House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2015, with 28% of the vote.
Softwood Lumber March 10th, 2005
That is pretty shallow stuff, Mr. Speaker.
The U.S. Congress is looking for any excuse to erode the NAFTA dispute resolution process on softwood lumber. Experts warned about this at the very meeting where the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister made her ill-advised comments. She has done great damage to Canada's national interest in a meeting closely watched.
When will the Prime Minister fire his hand-picked parliamentary secretary?
Softwood Lumber March 10th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I have news for the foreign affairs minister. The committee meeting, which the hand-picked Parliamentary Secretary for the Prime Minister attended, was a closely watched committee meeting in this place by the stakeholders in the softwood dispute between Canada and the U.S. She could not have picked a worse moment. What an embarrassment and what a liability for Canada.
Canadian cash deposits in the softwood lumber dispute are nearing $5 billion and her reckless anti-American comments represent a major setback.
Softwood Lumber March 8th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the proposal repudiates NAFTA by creating an alternative arrangement for dispute resolution. The trade minister's proposal is abdicating Canada's rights under chapter 19 of NAFTA. Why has the minister given up on NAFTA and what kind of signal is this sending to other Canadian industries?
Softwood Lumber March 8th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, last week the government floated a proposal on the softwood lumber dispute to the provinces, leaked it to the U.S. department of commerce, and kept the Canadian industry in the dark. The government's proposal admits guilt when it has won every case at NAFTA and the WTO.
Why is the government waving the white flag before the threat of injury decision is finally announced at NAFTA?
Income Tax Act March 7th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill as I spoke to the predecessor bill put forward by the member for Lethbridge.
It has been a very tragic week, and tragedy has struck in my part of the country as well. Contact was lost with a Beaver float plane which left Campbell River last week with a pilot and four young men who were going to work in the coastal inlets. The waters are now being searched for the plane as we are certain that is where it went down. I have had a lot of contact with the RCMP, the Department of National Defence and one of the families who had two sons on board. These are very tragic circumstances, along with the death of the four members of the RCMP in Alberta. I think people at home are feeling very much like they have had their hearts ripped right out of them.
Once again we are faced with a search and rescue operation that involves a lot of people, many of them volunteers, who are actually willing to do what search and rescue personnel and volunteer firefighters do, which is go to places where there is need. They go to emergencies. They create the circumstances where we can all feel safer or where we can be comforted that there are people who are actually willing to dedicate themselves to do those things that need to be done in an organized fashion and who are, very often, particularly in rural circumstances, volunteers.
This legislation attempts to give some form of recognition to those volunteers who do so much for our communities. As a matter of fact, I do not think many small communities would be in existence were it not for this spirit of volunteerism. Certainly it would not be a choice that people would make as easily as they currently do.
During the last Parliament, when I spoke to the predecessor legislation that led to this bill, I talked about the volunteer fire department in the community of Cumberland in my riding. It had just sent a volunteer team of firefighters to Ottawa who represented western Canada in the auto extrication competition. It was the world championships which were held for the first time ever in Canada, and it just happened to be here in Ottawa the week before the bill was presented here.
Our little community of 2,700 people not only managed to send a volunteer team to Ottawa, but it was the only Canadian team to win an award. These volunteers were up against fully financed, professional, full time firefighters from all over North America and, in some cases, Europe. It was quite an amazing bit of business.
That fire department has quite the history. It is the oldest volunteer fire department in British Columbia, getting its start in 1892 rescuing men from local coal mines. Since then it has been quite the foundation for building and rebuilding this tight knit community.
Fire chief Ken McClure is quoted as saying:
There's a real sense of camaraderie that goes with serving the community many of us grew up in. These people have got heart. Many of these people juggle family, full time work and firefighting while still finding time to coach baseball and play Santa at Christmas.
That is really what this is all about. The membership list for that fire department now consists of grandfathers, fathers, sons, and daughters in one case, all walking in the same big boots.
In 1933 there was an incredible fire in the business district in this community. I would like to quote from a story written about that fire:
Rumour has it the path of the fire was broken by resident Frank “Cracky” Crawford when he was enlisted to blow up the Royal Bank. Remarkably, there were no casualties.
Those are the kinds of colourful stories that come from the wonderful community of Cumberland and which display the type of behaviour and precedent that has led to the current situation where we have these very dedicated volunteers doing things that are creative and, in some cases, life threatening, with no personal financial reward whatsoever.
What this bill would do is create a circumstance where, in some small way, the government would recognize what these volunteers are doing and would provide a small financial contribution through a tax deduction on their taxable income for hours of service in this category. That is why many of us are now starting to get correspondence from emergency service providers in our communities.
The private member's bill that we are currently debating is Bill C-273 which was put forward by the member for Cape Breton--Canso. Volunteers give their time and effort to ensure their friends and neighbours are not alone when emergencies arise, whether these incidents are fires, accidents, medical emergencies, national disasters or terrorism. This has certainly come home to me and to many of us in many ways during this past tragic week in Canada.
There is no question in my mind that we should all support the bill. It would provide a $1,000 tax deduction from income for 100-plus volunteer emergency service hours in a year and $2,000 for anything in excess of 200 hours.
The member for Lethbridge who put forward the predecessor bill with respect to this issue is certainly happy to co-sponsor the bill. I believe the bill has all party support. Speedy passage at this time would be a small measure signalling to these people that the Government of Canada does value what they do in a major way. I am happy to lend my support to this most important bill.
Petitions February 25th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I have petitions from the Canadian Alliance for Social Justice and Family Values, an 80% ethnic Chinese group based in Vancouver. These petitions contain 7,000 signatures in which the petitioners are supporting the traditional definition of marriage.
I had previously delivered a petition from the same group on the same subject with 22,000 signatures, so it is now up to 29,000.
The petitioners are urging Parliament to use all possible democratic, legislative and administrative measures to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.
Sport Fishery February 25th, 2005
Virtually nothing, Mr. Speaker. I have been asking the agriculture minister since October to ensure that Canadian caught sport fish can receive a health certificate and be taken back to Europe under tough new EU rules.
Our competitors in Alaska, Russia and Norway have responded to the changes. Canada has not. This is leading to millions of dollars in losses in cancellations for B.C. fishing resorts.
Despite the minister's assurances otherwise, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency continues to say that it has no mandate for sport fish.
Why does the government continue to abandon B.C. sport fishing lodges?
Softwood Lumber February 23rd, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian lumber industry has paid by far the largest legal bills during the four year softwood dispute with almost no assistance from the Canadian government. This is despite the fact NAFTA itself is under attack by U.S. softwood interests. The Canadian lumber industry has requested help. The official opposition has called for it and the previous trade minister promised it.
When can we expect this kind of help from the minister?
Alzheimer's Disease February 16th, 2005
Madam Speaker, I did not learn anything from that response that I was not aware of.
Here is what the question really is. We know that the advisory committee recommended to the ministers that this indeed should be taken over by the federal government and that there should be a continued human presence on the island. I am trying to get there; I am trying to get the government there. I am trying to get the government to recognize that we need more than an announcement and a press release.
What we need is some legislation that would change the government mandate and mission and put it into some kind of permanent form for Sable Island. We also must have more than the next couple of years' worth of funding guaranteed in order to meet that mission. That is what I have not heard and that is what I am asking for.
Alzheimer's Disease February 16th, 2005
Madam Speaker, my question tonight is further to the question I asked regarding Sable Island.
The government has been quite schizophrenic in its handling of Sable Island. The costs of maintaining a human presence on Sable Island are not large but the benefits are huge.
There has been human habitation on Sable Island since 1802, who were originally from the colony of Nova Scotia. Since Confederation the federal government has retained that mandate. However in the 1990s it offloaded it, which is part of the reason that I call this a schizophrenic arrangement.
The government offloaded its responsibility and succeeded offloading it on to a preservation trust. This arrangement was failing because of the funding partners and so it offloaded part of the funding on to industry and so on. This whole arrangement was falling apart and as of March 31 nobody was going to be left on the island.
The official opposition started to ask questions and generate media attention. We got the government's attention to do something to correct the situation, rather than continuing the dithering it had been doing for a great many years.
Sable Island cannot be treated like a rental car. It is a core asset and one that needs authorization to establish a presence there in order to maintain our sovereignty and derive the benefits that will come with it.
I had the opportunity a couple of weeks ago to attend a presentation by Zoe Larsen from the Ecology Action Network at the Museum of Nature in Ottawa. She has spent 30 years researching Sable Island. The institutional memory and the stewardship that was displayed in her presentation was amazing.
We need a long term, sustainable commitment to this place. It extends Canada's economic zone outward for hundreds of kilometres. It also extends our reach for search and rescue operations, for the military, et cetera. Sable Island is vitally important.
There is a long identified problem of multiple federal departments benefiting from the station, yet the costs being borne disproportionately by DFO, which is why we had the offloading situation. The Ministers of the Environment and Fisheries and Oceans finally made an announcement on January 31 saying that the government was committed to maintaining a human presence but that it was still leaving us with a shortfall in funding, which it was going to put in place for the next year or two while it revisited some other options.
My questions are simple. As there is no authorization by statute to guarantee a human presence on the island, when can we expect that? Two departments are covering the funding in the short term but a long term arrangement is needed. When can we expect that? All the government's arrangements to date have been quite myopic. I would like an expansion on the original answer to this question.