moved:
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 7.
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 15.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 58% of the vote.
Civil Marriage Act June 27th, 2005
Extension of Sitting Period June 23rd, 2005
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member has been around a long time and is finishing up not so stellar a way these days, but he knows that he cannot address other members by the name Charlie. He has to refer to their constituencies. I would appreciate it if you would brief him on that.
Historica National Fair June 23rd, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the Historica National Fair is a truly national event, hosted each July by a different community in Canada. From July 11 to July 18 this summer, Saskatoon will have the honour of showcasing its historical treasures. The Bishop James Mahoney School in my constituency will serve as accommodations and headquarters for the week.
A total of 165 students between the ages of 10 and 15, representing all provinces and territories, will take part in a special week of sightseeing, historic tours, hands-on workshops and special events. The national fair is a unique opportunity for students to explore a part of the country they might otherwise never have a chance to visit. Also, this event inspires lasting memories, new friendships and experiences, and it creates and strengthens connections between young Canadians.
During the one day public exhibition, students proudly share their outstanding history projects with the general public and with each other. I therefore invite everyone to come and meet these young delegates from across Canada at the exhibition, which will take place on Friday, July 15 at the Saskatoon Field House.
I extend congratulations to all the delegates and many thanks to the organizing committee and the numerous volunteers. I invite them to have fun and enjoy their stay.
An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments June 20th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I was a little nervous as the member was speaking because she was trying to convince me and talk me out of the fact that I voted for Bill C-43 by saying there was less detail and less concrete things in it. I will not be quite persuaded of that this evening, but I will reiterate what I said before, we have a concern with Bill C-48 because there is very little attention to detail in respect to these things.
I have been, as a student for many years, in the realm of needing assistance with respect to loans and grants and those kinds of things. It took many years to pay it off. We do need dollars in those areas, but we must ensure that we get those dollars to the students. I am not convinced by what I see in respect to the details to which she speaks on those particular items that it is in fact going to get through to those who most need it as well as the environment, housing and the other areas. We do not have concrete details to actually even suggest that it will get through.
I would suggest that it will be a matter of promise made, promise broken between these two parties. It is a coalition that will make a promise, but also break it as readily.
An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments June 20th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, it is rather important to note that it seems that the questions coming from the other side have a familiar ring. It seems that the Liberals are putting recycled questions to us.
The member needs to clearly understand, and I think if I know a little bit of his background he should have an appreciation for this, that the biggest objection we have as a party to this particular budget is the fact that it is unplanned spending. It is somewhat ad hoc.
We would have been interested to know why there was not any of that kind of response in the initial bill, Bill C-43, of the Liberal government. It has been added on at the very end. Was it not a priority early on? Did the Prime Minister and the NDP leader get together and all of a sudden decide there was a need for these things?
Certainly there is a need for some of the things that the member mentioned. However, if the Liberals give out money to some of these particular approaches or programs that he is talking about, who is to say that it would actually get through? Our biggest concern in any of these program areas is, will the dollars actually get through to be spent in the best way for the Canadian public, in respect to housing, in respect to transit? We have pretty good reason to believe there would be some reason to doubt that. We believe there is some question about that. I think the hon. member would want to provide us more detail if he is really sincere about getting some help for these different areas.
An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments June 20th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my name to the list of those who are fiscally responsible members in Canada, those who oppose the New Democratic budget, Bill C-48.
I joined my party to vote in favour of Bill C-43, the original bill. It was hard enough in some ways to vote for that bill. Yet there were some measures in it that were some lukewarm attempts to imitate Conservative Party policy. For that reason it seemed to be the expedient and proper thing to vote for that bill. It seems these days the only time the Liberal government is not involved in corruption is when it is imitating our party, when it is trying to mirror something that the Conservative Party would do. We wanted to affirm those halting attempts to be fiscally responsible, hoping that the government would speedily implement those measures that are really to the full advantage of Canadians across the country.
When we get to the other bill, Bill C-48, on the other hand, it is really irredeemable. Many members in my party, and I assume in the other parties, have made comment, and especially the Bloc has objections and problems with the bill as well.
Bill C-48 even makes the finance minister gag. He has to hold his nose I would imagine each time that he dutifully expresses his support for the bill, for that irresponsible piece of legislation which was thoughtlessly thrown together at the last minute by the NDP leader and also by his right-hand man, the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister tried to get this coalition together to keep his corrupt government in power. He is clinging to power with the help of a political party that is prepared to look the other way.That is what the NDP-Liberal government is prepared to do. It is prepared to look the other way when we see some of the things from this worst corruption scandal in the recent memory of this country.
The Liberals are willing to spend billions of taxpayers' dollars to fund this addiction for power and that they should be in power at all times in the history of our country. This is a direct result of the loss of their moral authority to govern. Not only should this bill not be passed, but the finance minister should resign for tabling it. We have called on him to do that. The NDP leader has more influence it would seem on the budgetary framework than the Prime Minister's own Minister of Finance.
Bill C-48 is heavy on the public purse but it is quite light on details. It is quite scant and sketchy. It commits hundreds of millions of dollars in broad areas without any concrete plans as to how that money would be spent. Bill C-48 authorizes cabinet to design and implement programs under the vague policy framework of the bill to make payments in any manner it sees fit.
The government has reserved the right to use the first $2 billion in 2005-06 and 2006-07 budget years from the federal surplus, presumably for federal debt reduction. Any surplus that exceeds $2 billion can be used to fund programs related to the bill.
The government would actually need to post $8.5 billion in surpluses over the next two fiscal years to fully implement the NDP's Bill C-48.
The areas addressed in the bill largely fall under provincial jurisdiction. It is more intrusion, more of the camel sticking its nose into the tent, more of moving into the provincial realm of authority.
Bill C-48 also violates a principle held by the NDP as was presented in its own prebudget report, that Parliament should have an opportunity to decide on the allocation of any budget surplus.
The Conservative Party has consistently opposed the Liberal approach of spending without an adequate plan. This is probably the biggest fault with Bill C-48. The Liberal approach is cruel not only to taxpayers, but more importantly to those who depend on those promised services.
The Auditor General has raised some very serious concerns about the ability of certain departments to actually deliver the programs effectively. Even if the dollars were shovelled off to a particular department, there is a pretty serious question whether in certain areas it would actually be able to make the best value of that, including Indian and northern affairs and the Canadian International Development Agency.
In addition the Office of the Auditor General has stated that it currently is auditing the Government of Canada's climate change expenditures which will be finally released in 2006.
The Conservative Party wants to ensure that the social needs of Canadians are met. Our party recognizes that many Canadians are not receiving the level of federal assistance that they deserve. That is a direct result of the Liberal government's approach to problem solving, which is basically to spend money without an adequate plan.
In most Canadian families both parents need to work, one just to pay the taxes. These Canadian families are receiving less and less each year for the taxes they are forced to hand over to the government. They are receiving less and less in the way of social programming and social services. The Conservative Party has long held that a dollar left in the hands of a homemaker or an entrepreneur is more beneficial than a dollar left in the hands of a bureaucrat or a politician.
It would be very irresponsible and cruel to Canadians in need to throw more money at programs that are not meeting those objectives. The responsible approach would be for the government to ensure that existing money is spent effectively to improve programs and to improve services to ensure that nobody is left behind.
Let us look at the Liberal record in respect to spending without a plan. Canada could have more better paying jobs and a much higher standard of living, but Ottawa taxes too much and spends too much.
Since the 1999-2000 program year, spending has gone from $109.6 billion to $158.1 billion, an increase of some 44.3%, a compound annual growth rate of 7.6%. The economy itself managed to grow by only 31.6%, a compound annual growth rate of about 5.6%. Once the Liberals had our money, they could not resist spending it even faster than the economy was growing. It is not surprising that there is so much waste with the government.
Often the government responds to problems in a knee-jerk way by throwing more money at those problems. The Liberals too often unfortunately confuse spending money with getting results. The Liberal government seems to have no true interest in getting results for low and middle income Canadians. As the Gomery inquiry has demonstrated, the Liberal Party is only interested, it seems, in getting results for the rich and the powerful, and for those who can return the favour.
A recent poll shows far more support for the Liberal Party among wealthy Canadians than among low and middle income Canadians. The Liberal Party has declared war on low and middle income Canadians, exploiting them to the advantage of its special friends and for any scheme that guarantees Liberal control over the reins of power in the Dominion of Canada.
Here are three examples of the Liberal government's wasteful and knee-jerk spending on programs that do not work.
We have heard for years now that the wasteful gun registry is the way to deal with the criminal use of firearms, but with no explanation of how this would prevent criminals from getting and using guns. The registry was to cost $2 million. Media reports say that the actual cost is around $2 billion at present and it is adding on as well.
The public saw television reports showing children high on gasoline. The Liberals threw money at Davis Inlet without a plan. The community was moved into new housing a few miles away at a cost of $400,000 per person, but the problems simply moved along with them as they relocated to that new location.
The Quebec referendum is another example which shocked the nation. The Liberals responded by throwing money at it, but without a real plan. The result was the sponsorship scandal, a $250 million waste of money, $100 million illegally funnelled off to Liberal friends and the Liberal Party. Even worse, it has reinvigorated Quebec separatism and hurt the face of federalism in the province of Quebec.
In 1966-67 real federal program spending per capita was $3,466. It will have risen to $4,255 in 2005-06, an increase of $800 per capita in volume terms, or $3,200 for a family of four. Current Liberal-NDP spending plans will take it to $4,644 by 2009-10, an increase of almost $1,200 per person.
Increases in real government spending do not necessarily equate to solving problems or even getting better results. That is the major concern we have with Bill C-48. It was written up quickly and is very scant on detail. There is not much there. As a result, the Liberals want to put it through quickly because they say it is very short. Because it is so very short is the reason it needs rigorous evaluation, assessment and scrutiny. It is also why it deserves our full condemnation and rejection at this point.
Much more could be said, but suffice to say that the Conservative approach would be rather different. It would be a responsible and detailed plan that would reflect rather different priorities and rather different results for the Canadian tax paying public.
Petitions June 15th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I wish to present my second series of petitions. There have already been numerous petitions presented on this subject.
The petitioners want Parliament to use all legislative and administrative measures, including invoking the notwithstanding clause if necessary, to preserve the correct definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. I have several hundred of these petitions to table today.
Petitions June 15th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the first petition which I have the pleasure to table is from people in Prince Edward Island.
The petitioners are calling on the government to return to its previous policy of allowing holy books to be made available to new citizens at citizenship ceremonies around the country. The petitioners note that a citizenship judge terminated this policy, alleging that the policy discriminated against non-religious immigrants.
Until last year, holy books were simply displayed on tables at the back of the hall, free for new citizens to take. The new citizens were not handed the books. The books were not forced on them. The judge produced no evidence to justify his inappropriate decision to ban the availability of holy books.
The petitioners ask that the Citizenship Commission return to the previous policy which has served our multicultural nation very well for so many years.
Petitions June 10th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I have two sets of petitions from Saskatchewan. The petitioners are calling on Parliament to use all possible legislative and administrative measures, including the invoking of the notwithstanding clause if necessary, to preserve the correct definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman.
Paul Henderson June 3rd, 2005
Mr. Speaker, Paul Henderson was a star hockey player who gave team Canada its winning goal against Russia in the famed 1972 series.
Those of us old enough to remember the series still remember the tension we felt as we were watching those games between Canada and the Soviet Union. Canada got off to a shaky start but came from behind to take the series by winning three straight games.
Paul Henderson, a well rounded, hardworking Toronto Maple Leaf player made it on to team Canada. He was also one of the few members on the team who played every single game in that notable competition against Russia. Paul Henderson scored Canada's winning goal in each of the last three games of that historic series against the Soviet Union and his winning goal in the final game was the most important goal in the history of Canadian hockey.
Despite Paul Henderson's incredible contribution to Canada, the psychological boost and patriotic spirit which that hockey victory gave to Canada over 30 years ago, this star player has not yet been given the recognition he deserves. Paul Henderson has not yet been inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame.
It is time to give this great hockey player his due and to give Paul Henderson a place in the Hockey Hall of Fame and while we are at it, we should induct him into the Order of Canada.