Jamie Nicholls

[Fair Representation Act, December 6th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague must know that our country has a historical reality. Between the Act of Union in 1840 and Confederation in 1867, one of the most contentious issues was representation by population.

Upper Canada at that time was afraid of assimilation by the United States, so it had to make strategic deals with lawmakers in Lower Canada. George-Étienne Cartier and John A. Macdonald managed to keep the balance. It was primarily George Brown in Upper Canada who was the one voice speaking for rep by pop. He actually went to the point of saying to his wife after the Quebec conference in 1865, “Is it not wonderful? French Canadianism entirely extinguished”! That is what worries Quebeckers.

If the government really believes in the concept of the Quebec nation, it must respect Quebec's political weight and maintain its proportion at 24%.

[Fair Representation Act, December 6th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The member must know that all men in this House are required to wear a tie. I do not like wearing a tie, but that is the rule of the House. When a man rises to speak, he must wear a tie.

[Points of Order, December 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities was supposed to appear before the Standing Committee on Transport. Unfortunately, the chair cancelled the meeting without consulting the committee members. We hope to be able to organize another meeting to question the minister about the supplementary estimates.

We are very concerned that our duty as opposition to hold the minister to account will be compromised. As vice-chair of the committee, I asked the minister and the chair whether we would be able to question the minister as is our democratic duty.

There are billions of taxpayer dollars are stake. We will be talking about the health of our democracy within the next two weeks. I would have to ask why the government is seemingly ducking Parliament on this very crucial matter?

[November 30th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, do members know what Canadians reject time after time? It is when there is a lack of accountability and transparency on the part of the government. Throughout history, Canadian voters have rejected governments that take their sense of entitlement and privilege to an extreme where they actually misuse funds.

In this case, we do not believe that all the documents have been given. We would like to see the application documents. Some 200-odd application documents out of those 33 projects were chosen and we have not seen those documents. If the government were willing to do so, we would like to see it table the documents in this House.

[November 30th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, this is to address my question posed on November 4 of this year. It was regarding ethics and in particular the lack of full accountability regarding the planning process and funding of projects by the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka with the complicity of the then Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, the member for Ottawa West—Nepean.

To summarize, there were 33 projects that used up approximately $50 million of funds that were earmarked for border infrastructure. Even with the facts that we have in hand, it appears that the members for Parry Sound—Muskoka and Ottawa West—Nepean used their privilege and power to skirt the rules and processes of infrastructure funding. It is this that disturbs all Canadians. They do not care that the projects were done on time and under budget. They are not comforted by the assurances of both members that they realize the error of their ways and that they will not do this again.

These members are not in elementary school. They are some of the most privileged individuals in the country. They are among the 308 leaders of Canada. Nor are they rookie members, for they served a long time under the Harris government previous to joining the Reform-Conservative coalition.

It seems that whenever there are these kinds of misdirections of funds the government always has a justification. The justification from certain wings of the Liberal Party about the sponsorship scandal was that it was to promote pro-Canada sentiment in Quebec after a fractious referendum in 1995. However, we know now, from the uncovering of all the information, that funds were misused and the original intent was subverted.

In 2006 the government came to power under the banner of accountability but a mere five years later we see that the Conservative government too has developed its own sense of entitlement. The member for Parry Sound—Muskoka and his accomplice, the member for Ottawa West—Nepean, believe that they do not have to submit the project application documents.

In the 2006 election one of the tightest races happened in Parry Sound—Muskoka. The member who ran in that race profited from disgust with the Liberal record and lack of accountability. His sense of entitlement will only hurt his colleagues in the future. This is why strategists in his party may have tried to tie his funding to the G8 summit, even though many of the projects were not even close to the site of the summit. These appear to be re-election gifts. These kinds of things work in the short-term for the member, but they harm the image of his party overall.

I am expecting to hear the same pat answers about how the minister appeared before the committee for two hours, how the members took the Auditor General's recommendations and will do a better job in the future, and how all projects came in on time and under budget. However, Canadians are expecting the whole story and waiting for the full truth.

[Infrastructure, November 30th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, our communities are facing major challenges. Although the government made the excise tax permanent, it is still insufficient to address our communities' infrastructure priorities. The government's excise tax brings in 10¢ a litre but municipalities receive only 5¢ a litre.

Will the government commit to indexing the amount given to the municipalities and thus assure Canadians that the money paid will indeed be invested in our communities?

[Canada Post, November 29th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are currently jeopardizing the delicate economic situation in the regions. Cuts to several post offices in Quebec are completely destroying postal services in rural areas. Postal services are essential to our communities and contribute to their economic development.

Will this government finally act responsibly and come up with ways to develop the services, instead of making them disappear?

[Points of Order, November 23rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, that is rich, coming from the government that always talks about freedom of expression and last night introduced a bill—

[Airline Safety, November 23rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have a real love affair with jets.

First, the Minister of National Defence was using Challenger jets for personal reasons, and now a lot of money is being spent to fly senior federal officials around in Citation jets when they could very well take commercial flights. Canadians have had enough of the Conservatives breaking the rules that everyone else has to follow.

Will the government finally set an example by reducing its own spending?

[Airline Safety, November 23rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, rather than trying to sell us an aircraft that does not work, the Conservatives should focus on doing a better job of managing those we already have.

Transport Canada's nine Citation aircraft are either being flown with no passengers on board or sitting on the ground, at a cost of $5 million a year. Even the Canadian Taxpayers Federation is criticizing this poor management.

This government is going to save money by cutting services for families. Why not get rid of these useless aircraft instead?