Ed Fast

[Business of Supply, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I sense there was some misleading of the House when she suggested that women have equality of rights in Canada. I agree with that notion. The problem is with the previous 13 years of the Liberal regime. What happened under that regime? Did the Liberals ever move to extend human rights protection to the aboriginal women of our country? Of course not. Did they ever move to bring in legislation to ensure that aboriginal women finally had matrimonial property rights? Of course not.

Finally, I remind her that it is her party, the Liberals, who oppose our intervention in Afghanistan. This intervention ensures that women in Afghanistan now have the ability to live more freely, to start their own home based businesses, to live lives somewhat similar to what we have, with the freedoms that we enjoy.

Could she explain that?

[Business of Supply, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the comments by my colleague from across the floor. What surprises me is that there is emphasis on focusing in on the welfare of aboriginal women, which we as a government take very seriously.

The member focused on all of the things that the Liberal Party is now promising to do for women across the country. However, it had 13 years in which to deliver. Did the Liberals actually deliver? No.

In two subsequent elections the Liberals made child care the lynchpin of their election platform. Once they were elected, they did not deliver. They did not create one child care space in Canada.

Now, when I hear them talking about help for aboriginal women and supporting them, I have to ask my hon. Liberal colleague: why is it if she has such an interest in supporting aboriginal women does she oppose extending human rights protection to aboriginal women? Why does she and her Liberal Party, the official opposition, oppose extending matrimonial property rights to aboriginal women? This is an inconsistency. I would appreciate hearing her answer on that.

[Sitting Resumed, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's absolute frustration with the Liberal record over 13 years. It clearly was a mess.

In election after election the old Liberal government promised that it would deliver a national child care program. It never happened. The Liberals made so many promises.

The Liberal member who just asked a question actually referred to the red book and wanted to avoid any responsibility for it. In fact, that red book is a legacy to the broken promises of the Liberal Party.

I also want to remind the member that it was actually this government that increased funding to women's programs in Canada. First, we did an efficiency review. We made sure that the money that was supposed to go to women was not going to high paid lobbyists, high paid lawyers, high paid consultants, but that it was going to the front line where women really needed the funds. That is where the money was redirected. On top of that, our government increased that funding by 42%, some $20 million over two years in budget 2007.

I would ask the member to comment on why she cannot support increasing funding for women's programs as we did in budget 2007.

[Aeronautics Act, October 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am. It is not my intention to prolong this debate but I would like see it move forward to third reading. Therefore, I move that this question be now put.

[Aeronautics Act, October 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Are you resuming debate on the bill at this point in time?

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for the hon. member. She has attacked the throne speech and said nothing positive about it. Her colleague from Yukon listed, I believe, at least six things that he approved of in the throne speech. He was honest.

Since the hon. member criticized everything in the throne speech, why did she sit on her duff and not vote against it when she had the chance yesterday?

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I did notice that my colleague referred to the whole issue of Canada supporting its children. I think she encouraged Canadians to have more children. I do not know if I misunderstood her, but I think I am correct that she was encouraging Canadians to have more children. Children are good.

However, she also focused on what she alleged to be a shortcoming in our government's approach to serving children. She decried the fact that we do not have a national day care program, institutionalized day care funded by the state.

My concern is this. The hon. member well knows that the large majority of Canadian children do not take advantage of day care. They have other models of care. For example, in my riding there is a large Indo-Canadian community. Many Indo-Canadian families have an intergenerational model of care, where the parents live with their children. The children go to work. The grandparents take care of the grandchildren. That is a different model. Others have stay at home parents, like we did. My wife was able to stay at home.

Yet the model that the member's party, the NDP, has promoted for many, many years is one which essentially has excluded those other models of child care. The NDP just like the institutionalized day care.

Why is it that for so many years her party has focused on that one group of children, but have omitted to address the needs of the majority of young children in our country?

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated working with the hon. member on the heritage committee. I know she is very knowledge about heritage issues, having being an actress on CBC Television. However, I want to focus on something that she did not mention.

The Liberal opposition in the House has opposed our proposal to cut the GST even more. We had committed to cutting it by 2%, and we hope to achieve that shortly. The Liberal Party is opposed to reducing the GST, yet she knows the GST is the one tax that applies to all Canadians, including the 30% who do not pay income tax.

The member was critical of us for not reducing income taxes, yet a reduction in income taxes would never apply to the 30% who do not pay taxes, which includes Canada's poor. She mentioned that her riding has a significant number of people who are below the poverty line. Surely she would want to help them by reducing the one tax that would impact them.

Could she explain to the House how her party opposes GST cuts and prefers to reduce corporate taxes and the taxes on the rich?

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, one thing the member did not spend a lot of time on, and it is the one area of our throne speech that clearly benefits the poor in Canada, is the reduction of the GST by another 1%. As she knows, the GST is the one tax in Canada that when it is reduced, it benefits all Canadians, not just those that pay income tax.

If the member had listened to the comments coming from the Liberal benches, they of course attacked our government for reducing the GST. They believe it is the wrong way to go. They believe in corporate tax cuts. They believe in focusing on the rich in Canada and giving them tax breaks, but not extending tax breaks to the poor, the working poor, students and seniors. They basically want to cozy up to their rich friends, their corporate buddies. That is something our government will not do.

My question is, what is her opinion of the Liberal approach to reducing taxes, as opposed to a 1% reduction in the GST?

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, of course the member will know that I disagree with her on virtually every point she has made. In fact, she refers to Canada going in the wrong direction under our Conservative government, but Canada has never had economic fundamentals as strong as they are today. We have record low unemployment rates, the lowest unemployment rates in the last 33 years. We have the strongest economic fundamentals of the G-8 nations. We have an incredibly robust economy. As well, we are repaying Canada's debt, which is long overdue.

However, there is one thing the member and I do have in common: we agree on the shameful performance of the Liberal Party in this House last night.

Liberal members of the House were elected to represent their constituents and to vote, to make decisions, to say yes or no to the various policies we bring forward. Last night we were voting on the throne speech and the direction our government wants to take. What did the Liberals do? They simply sat on their duffs. That is irresponsible. It was a shameful performance. I would ask the member who just spoke to comment on whether she approves of that performance or whether she expects members of the House to stand up, vote and have the courage of their convictions.