Speak for yourself.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 58% of the vote.
Supply December 2nd, 2004
Speak for yourself.
Supply December 2nd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the member for Fundy Royal for a very compelling address on this important subject. The points raised by the hon. member are important. I come from an urban, downtown city riding, but one that has a real interest and empathy for our agriculture producers. Calgarians have a long and abiding respect for our ranchers, for their determination, perseverance, and for their strong tradition of going it alone.
Despite this proud history of prospering through tough times and the demonstrated self-reliance of our ranchers, the remarks of the hon. member for Fundy Royal caused me concern. The BSE crisis is causing great concern for our ranchers.
Where are we headed in these tough times? We have heard that these are the lowest revenues in many years. What is the solution? What can we do here?
Government of Canada November 25th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, while the Conservative Party has in this session forced the government to lower taxes, reform employment insurance and encourage democratic reform, the Liberals continue their legacy of scandal, secrecy and indecision.
The contempt for the people of Canada shown by the government is no more evident than in the refusal of the Prime Minister and his ministers to stand and be held accountable in the House. Our job is to ask the questions. The government's job is to answer to us and to Canadians. From the sponsorship scandal to special favours for exotic dancers, the Liberals continue to break the rules, avoid accountability and dodge the issues.
I am proud to say that everyday the Conservative Party works to build the confidence of Canadians so that we can restore accountability, integrity and honesty to government.
Department of Canadian Heritage Act November 24th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I want to add a note to my previous question. In response to my question to a previous speaker, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, he commented on the efforts of the former NDP government in his province of British Columbia to preserve our natural environment. It brought to memory a visit to the hon. member's riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley to witness the salmon run. What a glorious sight it is to see millions of thriving salmon swimming upstream to spawn.
Today that salmon stock is threatened. I hope the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley would join us, the Conservative Party of Canada, in our initiative to save the salmon. Canadians will soon hear more of our efforts to protect the west coast salmon. I welcome the support of those opposite.
Department of Canadian Heritage Act November 24th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the member for Skeena--Bulkley Valley mentioned cooperation in this minority Parliament. I do not think there is any better example of that than on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in which the hon. member for Skeena--Bulkley Valley plays an important role.
This bill came before our committee. I think it received unanimous consent by the time we made those amendments that we thought were required. It is a technical bill that just transfers Parks Canada Agency from the Minister of Canadian Heritage to Environment Canada. We think that is where it belongs.
As one who lives in the shadow of Banff National Park, I can tell members that my constituents and those who enjoy the parks are much happier to have them back in the hands of the Department of Environment than under the auspices of Sheila Copps.
I did want to say that there were some things we might have expected in the first environment bill that the government brought to this session of Parliament.
We heard reference in the throne speech to additional protected areas, to substantive measures to address issues of ecological integrity in Canada. Those were things we thought might be included in a motion for a bill such as this one. The hon. member and the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie mentioned some of these areas.
We hoped that the government would be forthcoming with amendments to current acts in the legislation with regard to protected areas and also ecological integrity.
I noticed, in researching our thoughts on this bill, that Canada was recently criticized by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in its performance review in that our current share of total nationally protected areas is less than the OECD average and certainly less than Canada's current target of 12%. I am sure that hon. members on the environment committee particularly would join me in encouraging the government to bring forth legislation in that regard to improve our protected areas.
In addition, our interest is in having more substantive measures to address the issue of ecological integrity in Canada's national parks. This was also promised in the October Speech from the Throne.
We would support this bill.
Sponsorship Program October 22nd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was not speaking of any testimony. He was speaking about the Minister of Transport, in a press conference with the Prime Minister, saying that $650,000 was given to the Liberal Party by sponsorship ad agencies. The head of one of those ad agencies, who gave $43,000, was arrested this week. That minister said dirty money will be immediately returned to the Canadian taxpayer.
I ask the minister, how much dirty money has been returned to date?
Supply October 21st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I have found a remedy to his concern about comments made by the NDP. I just no longer pay any attention at all.
Supply October 21st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if there was a question there frankly. If the member has some doubts as to what the motion is, I would be happy to read it again but he can do that himself of course, in both languages.
I did want to point out that if the member had further remarks to make, and he suggested we should have a longer debate on this matter, we would have been pleased to have done that. We do consider it a very important point.
Not to diminish the other aspect of the member's question with regard to foreign aid, the debate today is on the question of national defence, the lack of national defence of our country and the lack of support for our troops and the commitments that we make to our military.
I do not need to reiterate the motion as it is stated here, and would simply thank the member for his comments.
Supply October 21st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak to this motion to enhance and support our military. I am also proud to represent Calgary Centre, a riding that has a proud history of support and respect for our military.
In fact, many Calgarians were incensed during the recent election campaign when the Liberals mocked the Conservative Party's serious proposals to give our military the funding it deserves. Providing proper funding would allow the brave men and women who serve our nation to carry out their duties knowing they have been endowed with the best training and equipment possible.
Over the past few months we have seen the Liberals continue to show disregard for our armed forces. We even read this week that the Liberals intend to impose further cuts, cuts of perhaps $50 million a year from our beleaguered armed forces. As one young officer recently told Conservative Senator Mike Forrestall, who quoted the young officer, “The government pretends to want a military and we pretend to have one”.
I find the government's contemptuous attitudes disgraceful. Canadians are not pleased with such attitudes. We share a proud history of support for our armed forces. We are incensed by Liberal government cutbacks in military funding and are saddened by the tragic loss recently of submariner Lieutenant Chris Saunders.
This terrible event, combined with the never ending horror stories of aging Sea King helicopters, underequipped troops and the loss of Canada's international standing are surely sufficient examples for the government to recognize that it must stop ignoring our sovereignty, jeopardizing the safety and security of our nation and demeaning those in uniform. We must restore the respect for our servicemen and women and return a sense of pride to their commitment to protect us.
In the post 9/11 world, we face a new reality which includes threats of global terrorism, oppressive regimes and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Rather than approach these matters with the urgency they demand, the Liberals have opted to treat our military with contempt and our foreign policy with indifference.
A decade ago in its white paper on defence, the government forecasted a diminishing role for the Canadian military. The Liberals assumed that the world would become a safer place and that military and defence matters would become less important. The Liberal government was wrong then and it is wrong now.
While our allies have conducted thorough reviews of their defence policies after 9/11, the Canadian government has been unresponsive, wasting time and resources and placing our sovereignty and security at risk. The Liberals have chosen to keep these matters on the back burner, not deeming it necessary to adopt new defence policies to new realities. While they have dramatically reduced our defence capabilities throughout the years of cutbacks, they have multiplied our commitments abroad.
The cutbacks have been so severe that the military has been forced to defer funds for badly needed infrastructure upgrades just to fund day to day operations. Since it is capital spending that allows for the renewal of military capabilities, the future of our military has been sacrificed to pay for its day to day existence.
Canada now spends less than 1.1% of its gross domestic product on its military, far below the NATO average of 1.9%. That means, to quote Liberal Senator Colin Kenny who is chair of the Senate committee on national security and defence, “We are spending about half of what would legitimize us in the eyes of our allies and the rest of the world”.
Not that long ago, from 1985 to 1987, under a Conservative government, a government with which I am proud to have been associated, the Canadian defence budget accounted for 2.2% of our gross domestic product, twice what the Liberals allocate today.
I am also very worried by the short-sighted, minimalist view adopted by the Liberal government on the role of our military. Conversely, as the Conservative Party leader said earlier in this debate, our party supports three longstanding and increasingly interlinked goals: the security of Canada, the collaborative defence of North America, and the promotion of peace and security on the international stage.
We must act now to deal with the ever increasing challenges that confront us. We must immediately increase defence spending by $1.2 billion per year and continually increase annual expenditures until we at least reach the NATO average of 1.9% of GDP per year.
Our 52,300 regular forces now struggle to meet the demands placed upon them. It is too much to ask of our overworked and under-supported troops. To adequately serve and protect Canadians we need a force of at least 75,000 military personnel and we need to provide funding immediately for new equipment, including airplanes, helicopters, tanks and artillery.
I want to acknowledge the fact that members of the Canadian Forces have held up remarkably well under trying circumstances. The brave men and women whose job it is to protect us deserve our respect and support.
Canadian Heritage October 14th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for quoting from the speech. I also could quote from the speech, but why do I not quote from Variety magazine of that day, which suggested that “Minister of Canadian Heritage Hélène Scherrer took up the invitation at the last minute to use Banff to trumpet her party...” and make a “nakedly political speech”.
I ask again, why did the minister have to take a flight at the last minute? Did she mislead the House as to when the invitation was accepted?