift helicopters; $1.1 billion for medium sized logistics trucks; and, $2.1 billion for three supply ships.

Our commitment to protect Canadians, defend our sovereignty and strengthen our role in the world is good news for Canadians and for Palliser.

Our Conservative government is committed to Canada's Snowbirds and to funding the NATO flight training in Canada program until 2021.

With our new military investments, we will continue to deliver real results for Canadians.

[Health, January 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this week the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca boasted about his new role in setting Liberal policies, including health care, saying that “all the things that I've been putting together and pushing for...I'll be able to put on the table where the decisions will be made by a very small group”.

Members opposite need to be careful, because this is the same member who in 2000 said, “To save our medical system, we must embrace new ideas, such as allowing a separate, parallel, private system...”, and who told The Province newspaper last March, “The Canada Health Act is not sacred”.

Canadians are learning that they cannot trust the new Liberal Leader to show leadership on climate change or get tough on Liberal corruption. Now they should be left wondering whether the Liberals are really committed to publicly funded health care in Canada.

Our government supports the Canada Health Act and we are committed to making publicly funded health care in Canada work again.

The Leader of the Opposition should be straight with Canadians. Will the Liberals set their health care policy based on the views of a member who said that the Canada Health Act is not sacred?

[Prebudget Consultations, December 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this debate does not mean much to the Liberals because budget reports and prebudget reports are things to be ignored and the majority toss them aside. Finance ministers have already made up their minds. For the Liberals, this is all about politics and not what is best for Canadians.

The Liberal finance critic has already called for a spring election and predicted that the Liberals will vote against the next budget. He said:

If we are tied with the Conservatives without a leader, I think with a new leader and all the publicity of our convention, we should move in front after the convention and it will be good for us to have a spring election.

Those remarks were made by the member for Markham—Unionville and quoted in The Globe and Mail on October 19.

Why do the members opposite pay more attention to the polls than to what is good for Canadians? Why will they not wait and see what is in this budget in the spring to see how this finance minister and the Prime Minister are acting in the best interests of all Canadians before talking about a spring election?

[Committees of the House, December 12th, 2006]

What is the difference?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2, December 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech given by the member for Kings—Hants. I have a simple question for the member. There seems to be a glaring hypocrisy here from the member opposite or a glaring flip-flop. When the member opposite was a Progressive Conservative and actually ran for the leadership of that party, he made statements in this House. He is going to say that party no longer exists, but he cannot escape one simple fact and I would like him to specifically address this.

He made statements on the record in this House, and I wish I had them here to quote into the record, that Kyoto was nothing but malarkey. Then, after his conversion to the Liberals, the member is now apparently convert and believes in Kyoto. The people watching at home and Canadians would be interested to hear how this member explains this blatant contradiction from being a complete opponent to Kyoto--

[National Defence, December 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, 15 Wing Moose Jaw is home to NATO flight training in Canada, or NFTC, as well as Canada's world famous Snowbirds. The future of both of these programs is of great significance to our military and to the community of Moose Jaw.

Could the Minister of National Defence please inform the House about the commitment our new government has to the future of NFTC and the Snowbirds?