Bradley Trost

[Petitions, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present petitions from people in my constituency, specifically from the city of Saskatoon and from the towns of St. Brieux, Naicam and St. Louis.

The petitioners draw to the attention of the House their very firm belief that marriage is a sacred institution that forms the basis of the family unit and that Parliament overwhelmingly affirmed its understanding of marriage as a union between a single man and a single woman to the exclusion of all others in 1999.

Therefore, they humbly call upon Parliament to pass legislation that will protect the traditional definition of marriage as it has before affirmed.

[Supply, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, having been elected not quite a year ago I cannot speak to the specifics of what the hon. member has said.

Let me lay out some general principles that I do deal with on environmental legislation and why I support it. I am talking about environmental legislation that would improve people's health.

Environmental pollutants, which get into the atmosphere and damage other people's water, land, health, et cetera, are, in principle, a violation of a person's inalienable rights to private property and rights to the person. That is why I as a Conservative, for philosophical reasons, will support the rule of law being applied on environmental issues to protect people's health and so forth.

As to the specifics of what the member is speaking to, I really cannot comment, not being in the House during that period.

[Supply, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, this issue has been referred to not only by members on his side of the House, for which I thank him, but also by the member for Langley who has had a specific constituent concern where I believe the sister of one of his constituents has taken time off to take care of her dying sister.

I have been very supportive of my colleague from Langley. He has raised this issue and has complete and total compassion, not only in the House and in front of the cameras, but behind them as well.

I am not fully aware of what the previous legislation was in March 2003 as I was not a member of the House at that time. However I will look at the new legislation.

I will say that as far as the general principle that the member for Langley and the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore have spoken to, I support the general principle that we should have flexibility in our social spending.

When we consider some of the other uses EI has been put toward, it would strike me as a much more reasonable approach to look at. Again, in principle, until I see the legislation I will not commit to vote for or against. However, in general, I would be supportive of the principle that people be allowed to take time off to look after loved ones who are in need of care in very serious incidences, such as parents looking after dying children or a sister looking after a sister.

My understanding was that it only took an administrative ruling by the minister, which is quicker than legislation. If that is not the case, I would be very interested in discussing it with the member. Perhaps he could educate me more, but in principle I support it.

[Supply, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, before I get too far into my remarks, I should note that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for South Surrey--White Rock--Cloverdale.

This is a broad topic as far as dealing with the health care needs and a national strategy on cancer, mental illness and cardiovascular disease. However, irrespective of where we come from on this, we all have a personal story. We all know someone in all three of these areas whom we want to remember and think about. I think personally of a friend who died two years ago, after having successfully beaten cancer once before, roughly 25 years earlier, only to succumb to it on its second pass through.

We all have relatives or friends who have passed away due to cardiovascular diseases. Unfortunately, as well we know people who suffer from depression and mental illness. I think in particular of a couple of my acquaintances whom I have known over the years.

This is very much an issue which speaks to the heart of why we are here as parliamentarians, to do something practical and positive for our constituents. This is also one area where Canadians have come together and worked as communities and as individuals. That is one reason why I am particularly happy to speak to the motion.

In particular, I want to note a couple of things that are being done in my riding to deal with cancer. I want to specifically congratulate some of the people of Saskatoon, survivors and others, for getting together last weekend to raise money for the Canadian Cancer Society. Saskatoon had a record turnout this year, with 792 teams and raised over $185,000. I want to congratulate the people of my constituency who participated in that and for doing their part to fight cancer.

I also want to put on the record and congratulate the researchers who are working in the riding of Saskatoon--Humboldt, using the Canadian Light Source synchrotron to find cures for breast cancer. It is one of the leading edge areas of technology. I am proud we are taking that initiative in Saskatoon, with the support of the Government of Canada through its funding. All across the country various researchers are working on it. Some very practical things are being done.

I also wanted to congratulate the member for Charleswood--St. James--Assiniboia for bringing this to the attention of the House.

Why do we need a national strategy to deal with cancer specifically and also cardiovascular and mental health diseases? We spend tens of billions of dollars on health care in our country. We spend it on cancer. We spend it on general care. We spend it on emergency wards. Why specifically do we need a national strategy to deal with this problem?

In looking through the research and notes on the issue as to why we should deal with it, a few points came to mind as to why I will be voting in favour of this.

First, we need to maximize our assets across the country. We need to coordinate and think it through. We really cannot have a disjointed approach to dealing with any disease on any issue across the country. Looking through all the plans and so forth, there are many fine institutions and doctors. Various approaches and treatments are being tried across the country. We need to not only spend on these individual initiatives, we need to coordinate them so they all work functionally and effectively.

This is why the Canadian cancer strategy was brought together. Members of the House did not think of the idea. Nor did they wisely put it together. It was brought together by 700 experts and survivors, people who have a real vested interest and personal knowledge. This is not merely something that is done for one day's publicity or one day's thinking. This is something that has been developed through considerable, well thought out and thorough research by specialists who are experts on the matter.

Looking at the people who have decided to support this, gives me the confidence that the plan will work, that it will be functional.

Another reason why I think we need to support the initiative is it will set priorities. When we have an overall plan, we can coordinate to make what we already have work better. As I understand it now we do not have definite goals or priorities. We do not have definite targets or points of reference that we need when we are developing anything. A national cancer strategy as well as a national cardiovascular and mental health strategy would do this.

Another reason we need to support this strategy is because it will provide real results.

When I was researching the issue, I was struck by how important it was. It is estimated that 420,000 lives could be saved over 30 years with a national plan. By my calculations, that is 14,000 people per year. Other than the city of Saskatoon, one-third of my riding is rural. Fourteen thousand people works out to be three times the size of the next largest community in my riding. That is an immense number of people who could be saved every year for the next 30 years.

Other countries have developed cancer control strategies and have seen positive results. In the United Kingdom cancer deaths fell 10% in just four years. In Luxembourg morality plummeted 24% by 2000. In Finland the numbers dropped to 17% and in Austria 15%. Just after a few years, Ireland dropped to 10%.

This strategy has real benefits for Canadians. It is practical and could be done.

Let me compare the cost of the initiative of $300 million to other things on which the government has spent money. Other hon. members who have spoken today referenced the ad scam controversy. By the time the commission has finished, the government will have spent more money than what a five year cancer strategy would cost. Compare the results. We could save 14,000 people a year compared to a lot of corruption. Those are the choices.

The strategy is a wise place to put our revenues and our spending. For someone who has a hard time supporting any new spending initiatives because they are worried about waste and corruption and various other things, this is one of the very few that would be a wise investment of taxpayer dollars. It would save lives and money.

There are many other reasons to have a strategy. We just need to look at the economics. Canadians would be healthier. The economy would be more productive. There are many other reasons to support the idea and the motion.

The final reason why I have decided to support it is a well thought out plan. This is not about giving more money and then figuring out what to do with it. This is a well developed, well thought out plan. They are working on a strategic cancer leadership platform. There are cancer targets, national standards, national clinical and practice guidelines and prevention systems. These things will not just provide publicity and then disappear. They will make a real difference.

I have concentrated mostly on dealing with the national cancer program because it is the one that is the most detailed and well thought out. Before I close my remarks, let me say something needs to be done for the national mental health strategy and the cardiovascular strategy as well.

One in five people will be affected by mental illness in their lifetime. Thousands of people commit suicide. The human stories that we all know compel us to act and to support the motion.

It is for those reasons that I will support the motion. I support the call for a national cancer strategy, for a national mental illness strategy and for real achievement on the national heart and stroke and cardiovascular strategy. These are good reasons. This is a good motion. I call on the House to be unanimous in its support of the motion.

[War Brides, May 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the next time you go to the post office, take a minute to look at the commemorative envelopes on display. Look for the envelope that has a wartime photo of a glowing bride and her happy groom.

Lloyd Cochrane served with the RCAF. His war bride, the lovely Olive, worked for the British war department.

The story of Canada's war brides is the story of passion in the midst of tragedy. It is a tale of leaving one's homeland, a tale of hope, of following one's heart.

They experienced culture shock and homesickness in post-war Canada. But, like many immigrants before and after, Canada's war brides toiled quietly to build a better country.

Like other war brides and their servicemen husbands, Olive and Lloyd Cochrane also left a living legacy through their children and grandchildren, a legacy that endures, a legacy that will not be forgotten.

Let us remember Canada's war brides, a special group of immigrants.

[Government of Canada, May 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, “It is a firm constitutional convention that prime ministers must either resign or call an election if they lose the confidence of the House”. So says professor and constitutional expert Andrew Heard. A constitutional matter is a basic matter of the rule of law.

That, in all its simplicity, is what we are debating in this House. That is the basis for our democracy. By ignoring a confidence motion of this House, the government is flouting the rule of law. It is ignoring the basic principles of representative and responsible government, and is expressing contempt for the electoral choices of the people of Canada. It has decided that power is more important than principle and that might is more important than right. The government has lost the constitutional right to govern and in choosing to ignore that loss, it has also forfeited the moral right to govern.

It is a truism that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Nothing is more corrupt than ignoring the rule of the law and the voice of the people. The government is illegitimate and must resign.

[Petitions, May 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to present a petition on behalf of residents of eastern Ontario and adjacent areas of Quebec.

In particular, they are petitioning the House of Commons concerning funding for juvenile diabetes. Juvenile diabetes is a very serious disease. It affects many Canadians. I am sure all members of the House agree with me that we need to do something to combat it, and that is what these petitioners are calling upon the House of Commons to take actions to do.

[Property Rights, April 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's views on this issue and I really appreciate his taking the time to respond, but I have to say, where is the beef?

He listed all those numbers, but there are a few things he did not explain. Cash advances are loans. Not all of this money is in grants directed to farmers. They are loans. Some of these programs are money that is given, money that is taken back. If one only has $4,000 in before tax income, one could be lent all the money in the world, but if one has to pay it back, it is not going to help. We need something that actually gets to the farmers.

When I first got involved in this, the member for Yorkton—Melville told me that years later they would go back and look at programs, they would see what had been announced and they would find that one-third of it had stayed in Ottawa. That is the problem. All those numbers do not add up.

Where is the beef? A farmer cannot live off a loan if he or she does not have the money to pay it back. That is the problem. There are a lot of good words, but nothing has really been delivered.

[Property Rights, April 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to re-address this issue that I first raised in the House of Commons on March 9 pertaining to agriculture. I had addressed my question to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food concerning the problems that we have with the BSE situation. Specifically, the question had been prompted by something I heard from one of my constituents.

A rancher in my riding had phoned to say the bank had called in his loan. His before-tax income was only $4,000, that is all he had, so it brought home to me the realistic and real plight of farmers throughout Canada and throughout particularly the province of Saskatchewan.

As someone who is fourth generation in the province of Saskatchewan, my great-grandfather, grandfather, father and practically all of my relatives have grown up on the farm. It is something very real; something I understand.

We must realize that in the province of Saskatchewan, we faced drought and frost. There have been continual attacks on the agriculture sector. Then we faced, not too long ago, BSE, the problem that was in reality a trade dispute. For all intents and purposes and all the dressing up that it was a scientific problem or anything else, it was a trade dispute.

Coming from a farm family and an agriculture background, it is extremely frustrating to watch the government's inactivity. It throws out big numbers that it is spending money on farmers and that it is giving money to them, but at the end of the day, what does it help? What does it help when a family only has $4,000 before-tax income?

That is where the question originates. Does it work? Is it practical? People in my riding, my constituents, keep saying that it does not. What do we have here? We have an inadequate government whose trade policy cannot get the border open and whose foreign policy cannot help.

Even today, who was it that went ahead and got involved with intervenor status in the United States in the court cases to move the situation forward for our farmers? It was Conservative members of Parliament. Conservative members of Parliament took the initiative and I am proud that my name is going to be part of that intervenor status. I am going to stand up for my farmers. I am going to stand up for the people of Saskatoon--Humboldt, the beef producers who need real help.

Again, my question and underlying premise that I bring is this. Where is the help? The farmers are not seeing it. They are not getting real money into their accounts. They are looking for real help, efficient help, help with processing, so that they can look after themselves more effectively, and be in charge of their own future here in Canada to look after their beef.

I will repeat the question I first asked the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food on March 9. I hope he has a better answer, an answer which delivers something directly to the people, the farmers of western Canada and beef producers. How can the agriculture minister believe in his program when farmers are going bankrupt? I would appreciate a sincere response to this question.

[Canada Grain Act, April 18th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the people of Saskatchewan are going to hold the finance minister and the Liberals to account for not offering the province of Saskatchewan the same deal on equalization that they made with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

When talking about all those numbers, what the member did not say is per capita GDP, per capita income, and real money in real people's pockets. The people of Saskatchewan are considerably poorer than other provinces. Let me use the example of Manitoba, not to pick on it, that receives a billion dollars a year. We are a poorer province. Only funny math shows any difference. We should have received $8 billion over the last decade. To have received $500 million, $600 million or $700 million, when we should have received $8 billion is almost an insult. All we ask for is fairness and some real representation in government, not just a figurehead.