Jeff Watson

[Audiotaped Conversations, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's chief of staff and closest adviser, Tim Murphy, has gone into hiding as tapes of his illicit conversation with an opposition member have been fully released and fully authenticated.

Tim Murphy has offered no explanation, no documentation, nothing to dispute apparent Liberal offers to poach an opposition member's vote.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Why Murphy's silent treatment? Is it a guilty conscience?

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Chair, the minister said tonight that the system can be “accessed by all”, or in other words, just make the choice. Currently many parents choose grandparents or other relatives to watch and teach their kids. Through taxes, these parents pay the cost of these programs. They have no choice in that. To access them, they must break other family relationships. Why does the minister force a real cost but give no real choice to these parents?

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Chair, let me quote the minister, who said tonight that a child's central developmental relationship is with parents. Further, he said that it is the case and it will always be the case. Why then does the minister promote a program that separates parents and children, thereby harming this central developmental relationship?

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Chair, home education is seven days a week.

Here is my fourth question. Clearly this Liberal babysitting program is not about meeting the diverse needs of parents. Institutional day care is consistently a parent's least preferred option for child care. This Liberal program offers no choice to parents in the type of care they can choose from. All Canadian families must pay into this two tier program, but only a selected few will be able to count on actual assistance. This is not a universal program except that it is universally unpopular.

Why will the minister not adjust his $10 billion a year program to allow fair choices for all families no matter where or to whom the parents choose to take their children?

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Chair, the minister likes to compare the beginnings of the child care program with the beginnings of the universal education system. However, he forgets one important point: the education system recognizes the importance of choice. Within our education system we have private schools, charter schools, religious based education, public education and home schools.

This is my question for the minister. Why can we not have the same freedom of choice, the same broad numbers of choices, with early learning and child care? Why a monolithic system?

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Chair, the minister and his department have funded plenty of research projects and activists to bolster his big government knows best approach, projects advocating limited or no choice for parents. Can the minister inform us of what groups opposed to the Liberal anti-choice child care and early learning agenda have received funding and how much funding they have received?

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with my distinguished colleague, the hon. member for Durham. I will also be posing a series of brief questions and my sincere hope is that the Chair will enforce that the answers be brief in kind.

First, in the spirit of being brief, this minister has indicated on many occasions that he does not feel parents are up to the job of raising their own children. My wife and I recently had our fourth child, a lovely little boy. Could the minister tell me at what age and why he thinks his $10 billion per year program will do a better job of raising my children than my wife and I can?

[Infrastructure, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Ontario and Manitoba are negotiating gas tax transfers.

Deals with British Columbia and Alberta show just what hoops the provinces must go through before they can spend the money, ensuring big cities can only buy buses but not fix the roads on which they must travel.

Canada's provinces and cities can determine infrastructure priorities without the minister of infrastructure constantly looking over their shoulders.

Will the minister remove restrictions so Ontario's and Manitoba's big cities can rebuild their crumbling roads and bridges?

[Infrastructure, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we heard the admission right there: It is about Liberal priorities, not city priorities.

The Prime Minister led big cities to believe that gas tax money would go to fix crumbling roads and bridges. Then his minister of infrastructure directed that gas tax dollars had to go to buying buses instead.

Canada's big cities want to fix the roads and highways neglected by the Liberal government over the past decade but the government will not let them.

Why is the minister of infrastructure forcing big cities to buy buses but is not allowing them to fix the roads they must travel on?

[An Act To Authorize The Minister Of Finance To Make Certain Payments, May 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to think the hon. member was in that sweaty hotel room when the NDP cut Bill C-48. We are on debate on Bill C-48. I am not sure where the hon. member has been all this time.

Let me just say something very quickly. On Bill C-48, the leader of the Conservative Party was very clear. In fact he was standing in my riding when he made an announcement that because of the deal with the devil--and we all know who that is, the leader of the fourth party in the House--he said he would come back to caucus and recommend we put the government out of its misery. That was because of Bill C-48. I do not see any inconsistency in that. Quite frankly, it would be really nice if we did put the Liberals out of their misery tonight.