Christian Paradis

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. At the risk of boring her, I will take this opportunity to say that this is not just about the inaction of previous governments. In reality, our government has done a number of things. I mentioned the announcement of $33 billion for infrastructure over the next seven years. I also spoke about development in Canada's north.

What about seniors? The Prime Minister appointed Senator Marjory LeBreton as Secretary of State for Seniors, so a member of the cabinet is speaking on behalf of our seniors. Furthermore, taxes have been cut for seniors in recent months, representing a $1 billion tax break for them. We also increased the number of kits: 200,000 additional forms will be sent to seniors to ensure that they have access to the Canada pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. This is concrete action.

We also started providing compassionate care benefits to help our seniors. Seniors are left alone, stuck in their hospital beds. These people shaped our country. Some people want to help them, but are not able to because they would lose job income. This way, they receive benefits.

I could give other examples. These are concrete, positive measures that have been taken since we came to power more than 20 months ago. This is not inaction; it is action.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. First, the positive aspect of my message is that we are talking about investments in Canada's north. We know this is a major concern. After many years of inaction, this government is taking the necessary action. This is encouraging and will benefit all of Canada.

At the same time, my colleague's question gives me a chance me to reiterate the commitment of the federal government. In presenting the “Building Canada” plan, my honourable colleague, the Minister of Transport announced $33 billion over the next seven years for infrastructure. That is the largest investment in Canadian infrastructure since World War II. This news is cause for celebration. As my colleague was saying, after too many years of inaction, infrastructures have aged and become obsolete in some areas. Thus, in the last federal budget, the government put in place concrete measures.

I refer my colleague to the related line objects. The figures do not lie. We can be very proud and very hopeful about the future since measures will be taken by the Canadian government in the area of infrastructure as well as the development of Canada's far north and the protection of the environment in this territory.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will split my time with the Minister of Health.

It is always a pleasure to share a forum with him. Just this morning, we were together to announce the implementation of the Healthy Canadians website, which seeks to inform Canadians on food and product safety. This is good news, because it means that, at last, a government is taking action in this area.

I am also pleased to rise to stress the importance of protecting our environmental heritage in the Canadian North.

Canadians see the North as a reflection of our deepest aspirations, including our will to explore and discover the beauty and the wealth of our land, as well as the incredible potential of our country. At the same time, the environment is the single most important issue for Canadians. To protect the environment is to protect the identity of Canadians. This is why protecting our environmental northern heritage will be one of the main focus of the government's northern strategy, which was announced last week in the Speech from the Throne. Concrete measures were proposed to protect the Canadian Arctic.

The Liberals, who were in office for 13 years, did not develop any plan to protect our sovereignty in the Canadian North. Their inaction is one of the reasons why the North needs our attention and actions more than ever.

The time for talk is over. As the Prime Minister said regarding our defending the North, we must use it or else accept losing it. It is as simple as that. Of course, this government intends to use it.

Our government's intention to replace Canada's largest icebreaker and to conduct a comprehensive mapping of Canada’s Arctic seabed are obvious signs of its commitment to the North. Good governance in the Arctic also requires that we increase Canada's scientific knowledge on the North's unique environment. Scientific research and development are critical to the defence of the Canadian North, in that they allow us to increase our knowledge of that region and also our presence.

Because of the great expanse of the Arctic, the complexity of the science involved and the monitoring necessary to understand this diversified region, we will build a world-class arctic research station that will be on the cutting edge of arctic issues. This station will be there to serve Canadians and the entire world.

Major investments in the north include $150 million to promote research and science as part of International Polar Year. With these initiatives, we are currently looking at the impact of climate change on the hydrological cycle and the biodiversity of freshwater ecosystems in the Arctic and on the relationship between climate change and contaminants.

The importance of protecting the fragile ecosystems of the north was stressed in our government's budget 2007, which announced funding for a massive expansion of the Nahanni National Park Reserve of Canada. An additional parcel of land covering an area of 5,400 square kilometres within the ecosystem of the greater Nahanni area, where species such as the grizzly and woodland caribou are found, will be protected.

As part of budget 2007, our government also earmarked $10 million in funding for the establishment of protected areas in support of the Northwest Territories protected areas strategy.

This government is also looking toward the future. Canada's north is a resource-rich area. There was a time when the existence of many mineral deposits was known, but these were inaccessible due to limitations in terms of technological capacities, transportation and infrastructure. Today, the possibilities are endless. Northern economic development could contribute significantly to Canada's overall economic growth as well as create jobs.

The far north issue is a source of concern for a majority of Canadians. In our ridings, people often stop and ask us what action will be done to deal with threats coming from outside the country. As government members, we are then proud to be able to tell them that action has finally been taken after so many years of inaction and that it is in blank and white in the Speech from the Throne. We have reason to be proud.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this is not new. The Bloc had announced that it would vote against the Speech from the Throne. It said loud and clear that it wanted to defeat our government. It defeated the previous government, saying that Liberals are centralizers who still deny that there is fiscal imbalance.

However, since it came into office, the Conservative government has offered open federalism. Let us think, among other things, about the seat that Quebec got at UNESCO; let us think about the recognition of the Quebec nation; let us think about the settlement of the fiscal imbalance; let us think about the historic measure that was announced yesterday, that is, restricting federal spending power. This is on top of other measures that were taken, including strong support for supply management.

This cannot be more clear. It is clearly written. Yet, the Bloc continues to make a big scene.

Quebec has 75 members of Parliament out of a total of 308. What does this mean? It means that Bloc members will never make their promises a reality.

However, Quebec is getting stronger with a Conservative government. Why? Because we are able to make our promises a reality. We keep our word and we keep our commitments.

Why would the Bloc defeat a government that helps Quebec make progress? I cannot understand this. Is it really in Quebec's interests to content itself with trying to defeat a government that keeps its word, at last, and that respects its commitments toward Quebec and Canada? That is the question.

[Supply Management, June 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the instructions are clear. Our government will defend supply management. No, we will not touch quotas. No, we will not touch tariffs. This is what Canada's negotiator will say loud and clear—defending supply management as is.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, June 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can say what he wants, but one thing is certain: the coalition's instructions were to defend supply management and not to touch tariffs and quotas.

The minister has said so time and time again in this House. This has been repeated over and over again. Again, what language should I say this in? This government will defend supply management.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, June 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the hon. member that for the past 14 months, unprecedented measures have been taken in defence of supply management. As a result, it is obvious that the Government of Canada will continue to support and defend supply management. Those were our instructions. The motion put forward in this House specifies that we must defend supply management and not touch the tariffs and quotas. That is what we will do.

[The Environment, June 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.

Canadian farmers want to do their fair share to protect the environment and we want to help them. That is why, on Monday in Quebec City, I announced $1 million in funding for a pilot project that will help farmers develop more effective environmental protection measures. For example, the financial incentives provided to farmers will be used to conserve and improve the quality of our water.

We are forging forward. We continue to help our farmers; we continue to help our regions; and we continue to work on maintaining a healthy environment.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, June 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, for the past 14 months, unprecedented measures have been taken to defend supply management, something that had never been done in the last 13 years: invoking article XXVIII of GATT, the regulations governing cheese composition standards.

Again this week we could not have been any clearer on our intentions that we will defend supply management; we will support it; and we will not touch tariff quotas or the tariffs.

The Bloc can try to create yet another drama to show how useless it is here in Ottawa, but we on this side are taking action in favour of supply management.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, June 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we have to go beyond words and look at the action being taken here by the Conservative government. I will repeat this again slowly. Just this week, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said that we would defend supply management and that we would fight for it. We are not touching the tariff quotas and we are not touching tariffs.

What language should I use to make this clear? What we are doing at the WTO is defending supply management. We support it and we will always defend it.