Ed Broadbent

[Question No. 204, November 14th, 2005]

Regarding Gatineau Park’s boundaries: ( a ) how many times have they been changed since they were set by Order in Council in 1960; ( b ) were those changes made by Order in Council and, if not, why not, and by what method were they changed; and ( c ) were properties removed from the park as a result of these changes and, if so, where are they located and how many acres are in each parcel?

(Return tabled)

[Question No. 203, November 14th, 2005]

What is the complete metes and bounds description of Gatineau Park as most recently approved by the government?

(Return tabled)

[Ethics, November 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there is no better illustration of the arrogant Liberal culture of entitlement than that answer. The Deputy Prime Minister equates Liberalness with competence. No one else in Canada does so.

I come back to the question. For four days we have asked specific questions about entitlement and for four days we have had evasions. Is this not the best illustration of the culture of Liberal arrogance being perpetuated?

[Ethics, November 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Our leader has just asked a question, giving three specific illustrations of the continuation of a culture of Liberal entitlement. Instead of answers, he got evasions.

My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is this. Is it not true that the Prime Minister named a Liberal staffer as ambassador, appointed a Liberal bagman to the Senate and continues to allow Liberal lobbyists to collect illegal fees? In the name of ethics, answer the question.

[Sponsorship Program, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on today of all days, it says a lot about the ethics and accountability of the Prime Minister that he has refused to answer these three serious accusations about the failure to act and accountability measures.

Does the Prime Minister deny any one of these accusations, and if not, why does he continue to perpetuate this culture of entitlement?

[Sponsorship Program, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Justice Gomery was very critical of what he called the Liberal culture of entitlement. That culture persists today. The Prime Minister continues to appoint Liberal staffers as ambassadors and Liberal bagmen as senators, and a Liberal lobbyist like David Dingwall can continue to collect $350,000 payments that were illegal to offer.

Does the Prime Minister deny any one of these three accusations and, if not, why has he not done something about them?

[National Security, October 21st, 2005]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, and other countries have violated human security as well.

My next question pertains to what Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and former distinguished member of the Canadian Supreme Court said yesterday. She said, “there are no circumstances that can ever justify torture”.

Does the minister agree, and if so, will she categorically assert that no Canadian will be sent again from our country to a country that indulges in torture?

[National Security, October 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

As justice minister the minister brought in draconian security law that violated civil liberties. As security minister she blocked information from being made public in the Arar inquiry. As part of a government that looks like it has been involved in the sending of Canadians to countries that use torture, I want to ask her, when it comes to the proposed new wiretap legislation, why should we believe that Canadian civil liberties are going to be protected?

[Firefighters, October 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with a great deal of pleasure to support the motion. I want to indicate at the outset that at the end of my brief comments I will be moving an amendment. The amendment is strongly supported by the MP for Burnaby—New Westminster who moved the original motion.

The motion and the proposed amendment would help to ensure recognition and financial security for the families of firefighters when their loved one is killed or disabled in the line of duty.

The motion and the proposed amendment would also establish a national public safety officer benefit for the families of fallen or disabled firefighters and would mandate the construction of a monument in Ottawa, the nation's capital, to recognize fallen or disabled firefighters. We think that is the appropriate location.

The motion and the amendment are supported by the International Association of Firefighters, the Canadian Fallen Firefighters Foundation and I am sure every one of the 180,000 full time, part time and volunteer firefighters in the country. I am sure if most Canadians followed this debate they too would be strongly supporting not only the motion, but the amendment that I will come to in just a moment.

In the past century and a half approximately 800 Canadian firefighters have lost their lives in the line of duty. That is approximately 10 every year who die on the job while protecting our lives and our property.

As everyone knows, there are today risks for firefighters that did not exist not that long ago. There are new risks, including chemical, biological, radiological and/or nuclear exposure which have the potential result of serious illness or death.

The purpose of the public safety officer benefit amendment that I will move is to address the financial security of the families of disabled or fallen firefighters. These families are often saddled with major financial burdens when their loved one dies or is disabled in the line of duty. The amendment would also ensure that the monument to firefighters who have fallen in the line of duty would be placed in a prominent place, as I said a minute ago, here in the national capital.

I note that the American government already has created a similar benefit which is available to the families of all fallen or disabled firefighters, regardless of whether they were employed municipally or federally. I add, and not for the first time, that we in Canada, notwithstanding a certain mythology about ourselves in this regard, will be playing catch-up to the United States.

I want to emphasize that the national jurisdiction is important to a public safety officer benefit for firefighters. A national benefit, as opposed to the existing patchwork of municipal or provincial survivor benefit provisions, would ensure a consistent national standard for recognizing the sacrifice of all firefighters.

I therefore move:

That Motion No. 153 be amended:

1) by adding the following after the word “Canada”:

by establishing a benefit that would be awarded to the families of the fallen or permanently disabled firefighters;

2) by replacing the words “in the Parliamentary precinct” in paragraph (b), with the words “in a prominent position in the National Capital”.

[David Dingwall, October 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my question is again for the Prime Minister.

It is clear that Mr. Dingwall resigned. There is no moral obligation to give him a cent.

Do you agree with me or not, Mr. Prime Minister?