House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2011, with 35% of the vote.
The Conservative Government April 24th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, talk about a flip-flop. The members of the government can play holier than thou as much as they want, but Canadians will not be fooled. If, as it claims, the government is not making patronage appointments, then how does it explain the appointment of former Conservative member Jim Gouk to the board of NAV CANADA? Was the Prime Minister trying to help Mr. Gouk win the bet he made that he could take a weapon on board a commercial flight at any airport in the country?
The Conservative Government April 24th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, as time goes on, it seems clear that this government's motto is “Do as we say, not as we do”. The Prime Minister talks about accountability, yet the Minister of Public Works and Government Services is conspicuously absent from this House. The Prime Minister says he is averse to lobbyists, but his Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities took on a new role as a lobbyist for a telecommunications firm just days after resigning as minister of communications of Quebec.
When will the government put an end to its repeated flip-flops?
Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply April 11th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my honourable colleague for his speech.
Let us examine the facts. In the Speech from the Throne, the government stated that it would create 125,000 new daycare spaces. I do not think that will be nearly enough. Nevertheless, the government must not only support daycares and other organizations in creating these spaces and making them available, it must also guarantee this support and ensure resources. I am talking about financial resources.
The Speech from the Throne addressed the issue of early childhood development. If the new government eliminates the $5 billion child care program we established, can my honourable colleague explain how the government plans to reduce the cost of daycare? This is a cost parents must bear.
I would also like him to explain how this new government's new plan will allow workers to earn a decent salary.
This new plan must include funding for daycare infrastructure and the necessary resources. Given these three elements, if the government eliminates the $5 billion agreement signed with the provinces and territories, can the honourable member explain to us how it can reduce the cost or increase funding and necessary resources for Canadian parents and children?
Resumption of debate on Address in Reply April 7th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member across the way for his speech. I also want to congratulate him for having been elected for the first time. For me, it was in 2004. The first days here are very important and I am sure that he is very nervous.
Nonetheless I would like to remind the hon. member that the GST was introduced by the Conservatives. Maybe they made a little mistake when they did it, but it was certainly not the previous government who created that tax. I think that the Conservatives should be reminded that they were the ones who created that tax and not us.
During his speech, the member talked about forestry. It is surely an important sector. I can assure you that it is important where I come from. However, where in the Speech from the Throne do we find the words that show how important it is? The forest industry does not want us to be content with discussions, it wants action. It is one thing to continue discussions with our American friends, but that does not solve the problem in rural areas of Canada.
There is another element on which the hon. member should reflect seriously. He mentioned shipyards. Obviously, there are none in my area, which depends more on forestry. However, if shipyards are so important for him and his colleagues from the Quebec City area, I wonder how he can tell his constituents that this sector is important but that his government did not include it in its priorities.
I think it is not enough to say that the shipbuilding industry must be a flagship among Canadian industries. If that is a real priority, I think the hon. member should have tried a little harder to make sure that the people from his riding were respected and that this priority was included in the priorities of his government. It is sad to say, but that is not what we see.
Resumption of debate on Address in Reply April 7th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, to truly understand early childhood development issues, perhaps one has to have children. I myself have an 11-month-old daughter. As a member of Parliament, I receive a very good salary, but we have to put ourselves in the shoes of parents who earn an average salary. Often, to provide their families with a reasonable quality of life, both parents nowadays have to work. This enables them to own more than one car and to afford certain luxuries from time to time. However, when both parents work, child care can be problematic. The plan to offer parents $1,200 a year is one thing.
But the annual cost of a day care space in New Brunswick is $12,000 of a family's net revenue. That means that the first $12,000 dollars a family earns goes to pay for day care.
If we really want to offer parents a logical choice, should we not keep the existing program, improve it, and strengthen day care centres? We could offer parents a lump sum of $1,200, thereby giving them more choice. That would be better than giving them $3.50 a day. Since both parents have to work, that does not seem to me to be a real choice.
Airports April 7th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, how can the Conservative Party claim to be responsible and accountable while breaking the promises it made only a few months ago?
Furthermore, the Conservative Party promised to create a federal policy for small airports. Can the minister guarantee that he will establish such a federal government policy?
Airports April 7th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, the financial situation of small airports, such as those at Charlo and Saint-Léonard, is disastrous. During the last election campaign, Conservative party candidates promised to find the necessary funds—about $300,000 per year in federal money—to subsidize small airport operations. But now the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has indicated that he does not want to help these airports.
Why has the government decided not to keep its promises to Canada's rural regions?
Agriculture April 6th, 2006
Mr. Chair, I understand that I probably do not have a half hour to make a response. I want to thank my colleague for his question. It will allow me to elaborate further on sensitive products, which is a very important question, and one to which attention must be paid.
In the past, some room to manoeuvre was allowed on sensitive products. There were certain elements and certain negotiations that made it possible to permit the importation of certain foreign products. There was some importing. On our side, in principle, we were supposed to be able to do the same. However the situation did not necessarily unfold in that way. That is why we must be extremely careful when we are talking about sensitive products such as eggs, poultry and dairy in general. We have been unable to command respect. For that reason, I say we must not negotiate or offer any compromises. We must support our industry and enable it to move into the future. It must continue to offer us quality products, products that will limit certain problems which may arise in today’s world.
At present, the industry is doing a very good job of managing production methods and general operations. We must continue to work in this direction and support it. That way we will have a better industry which will continue to prosper and to create progress in all of the rural regions of our fine and great country.
Agriculture April 6th, 2006
Mr. Chair, I have no idea in what way my response was inadequate in terms of clarity. I mentioned that in the last Parliament I voted in favour of a motion supporting supply management, as did all members from my party. We have worked in that direction. I assure the hon. member that this issue is important to us. Hence we will be working to try to find solutions that can provide people with support.
The hon. member came back with another question for me. I am pleased to take this second opportunity to say that it is important to support supply management. I am proud to defend the people of my riding with respect to supply management.
Agriculture April 6th, 2006
Mr. Chair, I am very pleased to answer that question. I would like to thank the member opposite for asking it.
Let us look at the facts. Before the government was defeated last November, the House unanimously passed a motion on supply management. I have always supported supply management, and I can assure all the members that I will continue to do so.
My colleagues on this side of the House certainly take an even greater interest in this issue. Some of them and their families have made or still do make their living from farming and supply managed industry.
Let us look a little further. I am 33 years old. Consider my background. My father was raised on a dairy farm. I did not grow up on a dairy farm, but I understand the industry and what its needs are. Whether the issue affects us directly or indirectly, whether we come from a rural or an urban community, one way or another, we all have links to agriculture.
We have to be able to defend the industry. As I mentioned earlier, we have to understand it and we have to be here to defend it.
I would also mention the need to consider the question from another angle. The whole issue of dairy substitutes was mentioned a little earlier. It is a harsh reality. I personally believe in the development of my community, my riding, my province and my country. When I have shopping to do, I do it in my riding, even if it is often easy to do it in the neighbouring riding or in a bigger city nearby. That is important to me.
Let us take a look a the whole question of dairy substitutes. When I do the shopping, I put myself in other people's shoes. Is it right for ice cream to contain something other than cream? It is very difficult to make an intelligent choice. We are still in luck, because some companies continue to make ice cream with cream. We have to continue supporting these manufacturers. In addition, the bill advocating taking this approach, which the House was examining in the 38th Parliament, must be revived.
When I buy a product, I expect it to actually be made from certain ingredients. When I buy cheese, I expect it to be made from milk and not modified dairy products. When I buy ice cream, I expect it to be made with cream.
It is this way with the whole issue of supply management. As I mentioned, the system exists to help the industry and farmers, like the ones back home, to support them and make sure they have the tools they need to provide a quality product and limit potential risks. Our industry manages itself very well. It has assumed its responsibilities and manages itself very well.
We must continue to work with the people in this industry, be it in the production of eggs, poultry, milk, turkeys or other products under supply management. We must be there to support them. We must continue supporting them, and I will do so.