Dick Harris

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2010]

Madam Chair, I rise on a point of order. It is obvious that members had plenty of time to ask these questions during their so-called committee inquiry as opposed to wasting the minister's time tonight, who is here to discuss the main estimates in the budget. I am sure the people viewing would like to hear questions specifically surrounding the budget. That is, of course, what we are all here for, at least on this side, notwithstanding the nonsense that the Liberal Party and the members opposite want to proceed with.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, due to some of the statements by the opposition, many Canadians have been led to believe that there is a full-blown drilling process going on offshore in the far north. That is simply not the truth. In view of the misleading statements made by the opposition in the past few weeks, I think it would be appropriate for the minister to stand and specifically deal with that question and assure Canadians that there is absolutely no drilling going on offshore in the far north.

[Firearms Registry, May 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader has said that he will whip his caucus to vote to keep the Liberal long gun registry. Canadians and especially constituents in the Yukon know there are only two options. Either one votes to keep the Liberal boondoggle or one votes to scrap it.

Yesterday at committee, the environment minister from the Yukon said, and I quote, “I also heard the Liberal leader in Ottawa say that his members will have to vote to save the gun registry. If this is the case, then not only the first nations will lose their voice but also the majority of Yukon citizens will”.

Yukoners deserve to have a member of Parliament who listens to their concerns. We call on the member for Yukon to stand with his constituents and vote to scrap the useless boondoggle Liberal gun registry.

[Privilege, May 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a painful few moments listening to the member for Mississauga South, but I only have a couple of points to make.

First, by the member for Mississauga South's own statement, before polling the committee to see whether the minister would be allowed to speak, he personally said to the minister that it was not possible for her to speak before the committee. That was his decision. He indicated in his presentation that it was the decision of the committee, but it was his decision before he even asked the committee if it would allow her to speak. He made that decision.

The second point is this. The member for Mississauga South has said that it is your decision, Mr. Speaker, to rule on the inappropriateness of the actions of members. I agree with that; it is. However, I would also like to suggest that as chair of the so-called ethics committee, it is the responsibility of the member for Mississauga South to allow or disallow statements that have been made by members of that committee, in particular, to use his words, any statements that may be deemed inappropriate, disrespectful, abusive, offensive, provocative, threatening, or in other words, unworthy of members to say.

I would insist and request that if you are to make a ruling on what the member has claimed, Mr. Speaker, that you go back through every word of Hansard from the committee he chairs and take careful note of every statement that he has allowed members of that committee to make to witnesses who appeared before him.

If you do that, Mr. Speaker, I know you will find that, by comparison to what he has claimed about the member for Selkirk—Interlake, I would suggest that would be considered milquetoast compared to what that member, as chair of the ethics committee, allowed members of the opposition to make toward witnesses who appeared before his committee. Even a few days ago, he did not question the member for Winnipeg Centre when the member accused the witness of “lying his ass off”. The member for Mississauga South, did not even attempt to reproach that member. He thought that was okay.

If you are to rule on what the member for Mississauga South has just presented and asked you to rule on, Mr. Speaker, you must go back through every word and statement in Hansard and see what he, as chair, has allowed. Upon comparing that to what he is saying today, then you must make your decision.

[Broadband Internet, May 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the broadband Internet access is hugely important to the social and economic success of our country.

Last week, the Liberal opposition member tried to drudge up a 10-year-old broken promise about broadband that the Liberals broke 10 years ago and likely would again. This government, on the other hand, is taking some real action.

I would like to ask the Minister of Industry to explain what the Conservative government is doing to help rural Canadians be competitive in the digital economy of the 21st century.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 7th, 2010]

With regard to the Trans-Canada Highway: (a) what does the government consider the total length of the Trans-Canada Highway to be in kilometres; (b) how many kilometres remain “untwinned”, by province (i.e., single-lane highways designated with the Trans-Canada label); and (c) what is the cost per kilometre to “twin” sections of the Trans-Canada Highway that are currently single-lane and, if there is a difference from province to province, how much does it cost by province to twin the Trans-Canada Highway?

[Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act, March 26th, 2010]

That's not going to happen.

[Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act, March 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments of the member for Winnipeg Centre and he is quite correct. Why has this taken so long? I am not talking about the most recent period because, as the parliamentary secretary said, there is a process to go through.

The Liberal government was in power from 1993 to late 2005, a total of 13 years. It had ample time within that vast period of government to deal with this issue and yet the Liberals treated that issue as if it were so far below the importance in their minds that it was never even contemplated.

I congratulate our minister for having the mind to realize the importance of this issue and bring it to our government's attention, and we have dealt with it.

Could the parliamentary secretary tell the House whether there was any justification for a 13 year hands off approach to this most important issue that the Liberal government displayed?

[The Economy, March 12th, 2010]

It was $5 billion a year. In the ensuing Liberal 13-year administration, the Liberals slashed it by 50% down to $2.5 billion a year.

The hon. member might not want to admit it, but this year our foreign aid is back up to $5 billion a year, and we have untied it to make it more effective than it has ever been in the history of this Parliament.

I also find it very unsettling that the hon. member could talk about the Conservatives trying to make cuts. We are not making any cuts, and we are certainly not making them on the backs of the poor and those who can least afford it, unlike the former Chrétien Liberals. When they came to power to balance the budget, former finance minister Paul Martin slashed $25 billion from health care and social transfers to the provinces. That was done on the backs of the poor and the infirm. Does that sound familiar? He remembers that. I remember that. We will not take any lessons from that member, who was a part of that government and voted for every one of those nasty cuts that the former Liberal government introduced to balance the books on the backs of the poor and the infirm.

I would be embarrassed if I were the hon. member, standing up making the comments he did, given the record he has to stand up for, the record of slash and cut to the poor and the infirm, those who needed health care and those who needed help under the social transfers. We will take no lessons from the Liberals and that is for sure.

[The Economy, March 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we have to give the member, as a Liberal, credit for having the guts to talk about advertising. That could lead us right into the sponsorship program, which I am sure he does not want to talk about, considering he was a member of that government.

The hon. member is very selective, but he selects the wrong things. He forgets that under the former Progressive Conservative government in 1993, just before the Liberals came to power, foreign aid was about $5 billion a year.