House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 56% of the vote.
Sponsorship Program November 21st, 2005
Mr. Speaker, although the reasons for doing so are obvious, the Prime Minister is incapable of properly dismissing the key figures in the sponsorship scandal whom Justice Gomery has clearly fingered in his report. The Prime Minister had promised to clean house, yet we find him not even able to just dismiss Mr. Pelletier.
Will the Prime Minister force Jean Pelletier to step down from his duties at the head of VIA Rail, yes or no?
Landfill Site November 21st, 2005
Madam Speaker, for months I have received complaints from countless constituents of mine in Port Coquitlam who are fed up with the excessive noise and traffic disruptions and have environmental concerns regarding the landfill on the Kwikwetlem First Nation lands for which the Liberal government has issued a permit.
The City of Port Coquitlam and area residents have informed me that the hours of operation listed in the permit are not being obeyed. The surrounding community is being disrupted in the early morning and well into the evening with dump trucks rumbling up and down residential streets leaving a muddy mess. Also, constituents tell me of rotten smells emanating from the site that suggest organic material is being dumped without authorization.
The City of Port Coquitlam has also informed me that proper environmental assessments of material being dumped is not being shared with local governments.
The landfill site has become an eyesore in my community. So far, the Liberals have turned a blind eye to our concerns.
On behalf of my constituents, I call on the government to enforce our laws, respect my community and constituents, or shut down this landfill from damaging my community any further.
Official Languages Act November 17th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill S-3. I want to recall right off one of the founding principles of the Conservative Party of Canada, which is the “belief that English and French have equality of status, and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada”.
Furthermore, article 91 of our statement of policy provides that
the Conservative Party believes that Canada's official languages constitute a unique and significant social and economic advantage that benefit all Canadians.
It also provides that:
(i) A Conservative government will support the Official Languages Act ensuring that English and French have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada.
It provides as well, that:
(ii) the Conservative Party will work with the provinces and territories to enhance opportunities for Canadians to learn both official languages.
Bill S-3 amends the Official Languages Act to make it easier to enforce the government's obligations under part 7 of the act. In other words, the bill forces the government to honour commitments set out in part VII of the Official Languages Act.
Part VII provides as follows:
The Government of Canada is committed to enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development; and fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society
Bill S-3 adds a provision whereby, within the scope of their functions, duties and powers, federal institutions shall ensure that positive measures are taken for the ongoing and effective advancement and implementation of the Government of Canada's commitments and that cabinet “may make regulations...prescribing the manner in which any duties of those institutions under this Part are to be carried out”.
In 2004, the Federal Court of Appeal decided that:
--Section 41 is declaratory of a commitment and does not create any right or duty that could at this point be enforced by the courts, by any procedure whatsoever.
The court concluded, “The debate over section 41 must be conducted in Parliament, not in the courts”.
The bill follows up on that decision by making Part VII of the Official Languages Act justiciable.
Initially, there were concerns about the bill infringing on provincial jurisdictions. I am pleased, however, to say that the Conservative Party fought to have the addition to clause 41 of the phrase “within the scope of their functions, duties and powers”.
This amendment clarifies the fact that Bill S-3 will not encroach upon provincial jurisdictions and also demonstrates the deep desire of the Conservative Party of Canada to comply with the Constitution as well as our respect of provincial jurisdictions. That amendment was adopted during the clause-by-clause study in the Standing Committee on Official Languages. I would like to point out the excellent work done by my colleague, the hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry and commend all the Conservative members on the committee for their efforts in getting that amendment passed.
There is a growing feeling that the Liberal official languages action plan has not had much effect. In fact, when the progress report was tabled in the House of Commons on October 27, 2005, we learned that over 75% of respondents felt that it had had no significant effect. Interestingly, in her annual report, Commissioner of Official Languages Dyane Adam indicated that, two and one-half years after the plan was tabled, only 20% of the $720 million had been paid out to minority language communities, despite the crying need.
The Conservative party believes that the failure of the action plan demonstrates the need for Bill S-3, which will oblige the government to meet its obligations as far as official languages are concerned.
In conclusion, our party is proud of having brought in the amendments protecting provincial and territorial areas of jurisdiction. The Conservative Party also believes this bill will help clarify the federal government's responsibilities as far as Canada's linguistic minority communities are concerned.
Airports November 17th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the minister is factually incorrect. I am sure it is an accident. Pearson airport taxes are going up this year by 14%. Pearson airport is the most expensive airport in the world. In the last 24 hours the minister has gone a little wobbly and has been a little unsure in terms of Liberal policies when it comes to Pearson airport.
To be clear, will the minister change his current Liberal policies of overtaxing Pearson airport and give it a tax cut, yes or not?
Petitions November 16th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians principally from British Columbia, from the areas of Sechelt, Gibsons, and so on. They have joined my campaign to call for tougher laws in this country to fight the growing threat of date rape drugs on especially young women on campuses across the country.
The petitioners ask that the government do three things: first, to recommend that substances such as GHB and Rohypnol, which are generally date rate drugs, be identified in the Criminal Code under a separate schedule so there would be tougher and more effective penalties associated with them; second, to establish in cooperation with the provinces and territories a national initiative to educate women on the dangers of date rape drugs; and third, to establish in cooperation with the provinces and territories a national task force for new guidelines on the collection of evidence with regard to sexual assaults and rapes so that prosecutions could be facilitated.
The government has done nothing about this growing threat. Canadians are upset and they have joined me on this petition calling for action.
Airports November 15th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, it is often hard to lower debt when the government comes in year after year with increased taxes. Since 1998, landing fees at Pearson Airport have increased 298%. The cost of landing a 747 at Pearson Airport is $13,000. At Tokyo Airport, the second most expensive airport in the world, it is $7,300.
Liberals are taxing Pearson Airport into the ground. Every stakeholder in the city of Toronto wants taxes lowered. The government has done nothing, and Toronto wants to know why?
Airports November 15th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, Pearson Airport, Air Canada's major hub, will see its airport taxes to Ottawa increase by 14%, up to $151 million this year. This tax increase will be passed on to travellers with a new fee that was announced today. Pearson is already the world's most expensive airport and it just became even more expensive.
How can the Liberals justify increasing taxes on what already is the world's most expensive airport, hurting air travellers, hurting the air industry and putting at risk 70,000 people who work at Pearson Airport?
Airport Security November 14th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, what makes travellers nervous is the fact that in the four years since 9/11, virtually nothing has changed in terms of airport security or the government's oversight of the changes that it has said it has put in place. This year the government will tax Pearson Airport $144 million in airport rents and charge Pearson Airport travellers roughly $80 million in air security taxes. That is roughly a quarter of a billion dollars in taxes from Pearson Airport and yet its security system, according to reports, is leaking like a sieve.
Why is Canada's largest, most important airport getting third rate security from the government?
Airport Security November 14th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have been in power for 12 years and any excuses for inaction are absolutely hollow.
A few days ago, an investigation revealed a number of security breaches at Pearson airport, particularly with cargo loaded on board without ever being checked. A security expert said the situation is worse now than it was before September 11.
With all the money it spends, how could the government neglect airport security in such an appalling and careless way?
Sponsorship Program November 3rd, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the concern taxpayers have, quite frankly, if this minister has not figured it out, is that they do not trust the Liberal Party to clean up its own mess. That is the problem.
Perhaps if I put my question in French I would get an answer.
Will the Prime Minister initiate legal proceedings to recover the stolen money? Yes or no?