Grant Hill

[Member for LaSalle--Émard, September 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, last night in Montreal the Prime Minister wannabe gave his economic blueprint for Canada. He wants us to forget about the past.

Here is the actual record of nine years at the helm: defence reeling under massive cuts; HRDC billion dollar boondoggle; gun registry fiasco; and scandals in public works sponsorship.

He wants to give Canadians a better health care system. Ha. This is the man who surgically excised $20 billion from health during his reign of terror. The minister also had his ships, and this is probably the worst part, fly the flags of other countries to avoid paying Canadian taxes.

How can Canadians believe what he promises for the future? Just take a look at his record. It speaks louder than words.

[Marriage Act, September 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I did seek unanimous consent for the leader of the official opposition to speak briefly to this new bill that has been presented. I believe, with further consultations, that has been clarified, and if you seek unanimous consent I believe you would find it.

[Marriage Act, September 18th, 2003]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-447, an act to protect the institution of marriage.

Mr. Speaker, the bill is an essential step in upholding the promise to protect marriage that Parliament made in 1999 and the Liberals campaigned on in the last election. It also provides an opportunity to revisit the tie vote that occurred on Monday as the bill does not contain the notwithstanding clause.

The law that was recently struck down in the Ontario Court of Appeal was a common law definition. It was the deliberate inaction on the part of the Liberals that allowed us to arrive at the chaotic situation with which we are now faced, with traditional marriage being the law of the land in all but two provinces.

Had the Liberal government appealed the Ontario decision to the Supreme Court, there is every reason to believe, based on past decisions, that the Supreme Court would find this definition constitutional.

Finally, and importantly, the bill also notes that it is the provinces that have the jurisdiction to provide appropriate legal recognition to relationships outside marriage.

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between all parties and I believe, if you seek it, you would find unanimous consent to allow the leader of the official opposition to make a brief comment.

[Supply, September 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the member for London—Fanshawe was a member of the justice committee when it was travelling and he did touch on the overwhelming evidence that was presented to the justice committee on this issue of same sex marriage.

For the benefit of Canadians who were not privy to those discussions, could he summarize the justice committee and the information it got and might he speculate on why that justice committee was shut down?

[Petitions, September 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that is really quite timely. It asks that Parliament, having the exclusive jurisdiction over marriage, not change the definition of marriage. With some 125 signatures to go, about 4,000 individuals are represented on this issue.

[Petitions, June 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have almost a barricade of petitions to present today, and to add to some 30,000 that were presented on the same issue. These petitioners ask Parliament to give them more freedom in natural health products rather than restricting their access to those products.

[Member for LaSalle—Émard, June 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the minister says that there were no special deals for the former minister. Let us talk about them.

Other cabinet ministers have blind trusts but that former cabinet minister had a blind management.

When it comes to dumping oil, everybody else gets a fine but that former minister gets a special deal.

Finally, on the issue of foreign tax shelters, that former minister is given a special deal.

How many more special deals can we expect for the former finance minister?

[Member for LaSalle—Émard, June 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, no wonder there is western alienation, with comments like that.

The former finance minister has ships plying the St. Lawrence Seaway. Those ships are guided by expert pilots. His company, aided by four Liberal supporters, are trying to get rid of those expert pilots for dangerous or hazardous areas.

Is this not just another example of a special deal for the man who wants to be the Prime Minister of Canada?

[Agriculture, June 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, an outbreak is an outbreak.

Thousands of animals are ready for market and there just now is no market. While the industry is on hold, thousands of workers are losing their jobs. The government could easily remove the two week EI waiting period.

The Liberal government was quick to act when the city of Toronto was affected by an outbreak, and rightly so. Why is the government refusing to act when rural Canada has an outbreak?

[Agriculture, June 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, from that answer I would say the Prime Minister has not said a single word about mad cow to the President of the United States.

Four hundred workers in my riding at Cargill have just been laid off. The government seems to believe that they can just be abandoned.

My question is specific. Will the government suggest the two week waiting period for employment insurance be relaxed for those people who lose their jobs due to this serious problem with BSE?