House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2021, with 62% of the vote.
Supply June 14th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member said that he had never heard of anyone ever denouncing the child care program. I have here an article in today's Calgary Sun quoting extensively from the Kids First Parent Association doing that very thing. I would seek unanimous consent to table this article.
Supply June 14th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I do not doubt the sincerity of the member's intention to honestly try to help families, particularly working families with children who have to juggle various things in their lives. The trouble I have is the idea of a national day care program is widely denounced by many groups and the vast majority of parents because it is a one size fits all program. It is denounced because it does not offer choice for families.
The program does not allow choices for parents who work shifts. Perhaps parents will decide for a period of time to work opposite shifts. One parent will work the night shift and the other will work the day shift so they can provide care for their children. It is a government run, government regulated day care and if parents do not fit into that paradigm, they are out in the cold. Their tax dollars will still be collected to support that and they will still have to find their own child care options, so they will pay twice. They will pay to support the child care option that does not work for them and they will have to pay out of their own pockets for their choice of child care or forgo the income to stay at home. Could the member comment on that?
He also mentioned that no one in the House believed that parents did not provide high quality child care. That is incorrect. The minister himself stood in the House, and it is in Hansard , and said that his program would offer families higher quality day care than parents could provide themselves. That is a slap in the face of parents who think they are qualified to take care of their own children. There is at least one person in the House who believes parents cannot give quality day care, and that is the minister.
Committees of the House June 14th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, we have heard some statements today describing the furor that erupted from the Liberal side of the committee when Commissioner Reid outlined his findings. It so angered them when he brought these loopholes to light. He showed the witnesses and members of the committee what the Liberals were trying to sneak through. They were angry over what Commission Reid had done.
Does the hon. member see a parallel to the anger that we saw from the Liberals when the Auditor General brought to light the sordid facts of the sponsorship scandal? What did we see the Liberals do then? We saw them slash her budget. We saw them take direct vengeance on an officer of the House when she exposed Liberal wrongdoing, Liberal corruption and the sleazy details of cash in envelopes being passed over the table. Now we see them doing the same thing to the Information Commissioner.
Does the hon. member see a parallel in what is going on here with the pettiness that happened to the Auditor General when she brought those sorts of facts to light?
Budget Implementation Act, 2005 June 10th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I thought I might help the hon. member out and remind her that it was not only the Conservative Party that warned about deficit spending, something that we are very concerned about with this new deal. The Minister of Finance warned the House that deficit spending was a very real possibility when we got into, as he described it, cherry-picking or taking things away from one part or adding new spending to another part. There have been irresponsible spending announcements with no real plan to announce a budget bill. Bill C-48, with just two or three lines in it, has unleashed an unprecedented amount of unplanned and uncontrolled spending.
Why is the member so afraid of job saving tax relief? We have industries in Canada that are operating under an excessive burden. Does she not realize that the vast majority of Canadians work for a company or a corporation such as General Motors, Ford, Telus or any number of companies that have to compete in a global environment with other nations and companies. We have to give them that competitive edge. It does not matter how much they invest in other areas. If Canadians do not have jobs, if they do not have employment in secure and stable industries, it will not matter. No one will be working to pay taxes for the programs about which the member herself is concerned.
Those are a couple of things she should consider. She should always remember that the finance minister, who cut this deal with Buzz Hargrove and the leader of the NDP in a hotel room somewhere, warned about deficit spending.
Rural Post Offices June 10th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, contrary to Liberal Party policy, rural Saskatchewan is an important part of Canada. Due to geographic difficulties, the rural people of Saskatchewan rely heavily on their small town post offices, yet the Liberals are trying to destroy this important part of our communities.
The minister's hidden agenda on post office closures has been uncovered by the Canadian Postmasters and Assistants Association. Some 750 post offices, several in my riding, are slated for closure. In many towns the closing of the post office will be a devastating blow to the few businesses still operating on the main street. At a time when Canada Post is seeing record profits, the government is cutting back on services. Post offices in small towns serve as a town centre, a place to meet neighbours and to serve the needs of their people.
I call on the minister to abandon his hidden agenda on closing post offices. He should stand up for rural Saskatchewan and help keep our small towns alive.
Supply June 9th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member intimated that the Conservative Party was not in favour of Canada's supply management sector. Our party has been very clear on that. I would like the hon. member to check Hansard on that.
Supply June 9th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I have more of a comment than a question, and that is the hilarity I see in the member from a socialist party waxing eloquent about saving jobs just days after attempting to cancel job saving tax relief in the finance committee and just days after threatening Canadian jobs.
We have seen over the past couple of weeks some turmoil in the auto industry. Regions of the entire country have been facing some rising unemployment. We have concerned Canadians who do not have job security. The companies they work for are competing in a very uncompetitive area because of excessive tax rates.
It is funny to hear that member over there. I truly believe he might be sincere in trying to urge support for saving some jobs in this industry. We know where his leader stands on competitiveness and jobs. He is very anti both. However, just a few days ago his party tried to kill those job saving tax reliefs, which our party has been so adamant about in order to provide families, working Canadians, with security in their industries and in their professions. It is just a comment I would like to make today.
Petitions June 8th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present two petitions from literally hundreds of my constituents who have taken the time and effort to make sure they have contacted me to stand up for the traditional definition of marriage as defined by one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
This is part of a growing sentiment among Canadians to protect marriage, to urge their elected representative to do what is right, to represent them in this House and to vote against Bill C-38.
Business of Supply May 31st, 2005
Mr. Chair, I have heard a lot of insulting things in my short time here, but I have never heard something quite that insulting. Is the minister saying that parents who choose to raise their children themselves and provide that early learning themselves do not provide quality care? Is he saying that family members or faith based groups or neighbourhood associations that provide that early learning and child care do not provide quality care?
Do they need to have some certificate from the minister to be able to provide early learning? Are stay at home parents who choose to teach their own children inferior to a bureaucratic scheme dreamed up by this minister? That is unbelievable.
I challenge the minister to talk to the thousands of people who have contacted my office and who provide that early learning childhood care to their own children or their neighbour's children. I challenge the minister to tell them that they do not provide high quality care and to tell them that their level of care is inferior to that of bureaucrats in the minister's office.
Business of Supply May 31st, 2005
Mr. Chair, I would like to make sure I understand that. He does not know where the money is going, but he knows he doubled it and therefore it must be a good thing. That is such a typical Liberal attitude toward things. If there is a problem, the Liberals throw money at it. If the problem is still there, they throw more money at it.
It is not the money we are talking about. I am sure the bureaucrats in the room and the provincial premier from the socialist party were very happy about it. I am talking about the parents who choose other forms of day care. I am not talking about bureaucrats in the department but parents who have children and are facing that challenge themselves. Where is the choice for them?
Why are they being asked to support both the minister's scheme and their own choice when they feel the minister's scheme does not address their own particular needs or that they can best provide the service themselves and can better educate their children themselves or perhaps through a family member or a member of a faith based group or a community association? Where do they fit into this one size fits all approach?