Gord Brown

[U.S. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, had we had an opportunity to debate this and get a motion on the floor a long time ago, we could have had that unanimity among parliamentarians in Canada. The reality is this goes back to the fact that the government uses Canada-U.S. relations as a pinata to be used for electoral purposes on an ongoing basis. It needs to stop, and this is the result of that type of activity. We need to see an end to it.

[U.S. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, before I answer that question, I want to talk about the fact that this is the first time we have had a debate in the House about this issue. The issue has gone on for a long time and now it has been brought forward. It was up to us to bring it forward.

I attended a border caucus meeting back in early September and not one single member of the government was at that meeting with our U.S. counterparts. It is disgraceful.

As for the question on special status, with the supposed special relationship we have with the United States, why was the government not there? Why was it not standing up for Canada?

[U.S. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening on this issue that is so very important for all of Canada but which of course has a specific interest for my riding of Leeds—Grenville, as we are so heavily dependent upon three sectors, agriculture, tourism and manufacturing, all of which depend on the ability to cross the border and go back and forth with the flow of goods and people.

Of course with the tourism issues in your riding of Kingston and the Islands, Mr. Chair, the issues are very similar to those in my riding, with areas along the Thousand Islands that are dependent upon U.S. visitors, as well as the Rideau Lakes. I know that the Rideau Canal also runs into your riding, Mr. Speaker.

This issue is going to have a major economic impact on our country as well as the United States. I think we have to work with our colleagues and our friends on the other side.

I am a member of the border caucus. I recently attended a meeting in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, where we talked about this. It was one of the key issues we talked about that day. What we did hear from one of the American congressmen was that many of the congressmen in the middle states see this as an issue that only has to do with what is going on at the U.S.-Mexico border. They do not understand the economic impact that will hit their own country.

It is up to us and our government to reach out to our allies on the U.S. side to ensure that this does not happen. Only a few weeks ago I was in Alexander Bay, New York, with my provincial counterpart, Bob Runciman. We both spoke at a tourism conference of U.S. tourist operators in upstate New York. People from throughout New York were there. It was a governor's conference. They are very concerned about this issue. They are the people to whom we need to be reaching out to ensure that they are lobbying their government, because they are going to suffer from this as well.

I am very concerned about how our government has treated the relationship with the United States and how we got into this. Canada should have had special status on this issue long before we got to this final period of time when there is only a very short period to lobby on this. We need to use the short time that we have to ensure that our government lobbies and reaches out, but we also need to work with organizations within Canada.

I know that this issue has come to the forefront just in the past month or so, really, and now we are down to the critical time, with just seven days to go. This could be devastating to many people. I will talk about the tourism industry, one that I am very familiar with. Many people are employed in this industry, whether it be in lodging, food, service, transportation or in attractions. The livelihoods of many people depend upon it.

Of course in agriculture it will have an impact on moving back and forth. As for the industry in my riding, we have many plants that export many of their goods to the United States.

Really, I am imploring the government at this point to make sure that it lobbies on this, that it reaches out and builds allies. We have heard from the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, who has been working hard as one of our co-chairs on the border caucus. He has worked to ensure that we work together on this.

Now is the time. Time is short. That is why we are having this take note debate tonight. I appreciate the opportunity to get my comments on the record, but the last thing I will say is that now is the time. Let us reach out and solve this problem before it is too late.

[Justice, October 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canadians heard more dithering when the justice minister dismissed calls for mandatory prison sentences from front line police groups by referring to evidence that such sentences do not work.

In the next breath, he also said that Canada already has mandatory minimums and that he has told police and victims groups that he will consider more of them.

Which is it? Is he for or against mandatory prison sentences? Will he admit that they are necessary in more crimes than is currently the case?

[Great Lakes, October 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Great Lakes are a precious resource. Only 1% of the water of the Great Lakes is renewed each year.

We have seen recently how easily water levels in the lakes can be unbalanced by man and nature.

Currently, eight U.S. states and two Canadian provinces are reviewing the terms of the implementing agreement for the Great Lakes Annex 2001. There are significant fears that this agreement could open the door to large scale water diversions from the Great Lakes and permit this precious resource to be classified as a commodity under NAFTA.

The issue is of serious concern to the residents of Leeds and Grenville, some of whom are visiting Ottawa today, and especially to those along the St. Lawrence River and the Thousand Islands.

The federal government must get involved to stop the harm this will cause to the Great Lakes basin.

[Border Security, September 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in June the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence reported on the lack of security at the Canadian border. Specifically, it noted the deliberate alteration of an original independent report by the government to delete a reference to the need for an armed presence at border crossings.

Why was the report altered and what action has been taken against those responsible?

[Gasoline Prices, September 26th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, as we come back to start this session it is fitting that we are having this take note debate this evening, because this is now probably the most burning issue on Canadians' minds. In my riding of Leeds—Grenville, we have farmers who are now taking crops off the fields. Of course my area is so dependent upon tourism and also on manufacturing and shipping goods out to the United States. All of these areas are impacted.

I have a question for the hon. member for Vancouver Island North. Why does he think the government is so addicted to these taxes and is not forthcoming enough to be able to cut the taxes, to axe the tax on the tax?

We were hearing about the possibility of some help for low income earners this winter for home heating oil. I also spoke to some firefighters this summer who were concerned about what impact prices may well have in terms of safety, with the possibility of people attempting to use alternatives to heat their homes.

Why is the government so addicted to these taxes? Why does the hon. member think that the government will not come forward, axe the tax on the tax and give consumers a break before this economy does go into the tank?

[Civil Marriage Act, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Davenport on his election a year ago today, as was I.

The member asked whether I supported my leader's comment about the legislation having less legitimacy because it was not supported by a majority of federalist members of Parliament. I think that is key because it is important that we support our country. I think the hon. member would be concerned about separation. We talk about a unified country. It is very important we have a united country and I stand four-square for that.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, first, let us talk about democracy. In 2003 the justice committee was shut down without the opportunity to report to Parliament. Liberal members were hiding in the hall and not allowing quorum.

I sat on the legislative committee that dealt with Bill C-38. Witnesses were bunched four and five at a time. I sit on another committee and that is not the way we do things. Witnesses were given 24 hours or less notice to appear. They were given no opportunity to have their presentations translated. In my view that was not a proper process. I know members from the other side will talk about the lengthy process with 400 witnesses but the justice committee was not dealing with this legislation.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the whole issue revolves around the rights of children. If we make marriage an adult-centred institution then we do so to the detriment of it being a children-centred institution. That is one of the many concerns I have about this legislation.

I talked about the process and I would like to go back to that for a second because it is another thing that I am greatly concerned about. In 2003, when the government had the opportunity to appeal the decision of the Ontario Supreme Court, it failed to do so. Despicable things went on in the committee. Liberal members of the committee hid in the hall, refusing to allow a quorum to address that question. It is a really sad state of affairs that our country is now in this state.

If Bill C-38 is such a great bill and such a great concept, why would we not allow proper debate, discussion and opportunity? If it were so good there would have been no need for the games and no need for this underhanded process to sneak the bill through Parliament.