Gary Schellenberger

[Petitions, November 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition on behalf of some of my constituents to draw the attention of the House to the following. Marriage defined as a lifelong union between one man and one woman is the best foundation for families and the raising of children. This definition of marriage is being changed by the courts. It is the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament to define marriage. The petitioners pray that Parliament define marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Manufacturing Industry, November 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. Many manufacturing plants in my riding are concerned about the high Canadian dollar and the impact it is having on their businesses.

Companies in my riding like Honeywell-Fram, Richardson Foods and Nuhn Industries Ltd. are well managed and efficient.

What is the government doing to protect Canadian manufacturing jobs in light of the high Canadian dollar?

[The Greatest Canadian, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the matter of the The Greatest Canadian contest being run by the CBC. While each of the nominees is certainly a great Canadian, to me the person most deserving of this title is Sir Frederick Banting.

Dr. Banting served Canada in World War I, and is responsible for one of the greatest discoveries in history, insulin. The discovery of insulin meant that millions of people around the world, who would have succumbed to diabetes, would be able to lead productive lives while managing the disease, a disease that before Dr. Banting's contribution meant a certain death sentence. To put the importance of Dr. Banting's discovery into perspective, it would be like discovering the cure for cancer today.

I want to thank the CBC for this initiative because it represents an exercise that unites Canadians from coast to coast. I want to encourage every Canadian to visit www.cbc.ca and vote, and remember the great contributions of Sir Frederick Banting.

[Supply, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, again I would like to address my learned colleague. I will try to put the shoe on the other foot.

What would the member's decision be if tomorrow in the Eastern Townships of Quebec there was a great oil find? How would he address the way the government should handle the resources of that oil find in Quebec? How would he like to share that with the federal government?

[Supply, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to most of what my learned colleague had to say. This whole debate is not about equalization.

My question for the hon. member is a very simple one, much the same as the very simple promise that the Prime Minister made, that Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia would receive 100% of their offshore royalties. Does the hon. member think the Prime Minister should keep his promise?

[Supply, November 4th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening very intently to the hon. member. I have a simple question but I must elaborate a bit before I ask it.

I have seen the government involvement with affordable housing in my riding in the County of Perth. We were allotted $2.5 million for affordable housing. Then we looked a little deeper into some of the clauses. This was for 100 units and they had to be sustainable for 20 years. When the whole package was put together, the 100 units were not affordable for the community to accept that $2.5 million.

Sometimes the government says one thing and then when it adds some clauses, the government makes it complicated. The more complicated it gets, the money is clawed back or the deal cannot be accepted. That is what happened to our municipality with respect to affordable housing. We could not accept the $2.5 million that was allotted to us and we did not get any units.

It seemed to me that the promise made by the Prime Minister was a very simple one, 100% of the royalties. I do not care about the equalization payments. That was not what was said at that particular time. That is a whole other issue than what we are dealing with today.

Does the member feel that the promise made by the Prime Minister of 100% of the royalties for Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia should be honoured by the Prime Minister?

[Canadian Heritage, October 15th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the former Canadian heritage minister took the stage in Banff during the last election. Afterward, according to Variety magazine, many attendees expressed concern over such a “nakedly political speech”. The speech was given for purely partisan reasons. Taxpayers should not have to pay for Liberal electioneering.

Will the minister guarantee that the Liberal Party will repay taxpayers for this trip?

[Agriculture, October 12th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, the reality now is that we do not have an export market for live cattle. We need to start looking at the possibility of the domestic market being the only one we have for our live cattle. We should be encouraging the marketing and processing of box beef. It is a value added product, and we should be focussing on the development and assistance for this industry because we can export box beef. There is no quota on box beef.

It seems that since the beginning of the BSE crisis the government has targeted all its assistance programs with the beef producers in mind. It is important to help beef producers, for sure. In fact we must ensure to help all ruminant producers: live cattle, dairy, sheep, elk and bison. These people cannot be forgotten because they are in a real quandary. However, all we have had so far are band-aid solutions to a complex problem and it requires much more. So many are affected from so many areas that we need a much more broadly based strategy.

Regarding the CAIS program, my constituents are telling me there is a chronic problem with the program. They say that those who qualify for assistance often receive much less in compensation than they expect. It is a serious problem because it means people cannot pay the bills. People should be paid what they are told.

The CAIS program must be carefully looked at and strengthened.

Since the sale of Petro-Canada, billions have been promised to improve our position on the environment, but why not take some of the money and use it to develop the biodiesel industry? A tax credit for the use of biodiesel could be applied. Raw resources are plentiful: cull cattle and dead livestock, where no markets currently exist, minimal cuts and waste from our packing plants are a constant supply of product to produce biodiesel. This might just help lower greenhouse gas emissions and put the country on a more direct route to reaching the objectives of the Kyoto protocol.

As the price of oil tops $50 U.S. a barrel, why not spend some money to develop an alternative energy? Ethanol could also be one of these alternatives. Increased development of the ethanol industry would mean grain producers would have a market for the grain left over by decreasing numbers of cattle.

These suggestions would help make farming more viable and also help the environment.

The government has had since May 20, 2003, to bring forward meaningful changes to agriculture and agriculture policy. If we procrastinate for another year, we could be here at the same time next year saying the same lines.

Let us hope the border will be open soon. At the same time we need to ask what the government is prepared to do that is a new initiative. Should we have new innovative ideas in our agriculture policy?

[Petitions, October 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present this petition on behalf of some of my constituents. The petitioners call upon Parliament to enact an immediate moratorium on the cosmetic use of chemical pesticides as a precautionary approach until such time as their use has been scientifically proven to be safe and the long term consequences of their application are known.

[Government Policies, May 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, one year ago today I became the member of Parliament for Perth--Middlesex.

One week later one mad cow was found on an Alberta farm. It has been a very trying year for the cattle industry and associated agribusiness.

The government has thrown money at agriculture without a plan to make sure the money actually gets to the farm gate. It forgot totally about agribusiness that was dependent on a healthy cattle industry. It had a cull cow program that did not even cull the cow.

I have watched for a year now as municipalities in my riding, which had previously requested federal funding for infrastructure, find themselves still waiting and wondering.

VIA Rail service in southwestern Ontario continues to be neglected while the gas prices go through the roof.

I have watched as the government was unable to improve health care for Canadians, was unwilling to address the culture of corruption and ignored rising tuition costs.

What a year.