Andrew Scheer

[Government Contracts, November 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the government has announced that it has re-awarded the relocation contract to Royal LePage for almost $155 million. Given the Liberal track record on fulfilling promises, the House will need more than just its pledge that the process will be fair and impartial.

The Minister of Public Works has stated that he will be monitoring the contract on an ongoing basis to ensure fairness. Will the minister commit to providing Parliament with progress reports on the monitoring of the contract or will it once again take an Auditor General's report to find out how Liberal deals are made?

[Remembrance Day, November 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as this is the last sitting day before Remembrance Day I would like to pay tribute to all those who have proudly served this country in our military.

Legion halls all over this country are filled with pictures, names and memories of our brave soldiers. Making so many personal sacrifices in their lives to ensure that the rest of us can fully enjoy ours, these brave men and women fought to keep our country free, and to promote peace and security throughout the world.

At this time, when we remember the great contributions that our men and women in uniform have given us, I would also urge this government to ensure that our present generation of armed forces personnel have all the tools they need to do their job.

Our men and women in service are second to none. We owe them a great debt. The least we can do is to ensure that when we in this House call on them for duty, that we fulfill our duty by providing them with military equipment that is second to none and not just second hand.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, unlike my predecessor I have actually worked in a small business prior to getting into politics. I have had experience working in that sort of realm.

It is always interesting listening to members from that party talk about small business. Saskatchewan has had first hand evidence of how an NDP government treated small businesses. Where are all of them? All of the traffic has been going out of Saskatchewan ever since the NDP government took power in that province.

NDP supporters in Saskatchewan have called for boycotts on small businesses. They have told people not to go to small businesses but rather boycott them because they did not fit in with NDP policies. I always find it very interesting listening to anyone on that side speak about small businesses.

We believe that the government does have to play a role in ensuring that people do not fall through the cracks. Individual Canadians should have the tools and resources they need to make their own choices in their lives.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I think the key word there is a fair portion of taxes.

Did I hear the member say that this government has a record of fiscal responsibility? Does $2 billion on a gun registry count as fiscal responsibility? Is that responsible spending? Are the taxes that are collected to pay for that fair? Do Canadians and do small business owners mind? Is the hon. member saying they do not mind when they write their cheques to Revenue Canada and see billions go to a gun registry, the sponsorship programs and the HRDC boondoggle? Are those examples of Liberal fiscal responsibility?

I do not think so. I do not think Canadians are happy to pay taxes when, as the hon. member mentioned, the burden has gone up to 48%. Yes, businesses are able to make profits and the government makes a profit because it collects excessive amounts of dollars from businesses and ordinary Canadians. And then it goes into these wasteful programs.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, there were many years that saw debt. We all know about the Trudeau years. We could play this game. Over the past decade we have had Liberal members bringing up ancient history. It has been about 12 years since the Mulroney government and Liberals will not take ownership for the problems they have created and the burdens they have placed on entrepreneurs.

The NDP in Saskatchewan is a perfect example of rising debt loads and excessive burdens, and problems created for entrepreneurs and small businesses.

We have had a finance minister who has increased the amount of taxes collected from small businesses and from ordinary Canadians. That is what this windfall is, that has not been talked about. It is not that the government has been so fiscally responsible or has trimmed spending in areas or eliminated waste. It is that Canadians are working harder. Small businesses are making more money and the government is reaping those extra revenues, and claiming it is so great at balancing the budget and eliminating debt. However, we all know the truth. It has been done on the backs of those small businesses and entrepreneurs.

We need the government to let businesses keep more of their own dollars. It should let entrepreneurs and businesses expand their companies, and get out of excessive regulations and excessive taxation to pay for increased spending in a myriad of different areas.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to take a few moments to again thank the voters of Regina—Qu'Appelle for choosing me as their representative in this 38th Parliament.

When I was young and just starting to become interested in the public affairs of this country, I remember watching the first throne speech of the newly elected Liberal government in 1993. That was an historic election. The make-up of this House had been dramatically altered. A new government, two new parties and dozens of new members came to that Parliament. The throne speech that was read at that time contained a litany of promises.

We heard about how the Liberals were going to improve our social safety net. We heard a promise about a national child care program, even back then. We heard a promise about fiscal responsibility and an end to patronage. Therefore I was quite surprised a few weeks ago when I stood in the other place and listened to Her Excellency read almost the exact same speech with the exact same litany of promises.

I thought that since the current Prime Minister was in such a rush to take over the reins of power that he would have had at least a distinct plan from the past administration, but, sadly, I was mistaken. The Prime Minister could not wait to take over the reins of power. He could barely stand the numerous delays that were placed in front of him as he ushered his predecessor out the door.

Now Canadians certainly were not complaining about the former prime minister being forced into early retirement. They were, however, hopeful that the new Prime Minister would lead a government with some sort of integrity. Prior to this past election campaign, the Prime Minister stated that he would view his term in office a failure if western alienation was not addressed. He made numerous promises throughout the campaign about fixing that problem. He indicated that he would be open to appointing senators who had actually been elected, not just appointing his own cronies.

Subsequent to that statement, he then called elected senators from provinces “provincial patronage”. How could he call someone being duly elected by the people of a province, patronage? He also indicated that he would allow Parliament greater scrutiny over appointments to the judiciary and other important posts. However we have seen what that has turned into. The minister explains his decision and Parliament has no opportunity to review that before the appointment is actually made.

Time and again the government has backpedalled from any notion of improving the state of Canadian democracy.

One of the recycled promises in the throne speech was a general statement about improving the economy. We in Saskatchewan know the debilitating effects of having a government that stifles entrepreneurship, that mishandles taxpayer money and that places the goal of a political party ahead of the needs of the people of that province.

Therefore it is fitting that the leader of the NDP has spent the past few weeks desperately trying to prop up the Liberal government. Why should we be surprised? During the election campaign he came to Regina and held up the provincial NDP government as a model for the federal party. He certainly is following that model, because he is propping up a government that also stifles entrepreneurship, that mishandles taxpayer money and that places the goal of the party ahead of the good of the nation. After all, we have all heard the joke that a New Democrat is just a Liberal in a hurry.

Saskatchewan has seen generations of its young people leave for opportunities elsewhere, opportunities that should be available to them at home, and yet, thanks to over a decade of a socialist, backward and incompetent government, those opportunities just are not there.

That is why I am so concerned to see the NDP on that side of the House working so hard to keep the Liberal government in power. Adding a little NDP to the Liberal government is a little bit like adding water to a grease fire. The government is certainly socialist enough without having the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth propping it up.

My colleagues have all made excellent points in their responses to this throne speech. I would like to touch on just a couple of issues.

The throne speech made it quite clear that the Liberals still do not understand that there are certain limits to the scope of government. The government knows no bounds except, of course, for the bounds of decency and accountability. The government does not acknowledge that there could possibly be areas that do not fall under its jurisdiction. It continually interferes in areas of provincial responsibilities. It uses the threat of the removal of transfer payments to keep the provinces in the box that it creates. It sets up all the rules and does not let the provinces find new ways of handling the problems that they face.

A government program for any problem, no matter what the cost, no matter what the fallout, that is the motto of the Liberals.

I believe there are certain natural limits to the scope of government, that some problems need to be addressed by individual Canadians or communities or grassroots organizations.

We need a government that recognizes its own limits. We have seen the creation of dozens of new ministries over the past decade as the Liberals keep on expanding their interference in the lives of Canadians.

Another troubling sign in the throne speech is the lack of attention to agriculture. At a time when so much of Canada, not just in the west but all over Canada, is in the middle of an agricultural crisis there is not one mention of that in the throne speech.

Farmers have been hit by frost. They face rising input costs and have to compete against global subsidies. Farmers need a system that works. The CAIS program is not working. The government keeps using it to deliver funds when problems come up. It keeps pointing to all of the money it throws at it and all the increased attention it gives to it but it is just not working. Farmers know it is not working. The only person who does not know that the CAIS program is not working is the Minister of Agriculture and the rest of the people in the government.

Those who do qualify for payments under the CAIS program receive them late and often when they do arrive the payments themselves are not adequate. The government needs to address this problem and it needs to address it quickly.

I am not sure the government understands that farmers are facing foreclosure. That is what they are up against. They are coming pretty much to the end of the line in many cases. It is becoming more and more possible that they will have to leave the land on which their ancestors started their families.

The Conservative Party has proposed numerous solutions to the various crises that are hitting our farmers. The government has ignored all of them and we are still debating in the House while farmers out there are booking their auction sales.

The government is famous for announcing spending to help agriculture. It comes up with billions and hundreds of millions there. There are lots of announcements but no dollars actually being distributed. In fact, in some cases, for the recent announcements, the forms have not even been printed. There is no mechanism for getting the dollars out there. We keep hearing the government popping up and saying that it has put $1.5 billion into that or a few hundred million into that, but the actual dollars have not gone to anyone who actually needs it.

It is not just two sword lengths that separate the government from this party. It is an ideological chasm. We on this side of the House believe that government is a means. The Liberals believe that it is an end. Their only goal is to become government. They do not care how they get there and, as we have seen, nor do they much care how they govern. They have truly created the nanny state. From cradle to grave the government is there every step of the way. They do not recognize that anything could possibly be accomplished without a government program, a government grant or a government ministry to help it along the way.

I believe that government has natural limits and that it is dangerous when a political party starts to ignore those limits. It should not interfere in the lives of hard-working and honest Canadians. It should not put up impediments on business and try to alter the make-up of the nation just to ensure its political survival.

Let us have a government that respects the rights of individuals. Let us have a government that respects the right of Canadians to go about their lives unmolested by excessive government interference. Let us have a government that protects and promotes families, that allows them to keep enough of their own income to make their own choices about important social questions such as child care.

As my hon. colleague made very clear, the government's child care program will just not work. Why does the government not trust Canadians to make their own choices about child care? Why does it have to create something that universally plugs everyone into the same solution? Why can we not let parents make their own choice, not “Here's your government day care. That is where you're sending your kids”, but “Here's more disposable income. Make your choice. Find out what works best for you and go ahead and do it”.

Instead of thinking about its own political future, let us have a government that would actually makes people's lives better. Let us think about what is fair.

[Agriculture, October 12th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, in the months leading up to the opening of this Parliament, I spent quite a bit of time discussing this problem with the people who were dealing with it day by day. I spoke to feedlot operators. I spoke to cow calf operators. I spoke to grain farmers who had just a few head of cattle as a means of diversifying. They are all looking for leadership and they are all desperately looking for assistance. Most important, they are running out of time.

I am not sure that the government and its agriculture minister really understand what is going on in this industry. I have met with producers in my riding, as I am sure many of my colleagues have, whose families have been on the land for several generations. Many farms in Saskatchewan are celebrating their centenary year awards, and that is 100 years of operating a family farm.

Through some of the hardest times in Canadian history, droughts, grasshoppers, crashes in prices, the farmers in my riding have toughed it out. Now they are facing a slow death as a product that they rely on selling to pay their bills and feed their families is not moving. Their credit is maxed out. They have nowhere else to turn.

This agriculture minister came to Regina just a few weeks ago. He and the finance minister trumpeted a new program which they claimed would help those afflicted by this disaster. To date not a single dollar has been paid out to producers. Not a single investment has been made in building a slaughter plant. The forms still are not even printed.

Had the minister actually consulted with individual producers, with family farmers or the stakeholders in the different facets of this industry, he would have heard with near unanimity that aid packages should never be administered through the CAIS program. The CAIS program is top heavy, with millions of dollars eaten up in administration costs.

My hon. colleagues have all spent considerable time in this debate outlining the disparities in the program, with opening and closing inventories, allowable expenses, and the problems in even accessing the funds.

In my short time as the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, my office has received dozens of calls from constituents seeking help with their CAIS applications. Most producers need to seek paid help from accountants to fill out their forms. Many producers do not qualify for CAIS, or they are not able to participate because the onerous burden of cash on deposits.

In the minister's aid package he announced some money for new slaughtering capacity. Where is it? Has a single dime been handed out? They called part of it new money. An advance on existing funds is not new money. When the government knows that money will not be accessible because of deadlines, it cannot be counted as new money.

There is a huge disparity between the dollar figures from the announcements and the from the dollar amounts actually received from producers.

The minister and the department should have actually developed the method to deliver before the announcement was made. Producers need outlets for their cattle and they needed it last year. They needed them even more this spring and now it is at the breaking point.

For all the money that went out last year, how much more beneficial would it have been if the government had shown some leadership and arranged for new slaughterhouses to have been built? That would have given a huge return on its investment, as cattle ranchers would have more options in where they sold their cows and with more cows being processed, the prices would have reacted accordingly.

We have heard about the rancher's choice efforts. Where is the government's leadership in getting innovation like that off the ground? The minister needs to develop a system where aid packages actually get to the farm gate. It is a phrase heard over and over, yet we find ourselves repeating it because no action has been taken. We have already seen government programs disburse money and none of it actually ends up in the hands of the producers. It is this government's responsibility to take ownership for that.

There is also much agreement on the fact that BSE is no longer a scientific or food safety issue. This is a political issue from protectionist movements in the United States. Where is the government's long-term plan for dealing with this? We need an agreement with the U.S. We need to be able to sit down with the Americans and we need to have the sort of relations between our two countries that facilitates dialogue, not Liberal MPs hurling personal insults.

We need to work within existing trade deals with the U.S. to ensure that when trade conflicts arise, there is an independent and mutually recognized way to work through it. We cannot have protectionist politicians being allowed to shut down sectors of our economy every time something pops up to disrupt it.

We have arrived at this dismal point because the government has placed this issue on the back burner. Having this debate where the minister defends his position, where government members keep repeating the myth that the government has taken action, that the farmers have received assistance is becoming futile.

We need the government to at least recognize the weakness of its many programs, stop throwing good money after bad and get the money where it needs to go.

[Foreign Affairs, October 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is off in Russia lecturing Vladimir Putin on, of all things, protecting democracy.

What could Mr. Putin possibly learn about protecting democracy from the Prime Minister? We in Canada have seen our own democratic institutions erode under this government's watch. The country is mostly run out of the Prime Minister's Office with more and more power gravitating to the Prime Minister's cronies.

Elected members in the House have had their role usurped by the judiciary. Liberal cronies land appointments to important diplomatic, regulatory and administrative positions solely because of who they know in the PMO.

The Prime Minister gave a lot of lip service to reforming and protecting democracy in Canada. He then quickly reneged on all his promises, such as Senate reform, allowing Parliament to scrutinize appointments and eliminating patronage.

Russia truly is facing challenges in upholding its relatively young democratic institutions. However, sending the Prime Minister on a junket around the world to talk about protecting democracy is a bit like hiring a fox to do a speaking tour on guarding henhouses.

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I will point out that the NDP has completely ignored rural Saskatchewan and Saskatchewan in general federally, and of course provincially, we have seen similar things.

I do have one quick and simple question for the hon. member who just spoke. I was in Regina when the agriculture minister and the Minister of Finance came and presented this package with much fanfare. Both of them that day made several mentions of all the new money that they had provided for this relief program.

The minister mentioned today that some of it now is not in fact going to be new money. Why have they always lauded the fact that they are providing new money when advances on the CAISPs are not new money? An advance cannot be new dollars put into a program. It is money that is there anyway and people would just have access to it faster. Could the hon. member clarify that?

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, like many of my colleagues, I am speaking for the first time in this great legislature. I would like to take a few seconds to very sincerely thank the voters in my riding of Regina--Qu'Appelle.

My riding does have a significant rural component and that seat had been held for almost 40 years by the NDP. Yet, this election they placed their trust in myself and in the Conservative Party to represent them. I know that my party, my colleagues and critics will not let the riding down. I will work my hardest over the next few months and years to ensure that I do not let them down either.

Like any good rookie member of Parliament, I have read my Marleau and Montpetit from cover to cover and I know that I am not supposed to point out the absence of members in the chamber, so I will not mention the complete lack of NDP members of Parliament in this debate; however, I think that their absence here has a direct correlation to their electoral results in the last election because they have ignored Saskatchewan.