Bradley Trost

[The Budget, March 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, February 26, the House of Commons witnessed a third straight budget that provides lower taxes, less debt and continued emphasis on individual Canadians' needs and goals.

This is in sharp contrast to the Liberals' demand to raise the GST, the NDP's call to spend, spend and spend some more. We cannot forget the Bloc Québécois members, who whine because, unlike Conservative MPs, they cannot deliver for their constituents.

Conservatives have worked to put individuals ahead of bureaucracy. In this budget we chose to emphasize a savings plan to allow Canadians to put $5,000 each year in investments out of the reach of big government forever. It is a measure that will give Canadians more freedom to control their destiny, a plan that stops the taxman from taking what rightfully belongs to the people of Canada.

The GST is down. Income taxes are down. The debt is down. While the opposition may not like these changes, this is good news for Canadians because it means that in the end, Canadians' take home is up.

[Livestock Industry, February 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's cattle producers have been going through some difficult times. With prices for feed rising and prices for beef falling, Canadian producers need every market they can find for Canadian cattle.

Improved market access is one of the tools that will raise the value of Canadian cattle. This is why it is good news that yesterday the government of Mexico announced that it will now allow the import of Canadian breeding cattle. This new access is in addition to current access already permitted for Canadian beef and beef products.

This government will continue to work for full market access for all Canadian beef products with all of our trading partners. Working hard to expand our beef exports is one way this government continues to put farmers first.

Canadian beef and cattle producers are second to none in the world. This government and this member are proud to work with them and for them.

[Afghanistan, February 25th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the 1,000 personnel recommendation comes from the Manley report where it says, “in the neighbourhood of about 1,000”. A military officer I have talked to would prefer to have more forces at his disposal, more equipment, et cetera. My understanding is that was the recommendation having talked with military personnel on the ground.

As far as the matter of the rotation of Canadian troops, my understanding again is that those are operational matters and I will defer to people with military experience as to what benchmarks specifically they would be looking for.

I will note for the hon. member that my understanding is that both the United States and most recently I read a report that France has been looking to be engaged and be supportive. Other countries have come to understand that if we put more effort in, if we put in the appropriate amount of troops, equipment and support, we can put the Taliban and their allies on their heels.

I was reading a report only yesterday about how the British forces were noting that in their district, the Taliban had pulled out, not completely, but partially. They had them exhausted. They had them on the run.

While I am not an expert again on the particulars of that, it was an encouraging report to read, that we are pushing back, that the forces that we are providing to help the Afghan national army and national police are seeing success. That is why I am encouraged by what our allies are doing, what Canada is doing, and what the Afghan people are doing in their own country.

[Afghanistan, February 25th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the hon. member that the way we evaluate any mission or any project is through its totality.

I am not an expert on the specifics of the opium trade in Afghanistan, but I would point to all the good that I talked about: the schools for women, the civil rights, the ability to have water, to have agriculture, to have trade, and the millions of people who are now in their homes. This is good. This is what we have done. This is what we have contributed.

The hon. member brings out a point. The opium trade needs to be dealt with. The fact that the opium trade needs to be dealt with in Afghanistan is not a reason to withdraw. If anything, it is a reason for us to continue to engage. We do not want that heroin on our streets or on the streets of anywhere else in this world because of the damage it does. If Canadians pull out, if we back away from Afghanistan, we no longer have the ability to influence and protect our people here from that scourge.

It is for those reasons we can choose to leave and no longer have any influence, no longer be able to protect Canadians from heroin. We can either choose to leave or we can choose to stay and make a difference. I, for one, believe we as Canadians must choose to stay and make that difference.

[Afghanistan, February 25th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join the debate in the House of Commons today on Canada's future mission in Afghanistan.

Before I go into the main body of my speech, I would like to tell Canadians watching, particularly the men and women of our armed forces, their families and very close friends, and especially because of my own personal family, friends and members of the reserves who are participating in the mission in Afghanistan, that we as their representatives in the House of Commons want them to know that we understand their sacrifice. They have taken more on in this mission than any one of us will.

I do not know how anyone can bear the loss of a loved one who sacrifices for his or her country, but it is something we honour and value. All members of the House, regardless of where they stand in this debate tonight, wish to express their deepest gratitude to them for their sacrifice.

It is important to recall why Canada went into Afghanistan. As a nation we have always believed in and fought for freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. This has been consistent in Canadian history regardless of the stripe of the government. Yet, many Canadians question why we are in Afghanistan and why it is important to stay the course in a country half a world away. That is why today's debate is so important.

For the greater part of the past 30 years, Afghanistan has been a nation in conflict. After the Soviet Union withdrew in 1989, most of the world went back to its own business and forgot about Afghanistan and its problems. While the rest of the world went about its business, the Taliban rose to power and took over in Afghanistan. It implemented a strict, medieval interpretation of Sharia law and became notorious for its treatment of women.

I am sure all Canadians, who have seen it, remember the almost unbelievable pictures of a woman being executed in a soccer stadium, a tragic reversal for a site that was meant for fun and enjoyment and turned into a place of cruelty and barbarism.

Then on September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda committed the deadly attacks in New York and Washington, D.C. and like the cities they attacked, their victims were diverse: Canadians, Americans, Europeans and Asians. People from all nations and across the globe died that day. In the years that followed, al-Qaeda's atrocities spread from Madrid to Bali to London. Its cruelty knew no borders, whether geographic, religious or cultural.

In the face of such a threat, Canada joined an international coalition to drive the Taliban out of Afghanistan and to destroy al-Qaeda. We committed to Afghanistan to help rebuild the country and ensure that it not become an incubator for terrorism again and a threat to democracies around the world.

Our efforts in Afghanistan have been a whole government effort, a collaboration of our military personnel, the diplomatic community and aid workers. We work in partnership with the Afghan government and other international allies and there have been incredible achievements.

Five million refugees returned since 2002, 90% of them finding jobs within six months of their return; 10 million Afghans registered to vote in free and fair elections, the presidential election of 2004 and the parliamentary election of 2005; 347 women were candidates for the lower house; 83% of Afghans now have access to basic health care compared to a mere 9% in 2004; 40,000 more babies survive each year in Afghanistan; and in a country where girls were not allowed to be educated, today more than two million girls are part of the six million children who are being educated.

Canada is directly involved in helping to build schools, set up after school programs and training teachers. We are providing training for 9,000 new teachers, 4,000 of whom are women. Women are now part of the Afghan National Police and there has been a targeted effort to include women in family response units.

These are important steps as Afghan policewomen can address the unique needs and problems of Afghan women, respecting the values and customs of the society. These are incredible achievements considering where the country was less than a decade ago, in the grips of the Taliban.

We cannot forget the accomplishments of our military. The men and women in Afghanistan wearing the Canadian Forces uniform have made great progress. From a start of 30 to 40 trainees, the Canadian Forces have now contributed to the training of 35,000 Afghan national army personnel.

We have mentored five Afghan national army kandaks, the equivalent of five Canadian battalions. Training and mentoring these units will significantly increase the size and capabilities of the Afghan national army's security capability.

Canada is also contributing to the training of the Afghan national police. Over 600 Afghan national police have received training through the provincial reconstruction team.

A civilian-military cooperation team, including engineering specialists, recently completed construction of a well for Kandahar University. Prior to this, the university was forced to truck in water at the expense of educational priorities.

Canadian Forces are helping to rebuild and pave the key Kandahar-Spin Boldak highway, a highway which will help farmers move produce to markets, doctors to reach villages, and police to respond to emergencies.

Just a month ago, the Canadian Forces inaugurated the Arghandab River causeway. This causeway links two highways and provides greater access for the local economy while improving the ability of allied forces to respond to threats. Despite this remarkable progress, more needs to be done.

The Afghanistan Compact, which details timelines and benchmarks, calls for an Afghan national army approaching 70,000 in strength and an Afghan national and border police with a combined force of up to 62,000.

In economic and social development, the Compact calls for a fully upgraded and maintained ring road and roads to connect Afghanistan to neighbouring countries.

It sets a goal of electricity reaching 65% of households and 90% of businesses in urban areas and 25% in rural areas by 2010.

It calls for water resource management plans to ensure sustainable development in the future.

It sets goals for poverty reduction and assistance to women, the disabled and youth.

It sets a number of goals for rural development, like safe drinking water and access to markets for agriculture.

The motion before us today recognizes the need for Canada to continue our work in achieving benchmarks through the Afghanistan Compact. It calls on Canada to continue the work that it has started. It calls on us to provide security so reconstruction can continue, so we can reach the goals of the Afghanistan compact.

Canadian efforts, diplomatic, developmental and defence, are making a difference, but there is more to be done.

The Manley panel in its report stated:

Canadian interests and values, and Canadian lives, are now invested in Afghanistan. The sacrifices made there, by Canadians and their families, must be respected. What we do there...affects the Afghan people.

This is a mission that reflects Canada's history of protecting people from aggressors. It reflects Canada's history of fighting for freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

This is a mission that is both honourable and achievable. We are there for three basic reasons: prevent evil from finding a base again as it seeks to strike out to the rest of the world; promote Canadian values, namely, peace, order and good government; and protect the lives of the innocent in Afghanistan and throughout the entire world.

[Prebudget Consultations, February 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with my hon. friend. One of the other jobs I did not mention in my preamble that I had done was that I worked in a bakery from 4 a.m. to 12 noon each day and paid out unemployment insurance each and every day. Some of my colleagues had been there for 10 to 12 years making a low income, minimum wage and were paying this payroll tax.

I agree with my hon. colleague, that instead of emphasizing sometimes the redistribution of things, we should be fair and let the working poor keep their wages, keep what they have worked for, and I would suggest cutting payroll taxes is one of those fair ways to cut taxes.

[Prebudget Consultations, February 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, for people who are watching and who are not aware, he was discussing some matters involving the Canadian Wheat Board, particularly about barley.

If I may point out to the hon. member, there has been a considerable amount of discussion and papers prepared outside the government, so I do think it is prudent for the government to take information from outside the public realm, from outside the civil service, and examine it to see if it has been well and thoughtfully done. The government can then use information papers researched from outside its own civil service to help it come to conclusions.

I, for one, would not want the public purse to again re-invent the wheel by spending more money to come to the same conclusion as papers would have from outside research.

[Prebudget Consultations, February 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, I must say that it will be my pleasure to split my time with my colleague, the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

There are various ways to approach a prebudget consultation in a prebudget speech. One can roll out a series of economic facts. One can talk about certain specifics or one can lay out certain principles and backgrounds and begin to develop what one thinks. I think that both methods are positive. Both methods have their strengths.

Having listened to a number of my colleagues go into specifics today, I thought I would concentrate more on a general aspect of laying out my philosophy, my background and where I come from so that the voters of Saskatoon—Humboldt, the people I represent, could better understand where I come from on a principles basis, so they could understand what their representative thinks, what goes into his deliberations, and why he comes to certain perspectives when he casts his vote. I hope that my colleagues will bear with me as I take a slightly different approach.

I would first like to lay out for my electorate and the population at large my background so that they might know my bio. I come from a very middle class family. My dad was a farmer. He has an education degree and taught for a while before going back to his first love. My mom is the local town librarian back home. We were not by any stretch of the imagination a rich or wealthy family.

So when I went off to the University of Saskatchewan, from which I ended up graduating with degrees in geophysics and economics, I did not have some major trust fund or any great amount of wealth to support me. I think this was very good for my education and for my background in understanding basic economics.

To pay my way through university, to be able to afford to go and have the privilege to earn some degrees at the university to provide for my future and to help with my education, I had to work each summer. I had to get down and do physical labour and do something that helped to build and mould my character.

In particular, I ended up working at a couple of different places. I worked at Good Spirit camp as the manager, chopping wood and managing the store. There I learned about fiscal responsibility. I also worked at tree planting for three summers in B.C., which was very important for my practical economic understanding. While the theory of economics was wonderful in the classroom, piecework tree planting is very good for practical economics. I understood very quickly that if one did not plant that tree and do it right, one did not get paid. There was a direct and immediate correlation and responsibility between the work one had done and the payment. I had the privilege of receiving that paycheque only for what I did and was responsible for.

I value those summers because they taught me about responsibility and valuing money, things that I think are sometimes lost today on people who do not come from a background where they are forced to address those questions directly.

Before I begin to speak today, I note that those are the experiences I come from. I took those prejudices and that background and began to apply them to my general principles approach as to how we should do our budget deliberations.

Based on that background, I began to work through my principles. First and foremost, in regard to all the expenditures of all the money that we receive from the people of Canada, we as parliamentarians must consider that it is not our money. It is not the government's money.

It is the money of the people of Canada. They individually worked for it by the sweat of their brow. It was their effort. It was their initiative that caused the creation of wealth. We only hold it for them in trust. This is a trust that we must hold in higher regard than we hold our personal finances. I think we must remember that in regard to every penny we spend in budget 2008 someone worked for it, someone sacrificed and someone made decisions to try to create that wealth.

Therefore, instead of having the government come to this with the assumption that we have the right to spend the money, that it is ours to decide, we as the government and as members of Parliament should be required to justify each and every expenditure.

We should be able to say in regard to each year's budget that every penny was well spent. We should go through them over and over again. Just because program spending was appropriate in one year does not mean that we should continue it in a future year.

We must continue to justify to the voters, the electorate and the citizens of Canada that their money needs to go to whatever programs we put into the budget, because it is ultimately theirs and we only hold it in trust. It is not our right to decide what to do. We only get that right as it is given to us by the voters and only in trust.

If we are to hold that wealth from our voters in trust, it must be required that whatever expenditures we make, we do them with the utmost efficiency and for the creation of more wealth, not less. We must use government expenditures to create more opportunity to create services that cannot be provided through other means, and we must use those services with maximum efficiency. We must not waste money in any way, shape or form.

With those basic principles underlined, we look to history to see where they have been best applied, where governments have held money most in trust, and where have they gone out and applied these principles in an economic fashion with the greatest efficiency.

We can see that very clearly throughout history this has been best applied by government administrations that have applied some basic principles. They are governments that have emphasized free markets, not a collectivistic approach. They are governments that have supported free trade rather than a mercantilist style of approach, one that would hoard for an elite and keep a country looking inward instead of using the economic efficiencies of the entire world. This means a government policy that uses the currency as a means of trade and not as a means of manipulation for the power of the state to tax through inflation.

With those historical premises and the philosophical understanding, how do we then begin to apply that to what we have? I think the government has been quite good at applying those basic principles.

First of all, we have paid down the debt that was built up and which was predominantly a legacy of the Trudeau administration in our history, with some other administrations also sharing lesser degrees of blame. We have paid down the debt by $37 billion and will continue to pay down that debt by a minimum of $3 billion more per year. That is wise and prudent management of the public finances, because that debt is taxation for the future. It was caused by irresponsible and wasteful squandering by previous administrations.

Second, we have emphasized lower taxes, because again it is back to that principle: we hold the money in trust. While there have been criticisms of certain specific tax cuts, I know of no tax cut that is a bad tax cut. They are all good.

I must say that I am proud of the government's business tax cuts. While certain parties in the House may sharply criticize corporations, they do not criticize the investments in things, which teachers, farmers and workers across the country receive from these corporations in the forms of dividends and appreciated stock value. It is people's retirement that is being boosted as these companies are being supported.

Most notably, we have also dropped the GST by two full percentage points. Again the opposition criticizes us, although there is a certain degree of irony since two of the parties that were around at that time were harshly critical of it when it was first implemented and used the exact reverse of their arguments then.

I realize that parties are not the same throughout their history. They are organic, living and changing things, but there is a certain irony when the exact same people who in some situations criticized the imposition of a consumption tax are now reversing their position to criticize the decreasing of a consumption tax.

We have done other things. Among them, we have helped to increase the basic deduction for income taxes.

As I see my time is winding down, let me say finally that cutting taxes and watching the deficit are two of the most important things, but we must also make sure that we spend on necessities, not frills. We have increased spending on certain things such as infrastructure and direct targeting to communities in need. Those sorts of things are necessary to promote and protect our society, particularly regions of our society that are at a disadvantage due to outside forces.

Targeted wise spending on solid things, cutting the budget, cutting the deficit by balancing the budget, and cutting taxes are the priorities of the government. They are the priorities--

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, November 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thought I would just help the hon. member with some of his remarks.

He kept mentioning the Nunn commission and that only one of the recommendations has been included in Bill C-25.

For the member's information, the Nova Scotia justice minister is very supportive of our bill. Nova Scotia justice minister Cecil Clarke has called on members of this House to support Bill C-25. Our justice minister has worked closely with his provincial counterparts on provisions of this bill. I think the hon. member should keep that in mind when he talks about the Nunn commission and other commissions.

[Donkin Coal Block Development Opportunity Act, November 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question the hon. member raises on coal and coal issues in general.

When we answer a question on clean coal, we first need to define what is meant by the terminology because the terminology “clean coal” has changed over the years. At one time many of the concerns were the sulphate particulates, the so-called, to use the slang that is often used, the SO_x and the NO_x particles that are emitted.

Over the years that has evolved and become more and more of a concern. Currently, the term is being used to talk about carbon dioxide and, in particular, carbon dioxide captured or sequestration. There are several different approaches to the term. The terminology is flexible.

The coal industry across North American, and in Canada especially, has been very good at developing clean coal technologies to take away those pollutants that previously were there.

In the last few years, with the emphasis on shifting to carbon dioxide, the industry began to shift over to deal with that particular problem.

The Province of Saskatchewan along with SaskPower have been looking at developing and working with technology and is looking to partner with other thermal producers of electricity across the country. Their decision has been to not push quite as aggressively forward as they had previously been thinking with clean coal. It does not mean that they do not view it as having a potential for strong development, but it has to do with various scale sizes in Saskatchewan's economy, the potential to ramp up and to go with natural gas.

The overall future for clean coal is very good. The technology is developing. The one thing we always have to be cautious about is that particular types of coals need particular nuances for certain situations. However, various technologies are being developed by both government and private industries to absorb, sequester or merely use for other purposes the carbon dioxide that is being emitted from coal plants.