House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2011, with 36% of the vote.
Passports May 31st, 2006
Mr. Speaker, on the issue of the border with the United States, this government has abandoned Canadians. The Maritimes depend on American and Acadian tourism. American families have to spend more than $500—the price of passports—to enter Canada. Americans will avoid the Maritimes, and our tourism industry will suffer further. Canadian exporters who must travel to the United States have the same problem.
Why is this government abandoning Canadian communities on the passport issue?
Conservative Government May 31st, 2006
Mr. Speaker, over 100 days of Harpocrisy!
Number 21: keep ministers and caucus members quiet.
Number 22: suggest imprisoning journalists.
Number 23: quash the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.
Number 24: have committee chairs selected by Prime Minister.
Number 25: keep cabinet meetings secret.
Number 26: use favouritism in allocating funding for infrastructure.
Number 27: get rid of Public Appointments Commission if our friend is not elected chair.
Number 28: appoint a former unilingual Conservative minister to the highest bureaucratic position in Prince Edward Island.
Number 29: allow the Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency to threaten members from Atlantic Canada.
Number 30: only allow participants of a round table in Calgary to be heard if they received permission beforehand.
It has been 100 days in the life of a shrub, a little bush.
Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan May 17th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, a distinguished member of the House called into question your impartiality. I believe it was wrong of that member to do so.
I would ask the member to reconsider it at some point and apologize to the House.
Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan May 17th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan May 17th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin with a comment before asking the member a question. Like her, I support our soldiers.
When our soldiers ventured into Afghanistan or were invited there, my understanding was that they would be there for a limited period of time and that it would be difficult. I also understood that it would not necessarily be for a short period or for two or three years, but that Canada's participation would be prolonged.
I also recognize that a government must have the power to make this kind of decision. There is some information the members will never have access to. The Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the commander of our military forces will have secret information about our troops and our allies. This information cannot be provided during the few hours of this debate to enable us to make an informed decision.
However, as parliamentarians, we can hold an informed and extended debate to determine our future military role in the world as part of our foreign policy. The government would refer to it to decide whether soldiers should be sent to places like Afghanistan, Darfur and other parts of the world.
I invite the member to comment on this.
Mr. Speaker, I apologize and understand if you have that look of déjà vu in your eyes. That is not very much different than the answer we would have had by the previous government, which that member, and especially the Minister of Veterans Affairs, would have said was totally unacceptable, that the cheques should be rolling out right away.
We heard this with hepatitis C, that we should not be working with the lawyers and negotiating and identifying who they are. The cheques should be going out right away, but they are not.
Some might call that hypocritical when we promise one thing, but deliver another. I do not think I can use that word in the House. It would not be parliamentary. However, it is the same as when I heard that all cabinet ministers would be elected and that we would have an elected Senate. I was duped, as were all members. I never realized it would only be the Prime Minister who would vote in such senatorial elections, that we would have members of cabinet elected from the Senate and that we could not hear from the Department of Public Works. I know I cannot use the word “hypocrite”, but the definition seems to fit. The actions are different from what we were promised.
Mr. Speaker, on January 11, in Woodstock, New Brunswick, giddy with the thought of power, the Prime Minister promised that a Conservative government would offer full and immediate compensation to soldiers and civilians who were exposed to agent orange or to other toxic defoliants at the Canadian Forces Base in Gagetown, New Brunswick. He promised that veterans would be given the benefit of the doubt in their claims for compensation.
The Prime Minister made these promises at the height of a tight campaign with the express goal of winning key votes in New Brunswick ridings. Yet, after three months in power, the Conservative government has made absolutely no progress on this file. In fact, the Minister of Veterans Affairs is backing away from the Conservatives' campaign commitments by saying that he refuses to be pressured into compensating victims.
Veterans in my riding listened to the throne speech and read the budget with interest but agent orange was not mentioned once. There were no commitments to act on this issue and no funds were earmarked for compensation. Not a single penny was put aside.
When I raised this issue in question period on May 5, the parliamentary secretary shrugged off my questions. She claimed that the government deemed this as a priority and that it would deliver. Where are the details? Parliament does not have them. Veterans groups certainly do not have them. I cannot help but wonder if the minister made promises during an election that he had no intention of keeping.
When he made those election promises, the Minister of Veterans Affairs knew this file quite well. He was a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs which heard expert witnesses from the Department of National Defence at two special meetings in June and November 2005. As a matter of fact, he was specifically sworn in as a member for those meetings, being otherwise an associate member, but was brought in because of his expertise on this file.
When he was in opposition he hounded witnesses at the committee and self-righteously dismissed their hard work on this file as a mere public relations exercise.
In June last year, the minister attacked the expert witnesses who appeared before the committee claiming that they were misleading Parliament and had not done their homework. He demanded that the witnesses draw conclusions about the health effects of exposure to agent orange before the Department of National Defence had completed its research.
At the committee meetings in November 2005, the current Minister of Veterans Affairs accused government officials of deliberately withholding information from the public. He asserted that the Department of National Defence could release the records of veterans who had been exposed immediately if they so desired. He berated their witnesses.
In fact, the current Minister of Veterans Affairs went so far as to suggest that recommendations made to the Department of National Defence were sufficient to begin compensating those whose health was affected as a result of exposure to agent orange.
If the Conservative government was so sure that it knew the right and responsible thing to do when it was in opposition, why is it so unwilling to act now?
The parliamentary secretary's assurances that the government is taking action to develop proposals to deliver on its commitments rings hollow. If I were more cynical, I might wonder whether this whole charade was a public relations exercise to win an election.
Had we only seen this type of thing with agent orange perhaps we could explain it, but we know well that with hepatitis C, we have heard and seen the same thing: a lot of talk but zero action and not a penny.
Arts and Culture May 9th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, earlier today I met a group of high school students from Bridgetown, Nova Scotia, and had the pleasure of listening to them as they gave a concert on the Hill.
They are in Ottawa thanks to the SEVEC program, a great federal program that I hope we will keep investing in. It cannot be replaced by tax breaks.
This group of talented young people deserve our congratulations and our respect.
A band is more than the sum of its parts. Each member has dedicated his or her time to learn their instruments and master the music. As well, they have learned teamwork and cooperation as each section works together to balance the others.
I would like to extend my sincere congratulations to every member of the Bridgetown High School Band and thank their parents and chaperones who gave up their time to make this journey possible.
The Budget May 9th, 2006
I am surprised, Mr. Speaker, that the member would vote against the budget. This budget should be a lot less conservative than what he should have guessed would be coming when he supported the election of the government, and when he voted in a motion of non-confidence.
When he and his party asked for the lend a vote campaign, knowing that it would put a Conservative government in power, he should have known that there would be a neo-conservative budget. The member should be amazed that the budget did not go further to the right. He should ask the question like I do: what happened to the Conservatives' flat earth society in their flat tax and when did they come to this convoluted system of tax credits, tax breaks and tax manoeuvring, and abandoned that simple flat tax principle that they had?
It is not that I supported it, but obviously the member did because he participated in the election of the Conservative government. He should wonder when it was that the Conservative leader realized, with his core western support in this country, that he could not, under the Reform Party, fight Brian Mulroney. He realized that he had to get his instructions from Mulroney and Harris, and form a government in the image of Mulroney and Harris with all his key people in those key positions. The member should not be surprised at all.
Veterans May 5th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, during the campaign, the Minister of Veterans Affairs assured agent orange victims that they would be given the benefit of the doubt in their claim for compensation. Now the same minister is saying that he refuses to be pressured into compensating the victims.
Will the minister now admit that he was making promises he had no intention of keeping, or is the minister admitting that he lacks the clout to get the money that he promised? Will the minister stop hiding behind the parliamentary secretary and face the House?