Chris Warkentin

[Railway Continuation Act, 2007, April 17th, 2007]

The NDP members are now heckling because they certainly do not want to hear what the farm families have to say.

Farm families have come to me in the last two weeks, which I spent travelling from one end of my constituency to the other. The NDP members are talking about safety and these types of things, and those things are important, but at the end of the day the people who are going to be affected most, the people who have the most to lose today, will be our farm families if they are unable to ship the products they so desperately need to ship at this point.

Because of course we have had a harsh winter and CN has been delayed in terms of getting the product to market, and if they cannot ship it now, they will have bills that come due. The bills are already due. Farm families are paying interest on loans and farms are going to go under before they can ever get their product to market, and the NDP does not give a rip.

[Railway Continuation Act, 2007, April 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I can get in the comments that I think are important to bring to this debate in just one minute.

I asked one question earlier with regard to our farm families and the suffering that is being inflicted on them because of this long term labour disruption and the possibility of a long term strike. Essentially I got the response that the NDP does not care about farm families. All the NDP cares about is prolonging this long term labour disruption--

[Railway continuation Act, 2007, April 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in the last two weeks I spent a fair bit of time in my constituency, particularly in the farming communities. Again and again the one thing I heard was that yes, CN has some issues and CN has to resolve this union issue. The farmers said that we have to get these trains rolling again because their farms are on the line. Again and again I heard from desperate farmers and desperate farm families that they are not able to deliver their product. They are not able to deliver their commodity to port to get the sales they desperately need so that they can get cheques in their pockets to make the payments that are coming due.

There are some legitimate concerns that the NDP has brought forward and CN will have to resolve them. However, a lot of the issues that the NDP is bringing forward have nothing to do with the negotiations that are happening right now.

There are many people who do not have anything to do with CN who are going to end up paying the price for any prolonged labour action in the case of CN. The farmers that I talked to again and again expressed with tears in their eyes that they will lose their farms will and their families will be on the streets if they cannot move their product.

By stalling this, the opposition members who are opposing this are saying to the farmers, to the mill workers, to the value added producers in my constituency and many constituencies across the country that they do not care about those people. They do not care that tomorrow those people will go out of business. They do not care that farmers will lose their farms. The members opposing this are saying that they believe the country should come to a halt and that product should not flow.

I want to make the submission to those members who are considering voting against moving this legislation forward that these farm families, the people in my community and across the Prairies and in many other small communities where there are lumber mills, are demanding that we stand up for them so that they can be protected and their families will have an income moving forward.

I ask the member if he has considered the people who are impacted, who are not CN employees or CN management, the people who will be affected, the people who truly have the most to lose.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, by refusing to support the budget, the Liberals and the NDP have once again put their partisan games ahead of hard-working Canadian families.

I will outline just some of the things the Liberals and the NDP seem to be opposed to: the new working income tax benefit that will benefit families up to $1,000; a $2,000 tax credit for children under the age of 18; improvements to the flexibility of the RESP program that will ensure parents can raise money for their children's education; an end to the marriage penalty to help single income families; and a new long term savings plan for parents of children with severe disabilities.

Unlike the elite groups for which the opposition likes to speak, this government is getting real results for real Canadians. The Liberals and the NDP should put aside their partisan politics and do what is right for Canadian families.

[The Budget, March 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, last Monday the finance minister delivered a balanced budget that will make things easier for working families by making investments in health care, the environment and infrastructure.

As well, the budget also reduces taxes for these working families through the working family tax plan. Could the minister responsible provide more details on this plan?

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell for his work on this and many issues in making Canada truly a safer place for every Canadian and in ensuring that we have the tools necessary to keep Canadians safe.

Earlier I questioned the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore about this whole issue. He talked about bringing a resolution forward to amend the bill. I would like to ask the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell if it is his understanding that a resolution could amend this bill to include all the things that the Liberals want included. The Liberals are talking about all kinds of things in regard to changing it. Is it the understanding of the hon. member that a resolution could truly do what the Liberals are asking it to do?

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention by the Liberal leader in waiting. Before he becomes Liberal leader, I think it is incumbent upon him to understand how Parliament works and how things have to go forward.

There is no question that the Liberals brought this legislation forward. They put a number of provisions and requirements in the legislation, including the fact that a single unamendable resolution be laid before Parliament and members had to say yea or nay.

He talked about negotiations and about the opportunity for the Liberals to have their say to make changes to the legislation. There is no provision for that according to the bill that was brought forward by the previous Liberal government. The Liberals simply have a responsibility to either stand with Canadians and protect them or to tell Canadians that their security and their safety do not matter. The future Liberal leader should make it clear to Canadians whether or not he supports the security of Canadians.

He talked about the Liberals not wanting to politicize this. The Liberals had the opportunity to delay this from happening and negotiate some type of an agreement, but they failed to do that. They have decided to proceed with politics and put the security of Canadians on the line.

[Committees of the House, February 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask the question again. The member opposite was asked what concrete things he believed could benefit the issue of human rights in China. Again he just gave fluff, which seems to be the record of the former prime ministers as well, the ones he claims had such success in this field, and yet there was nothing done.

The hon. member continues to put money against human rights, money against human lives. Would the hon. member actually answer the question that was asked? What concrete steps is he willing to put into place or that he believes would be an effective way to resolve this issue of human rights? That is part and parcel of the whole issue of trade.

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, just when Canadians wondered if the Liberal leader could be any less reasoned or coherent in his policy direction, several high profile Liberals have come out to denounce the hypocritical and reckless position on the Anti-terrorism Act.

The Liberal member for Mount Royal has stated publicly that he not only opposes his Liberal leader on this issue, but reinforces the importance of the extension of the act. Former MP Anne McLellan, responsible for the original act, has even stronger criticism for the new leader, saying:

I am in a sense perplexed as to why at this point you would take these important tools away from law enforcement--

Another former Liberal deputy prime minister, John Manley, continues the onslaught of criticism by saying:

--cabinet and Parliament got the balance right in 2001-02. And I do not believe that anything has changed to make that balance inappropriate today.

Will the new Liberal leader recognize the gravity of this issue, heed the advice of his Liberal colleagues, and ensure that Canadians have the protection that they deserve?

[Liberal Party, February 9th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, with friends like the Alberta Liberals, the member for Ajax—Pickering does not need any enemies.

This week, on Mike Duffy Live, Alberta Liberal leader, Kevin Taft, criticized the position of the member for Ajax—Pickering by warning him directly that the federal Liberal intrusion into the oil sands could eventually threaten the unity of our country.

In a recent interview, the member for Ajax—Pickering stated, “if they refuse to work with us...there will be consequences”.

It is outrageous. We have seen, time and time again, the Liberals' lack of concern for the west and their willingness to pit regions of Canada against each other for their own electoral gain. We have seen the consequences of this antagonistic Liberal strategy before and Canadians do not want to go back.

Thankfully, our government has taken real action to tackle the important environmental issues without resorting to veiled threats directed at individual provinces.

Will the new Liberal leader take the advice of his provincial cousin, change his secret agenda and call off his attack dog?