Gord Brown

[Federal Accountability Act, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to talk about some of the aspects of our new government's accountability bill. Before I begin, I want to say how proud I am that Canadians chose our government to turn over a new leaf and make government work for the people instead of the other way around.

Hard-working people in my riding of Leeds--Grenville have been concerned for many years about the direction being taken by the federal government. They saw that the country needed change and they voted for that change in 2004. In January of this year they welcomed the news that the rest of Canada, in many other ridings, recognized the same problems that they had recognized for many years.

The federal accountability bill is about fixing a system that the people of Leeds--Grenville knew was broken. It is part of the response that the people in my riding expected from their new government and I know that they stand behind it.

The bill is about strengthening and streamlining how government works, and to the joy of the people of Leeds--Grenville it is about making government more effective and more accountable. This bill begins to deliver on a promise that we made during the election campaign. The government is taking action to earn back the trust of Canadians.

The bill is about moving from a culture of entitlement to a culture of accountability. It is about making everyone in government, from the Prime Minister on down to elected members of Parliament, answerable to Canadians.

Bill C-2 is about letting Canadians know that their hard earned tax dollars are being spent properly and wisely. There is probably nothing that infuriates the taxpayers of my riding more than the belief that their tax dollars, the money that they work so hard for and then give willingly to the government as their due for living and working in this great country, are being misspent.

Changes for Canadians in the bill include: reducing the opportunity to exert influence with money by banning corporate, union and large personal political contributions; giving Canadians confidence that lobbying is done ethically with a five year lobbying ban on former ministers, their aids and senior public servants; by ensuring people who see problems in government are allowed to speak up by providing real protection for whistleblowers; and by ensuring Canadians know how their money is spent by enhancing the powers of the Auditor General to follow the money trail.

The government's proposals are not just being laid out like a skeleton on a table to be picked at and rearranged. I am pleased to see that my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, put some meat on the bones when he tabled this bill by including an action plan that gives clear explanations and clear directions.

I mentioned earlier that nothing infuriates people in my riding more than not knowing what is happening with their tax dollars. Over the past number of years they have been as concerned as many others in this country about the amount of taxes that they pay compared with the federal surplus, which is large and growing. They have been most concerned by the federal government's practice of not being clear about the size of that surplus or what was being done with the money.

One of the keys to the federal accountability bill is the truth in budgeting provision and I want to spend the rest of my time talking about that aspect of the legislation.

Improving the transparency and credibility of the government's fiscal forecasting and budget planning process will help make it more accountable to Parliament and Canadians. No longer will the people in my riding pick up a newspaper one month and find that there is a $1.9 billion surplus and then a few months later turn around and find it was $9.1 billion. That is great that we had more money; however, we need to have truth in knowing how much money we have in order to make proper plans on how those tax dollars will be spent.

Truth in budgeting is very important for all parliamentarians and all Canadians. Parliamentary committees must have access to independent and objective analysis and advice on economic and fiscal issues. Committee members cannot review their committee estimates and listen to witnesses and make valuable judgments if they do not have accurate information about all the aspects, including budgetary information.

The federal accountability bill would expand the mandate and resources of the non-partisan Library of Parliament by establishing within it the position of parliamentary budget officer. It would give this officer the mandate to provide objective analysis to the Senate and to the House of Commons concerning the state of the nation's finances and trends in the national economy.

We will undertake economic and fiscal research for the Standing Committee on Finance, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts or the Senate Standing Committee on National Finance. On the request of these committees, we will estimate the cost of proposals currently or prospectively under consideration in either house when asked to do so by a member, a committee of the Senate or the House of Commons, or a committee of both houses. We will also require departments and agencies to provide the officer with any existing data necessary to fulfill his or her mandate.

I know the people of Leeds—Grenville are applauding. They are applauding these changes that will increase transparency in the government's fiscal planning process and will enable Parliament to better hold government to account. I am pleased to be here today to voice my support not only for this specific area of the federal accountability bill but for the entire bill.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, April 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, that is an important question because there are a lot of issues to do with the EI fund and how it was managed by the former government, but the fact is that we are putting forward the five priorities that we fully intend to act upon at this time. We made many promises in the election campaign. Canadians are going to find that this party and this government will deliver on its promises.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, April 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in this place today and take this opportunity to speak in response to the Speech from the Throne that was delivered earlier this month by Her Excellency the Governor General.

As our leader the Prime Minister stated on January 23 Canadians voted for change. They rejected 13 years of scandal and inaction. They rejected business as usual. They said that it was time for government to turn a new leaf. They asked us to make those changes and turn that new leaf.

The Speech from the Throne introduces those changes. It marks a turning point for the Government of Canada. It marks a change whereby the government will be more responsive to Canadians.

Some in this place have criticized that speech. I say it sets a solid foundation from which to launch a new era in our history. I say that although we have outlined five priorities, some of those are huge undertakings and once those foundations have been laid, we can continue forward.

In the recent election our party promised to act immediately on five key issues: accountability in government, choice in child care, cracking down on crime, working with the provinces to produce a health care wait time guarantee, and lowering the GST. The Speech from the Throne outlines these priorities.

It is important to note that the Speech from the Throne is just that, an outline, like a report on a book. It cannot possibly be expected to present all the details.

All of these priorities are important in my riding of Leeds—Grenville and the citizens in my riding are supportive. Two weeks ago we heard some of the details that flow from the Speech from the Throne as the government introduced the federal accountability act. Anyone who has read that will understand how the five priorities, although seemingly short, are merely a shell of the work that has to be accomplished to meet these five priorities.

The Speech from the Throne offered more than only these five priorities. It also spoke to other concerns in my riding. One of these issues is agriculture. Once again we saw farmers here on Parliament Hill today. Agriculture is of great concern in my riding of Leeds—Grenville because it is a rural riding. When there is a problem in the agriculture sector it ripples through the economy throughout my riding and throughout our country. It affects almost everyone.

Over the past few years our farmers have been reeling as they lurch from one crisis to another. The beef industry, the dairy industry, grains and oilseeds, and pork; all sectors have felt the heavy hand of fate. I was pleased to see that agriculture was included in the Speech from the Throne. I am pleased to know that this government is committed to our farmers.

I want to spend the majority of my time today talking about the government's priorities in tackling crime. This too is an issue in my riding, especially because we have two major border crossings along the southern edge of my riding. From my riding we can see the United States. In fact, the people of Leeds—Grenville and other ridings along the St. Lawrence River have a long and proud history with our neighbours to the south, dating from before Confederation. Culturally and economically we have always been neighbours in the true sense of the word.

Despite the global threats of terrorism, the law-abiding residents of my riding who live and work along the border continue to view the border as something they need to work with to help our economy. They must be able to travel back and forth to work to improve that economy.

We also live in a world full of threats. Criminals take advantage of the good nature of our relationship with the United States and continue to smuggle guns, drugs, people and many other items and commodities across that border. This is big business to this element of society in Canada and the United States and it is an expensive business.

As a result, the threats to the men and women who are employed by the Canada Border Services Agency increase each and every year. During the last Parliament we learned that an independent report which stated that our border guards should be armed was altered to state that they should not be armed. I and others stood in this place and asked why the government continued to place our border guards at serious risk. Since then we have seen examples of border guards walking away from their posts when they learned of approaching threats.

We have also learned of the results of another study that has also concluded that Canadian border guards should be armed. I am pleased to say that the Speech from the Throne stated that the government will improve the security of our borders.

I am also pleased that the government, through the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice, is working on options to ensure that our border guards will be better protected from those in the criminal community who would threaten them. We cannot adequately protect our country if our borders are porous because our border security is weak. I applaud these announcements.

I am also pleased that other crime and security measures were introduced in the throne speech. While my riding is not known for crime, the people of Leeds and Grenville certainly have opinions about crime and justice. They were sickened by the Liberal approach to chronic and serious offenders. They do not subscribe to the hug a thug mantra of the former government. They are tired of the revolving door in and out of jails for those committing the worst crimes in our country. They are tired of watching criminals receive double time credits for time served before trial. They are tired of bargains and cop-outs. I know that they are heartened by the announcement in the Speech from the Throne that this government will crack down on crime.

Personally I will continue my pursuit of mandatory prison sentences for people who commit murder with knives. Several years ago a promising young man from my riding, Andy Moffit, was killed here in Ottawa in a bar fight with a knife. In the last Parliament I introduced a private member's bill calling for mandatory prison sentences for those who use knives in killings. For Andy's family I will continue to pursue this legislation. Deterrents for those tossing knives in their pockets, knives that often end up being used in the commission of crimes, must be in place.

Canadians, including those in Leeds and Grenville, have a right to feel safe and secure in their own communities and in those communities they choose to visit. They are pleased that this government will bring in legislation to restrict the use of conditional sentences for serious crimes. They are pleased that this government will bring in legislation to increase mandatory prison sentences for firearms offences. They are pleased that this government will put more police officers on the streets. They are pleased that this government will do all this while addressing the issue of at risk youth to ensure we no longer breed criminals. This government will do this by working with the provinces, territories and other partners to support solutions that end the cycle of violence that can lead to broken lives.

Canadians elected a new government on January 23. They elected a new government to effect change in Canada and to turn a new leaf. We promised to work on five key issues that affect all Canadians. The Speech from the Throne shows Canadians that we meant what we promised during the election and that we intend to keep those promises.

[Hockeyville, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today and talk about Kingston's bid to become Hockeyville, as part of the nationwide competition being sponsored by the CBC, the NHL and Kraft Canada.

Our region of southeastern Ontario has sent more than 70 players to the NHL and the Olympics, including my hometown of Gananoque's Alyn McCauley and Kingston favourites Don Cherry, Doug Gilmour, Kirk Muller and gold medallist Jayna Hefford.

The Hockeyville competition is bringing out the best in people. In a wonderful gesture, our friends to the south in Kingston, Massachusetts, have officially given their endorsement to Kingston's bid. The Kingston selectmen passed an order of council publicly declaring Kingston, Ontario, as the spiritual birthplace of hockey. This letter was sent to Kingston's mayor, Harvey Rosen, and copies were sent to U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy, U.S. Senator John Kerry, and David Wilkins, the U.S. Ambassador to Canada.

Congratulations and best wishes go out to the Kingston organizing committee, called the Friends of the Great Frozen Game, and to the local economic development agency, which is providing support for this great Canadian initiative.

[Agriculture, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I congratulate you on your election to your new position.

It was a little over a year ago in the fall of 2004 upon my election to the 38th Parliament that I was here late one night talking about the farm income crisis. This debate tonight hardly does it justice. It is great that we are here talking about these important issues. Unfortunately I only have a few minutes but I could stand here for hours and go through all of the problems in agriculture sector by sector in my riding from beef producers and the BSE problems, dairy issues to do with supply management, and the grains and oilseeds issue that we are dealing with. However I will limit my comments to just one of the most urgent issues in Leeds--Grenville today.

Leeds--Grenville has a diverse agricultural industry. It is one of the leading economic engines in my riding. Working with my colleagues in government I will do anything and everything I can to make sure our domestic agricultural industry remains viable. I do want to talk about the most important issue in my riding today, the biggest crisis we are facing, and that is our corn producers who are agonizing over their options and in many cases their options do not include farming.

Unfortunately, our corn producers, who are competitive with any producers anywhere in the world, are dealing with everything that is going on in terms of all the subsidies and the corn countervail. Corn producers are losing money on every bushel of corn they are producing. A plant in my riding called Casco produces many corn products and sells its products into the United States. With prices going up through the countervail, it has to compete in the United States which could put 150 jobs at risk.

I do want to commend our Prime Minister and our Minister of Agriculture for stating tonight that we will solve the problems and we will come forward with programs that will work for our farmers. We should also thank our Minister of Agriculture for staying on tonight. It is great that he spent the whole night with us.

I really hope we can be standing here in the very near future with solutions for the agriculture industry. I know that many of the farmers who are visiting Ottawa stayed very late tonight. They want answers. I am really happy to hear that our Prime Minister and our Minister of Agriculture are coming forward with firm commitments to help our farming sector.

[Agriculture, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I too want to congratulate you on your appointment to your new role. I want to quickly thank the people of Leeds—Grenville for sending me back to this chamber. They are many of those people who are involved in the agricultural industry. In fact, many are involved in supply managed farms. In fact, we have the largest egg producer in Canada within Leeds—Grenville, many dairy farms, and so many people that depend on supply management.

My party and I, along with all parliamentarians in the 38th Parliament in fact, voted in favour of supporting supply management. Yet, many of our supply managed farmers are concerned. Regularly they are in my office wanting to know what the situation is. They want to know what is going on at the trade agreements. In fact, we had the round in Hong Kong only a few months ago. Throughout that there was concern among our supply managed farmers that Canada was not standing up for supply management.

The concern was not among parliamentarians, but that the trade negotiators were doing something different than what was being supported in Parliament.

I have a question for the hon. parliamentary secretary. In the ongoing discussions coming up in Geneva in the next few weeks, is the government giving clear direction to our trade negotiators that supply management is non-negotiable and that they will stand up to ensure that the supply management system in Canada is maintained?

[Supply, November 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, my riding of Leeds--Grenville relies heavily on the supply managed sector in our agricultural community. We have many farmers who are dependent, whether it be dairy or others. We have one of the largest agriculture producers in Canada in our riding.

We often hear about the government's support. The government continues to say that it supports supply management, yet time and time again at these trade negotiations it lets our farmers down. This is why I get calls almost every day from farmers. In fact, this weekend I am to meet with many of our supply managed farmers.

While the government talks a good game, why is it is not standing up for our farmers?

[Criminal Code, November 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I have to say that I am thoroughly disappointed with the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. I have always had a lot of respect for him but for him to distort this in such a fashion as to say that potentially the people from New York state cannot go fishing and hunting is absolute nonsense. For him to say that because the people from the Federation of Agriculture support the bill means that we are against the Federation of Agriculture is a bunch of nonsense. Canadians expect better from their parliamentarians in terms of what they hear in this place.

First, does the member think that fishing and hunting is illegal in New York state? Second, is it too much to ask that we hear from the fishing and hunting organizations and to satisfy them before this goes through and we turn law-abiding citizens into criminals? Is it too much to ask?

[Criminal Code, November 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member's question does not have anything to do with what we are talking about.

Right now, fishing and hunting organizations are concerned about the potential for prosecution under this bill. Animal rights groups have said that they will look to this bill, once passed, to cause prosecutions against fishermen and hunters. We need a reasonable debate to discuss this.

As I said before, there is clear unanimity among parliamentarians to put an end to cruelty to animals, but we have to address this before we allow this to tie up our courts for years and cause all kinds of damage to the economy.

I would be happy to take serious questions from members.

[Criminal Code, November 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the member's question is the very thing that hunting and fishing organizations fear, because it is not clearly defined. I would like the bill sent to committee where we could hear from witnesses and get the answers so we could change the bill so it would no longer be flawed.

The member has raised some good points. The bill plays very much to the fear of being cruel to animals. That needs to be clearly defined. That is the problem with the bill. The sooner we resolve that, I think we would find unanimity among parliamentarians to protect against cruelty to animals.