Rob Nicholson

[Supply, March 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Conservative Party will be voting in the affirmative.

[Sponsorship Program, March 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, before the government starts spending millions on a lawsuit, and I would bet that all the money will go to Liberal-friendly law firms as well, why does the Prime Minister not get on his feet and admit that this whole sorry mess right from the beginning had little to do with helping Canada, but it had everything to do with Liberals helping themselves?

[Sponsorship Program, March 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that is a bunch of nonsense. For months the government has been telling us that it cannot do anything until we have the Gomery commission report. Now we know it is about to launch a lawsuit. Who is prejudging the Gomery commission now?

The fact is that all the players in this sorry mess are friends of the Liberal Party. Why does the Prime Minister not get on the phone, call his friends at these ad agencies, ask for the money back and while he is at it, why not put a call into Liberal Party headquarters and get back some of the money that was diverted there?

[Canada Shipping Act, March 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, Bill C-3 is an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act.

Bill C-3 was one of the first bills introduced in this Parliament. It was of particular interest to me because at that time I had just been named my party's transportation critic. The previous critic for our party was the member for Port Moody--Westwood--Port Coquitlam. He has a veritable wealth of knowledge in the area of transport issues so I was very pleased to work with him. Quite frankly, I am also very pleased that he has now resumed the responsibility of being our transport critic.

Bill C-3 was tabled on the Friday before the break for Thanksgiving. It is interesting to note that it has now come back to Parliament on the Friday before another break for Parliament.

The parliamentary secretary indicated that the bill is of importance to the Prime Minister. He mentioned twice in his speech that the Prime Minister made the announcement of these changes on December 12, 2003, so it must be important if it happened on the day the Prime Minister was sworn into office. I am sure he was preoccupied by many things on that day, but it was the day on which he announced the changes to the Canada Shipping Act and related statutes that have now become Bill C-3.

I did not have any prior consultation concerning the bill before it was introduced into the House, but when I did have a look at it I was a little surprised at its content. I thought the subject matter of the bill was already within the purview of the Department of Transport.

On further investigation, I found that this was in fact the case up to 1995. Some changes were then made which removed that responsibility from the Department of Transport and placed it with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Eight years after that move was made, the government realized a mistake had been made. In fact, what is taking place here is a re-organization to correct what I think most people would agree was a mistake.

As transport critic, I recommended in the House that we should support Bill C-3. I think that is and should be the spirit of the 38th Parliament. This is a minority Parliament, and I think the responsible role for members of the opposition is to look at whatever is proposed in the House and, if it makes sense for Canada, if it is good for Canada, support it. After having looked at the bill, I have no hesitation in recommending to my colleagues that this is something we should support.

One of the objectives of Bill C-3 is to free up the Coast Guard to focus on its operational mission. I could not agree more with that. Quite frankly, I am of the opinion that the Coast Guard should be doing an awful lot more than it is doing at the present time. I have raised this matter in the House before.

The Government of Canada is not doing enough for border security, particularly along the waterways that separate Canada from the United States. I have made it very clear to the House that I have been upset over the years after realizing that the Niagara Regional Police Service has to take up much of the international security responsibilities in the waterways in the region of Niagara, including parts of Lake Ontario, the Niagara River and parts of Lake Erie.

In my previous incarnation as a regional councillor for the City of Niagara Falls, having looked at the Niagara regional police budget, I was shocked to see how much money it is paying to patrol the waterways. Good heavens above, I said, we do not have to be constitutional experts to figure out that this is the responsibility of the federal government. Whether it is the RCMP, the Coast Guard or other elements of Canadian security, the federal government should be responsible for this.

At the same time, I want to be very clear that the Niagara Regional Police Service has never complained about taking up this or any other responsibility. It is one of those police forces that steps to the front, assists the public and does what is right for whatever role it is given. Nonetheless, in my opinion this is not right.

Bill C-3 focuses on the Coast Guard and on allowing it to get back to its operational responsibilities. Let me tell members that I think its operational responsibilities should be far more extensive than they are. Far more resources should be going to this. The government was very quick after 9/11 to start imposing taxes for national security. Indeed, the Minister of Transport will tell the House about the hundreds of millions of dollars the government made off the security tax just at the airports. Hundreds of millions of dollars come into government coffers and Canadians would like to see some of those dollars get back to what they are supposed to be doing, which is protecting this nation. I will continue to raise this and push for that in the House.

With respect to the bill, it is a step in the right direction. It corrects a mistake that was made back in 1995. Indeed, as I have said before, I wish all the mistakes of the government could be so easily corrected. It is too bad that we could not have some kind of an omnibus bill to reverse all the mistakes that have been made by the Liberal Party in its eleven and half years in office, but we can perhaps save that for another day.

That would be an interesting piece of legislation, would it not? It would probably be a very big bill. That is why I say that to correct all the mistakes that have been made it would have to be an omnibus bill. Certainly this bill would correct one of them and the official opposition will support it.

[Canada-U.S. Relations, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, after years of her anti-American statements, the Prime Minister finally got rid of the member from Mississauga. Now his personal representative on Canada-America relations is using the same kind of comments. Canada cannot stand for this kind of incompetence.

Will the Prime Minister do the right thing and fire the parliamentary secretary?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, March 10th, 2005]

What has become apparent, Mr. Speaker, is that the Prime Minister is incapable of controlling the anti-American sentiment in the Liberal Party. That is too bad, because we have some serious problems, problems with agriculture, softwood lumber and border issues.

Can the Prime Minister answer a simple question? Does he agree with the comments of the parliamentary secretary? It is a simple question. Answer it.

[Canada-U.S. Relations, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's hand-picked spokesperson on Canada-U.S. relations said the other day “let's embarrass the hell out of the Americans”.

The Prime Minister has promised Canadians on a number of occasions that he wants to do things differently, but comments like these are starting to remind Canadians of the old days and the Chrétien government.

Can the Prime Minister tell us how these comments do anything to reduce the trade tensions between our two countries or does he even care?

[The Budget, March 7th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to answer some of the comments raised by the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

I thought he was going to get into it. He has a pretty good memory but he forgot to talk about the father of the Canadian deficit, Pierre Trudeau. The hon. member has a good memory. He will remember that in 1984 the Liberals' good friend the Auditor General was helping out, pointing out things for the Liberal Party even back then. The Auditor General does not just point out the mistakes they make now. The Auditor General back then said that the government of Mr. Trudeau was in danger of losing control of the government spending. That is how bad it was.

I appreciate all the attention the hon. member has given me for being a member of that government. Only modesty would tell him I did not run the government all by myself during those nine years. There were a few other people who helped me. Not all the decisions were mine, but I am certainly pleased and proud with the decisions that were made.

In answer to some of the specific items the hon. member mentioned about the CAIS program, if the hon. member's government knows this is a problem, why has it not called its friends in the provincial government to sit down and do something about it? The federal government should get on the phone with its good friend, Dalton McGuinty, who has been helping the federal Liberals out for the last year or so. Members will remember during the election that Mr. McGuinty helped them out. The federal Liberals should get on the phone to their friends, sit down and renegotiate these things.

It is just like the helicopters. How long ago was it the government announced that new helicopters were needed? Yes, the military needs them and the government has announced that again and the member has said it is going to take another couple of years. He knows as well as I do that those helicopters and all the other equipment for military defence should have been in place 10 years ago.

[The Budget, March 7th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up for a second on the whole question of surpluses. I cannot believe there is anyone left in the country who is going to buy into any of the predictions by the Liberal Party. It is a little joke that the Liberals have on Canadians, if it were not so tragic in terms of overtaxation. The same nonsense goes on every year. The Liberals predicted $1.9 billion and then lo and behold in the hallways they stumbled over another $7 billion. I never believed any of that nonsense.

During the election the Liberals said that the numbers did not add up, that the Bank of Montreal was overpredicting the surplus. I never bought into it. If they think they fooled some of their constituents, I do not think they will be able to do it again. I think it has been shown what they truly are. This whole business of trying to fool Canadians and continue to overtax them is something Canadians have had enough of. All their projections we take with a grain of salt, as do most Canadians. Canadians are not buying into it.

There are a couple of other things I do not think Canadians are going to buy into. We hear announcement after announcement. For example, the Liberal day care policy has been a part of every election campaign for the last 12 years. The Liberals keep making the announcement and no one ever sees a dime from these announcements.

It is like the announcement on the gas tax rebate for the cities. A couple of years ago the current Prime Minister was in Winnipeg speaking to a gathering of municipal politicians. He made this grand announcement, that the Liberals were going to move forward on the gas tax rebate for municipalities. For heaven's sake, that was over two years ago and the municipalities are still waiting for it.

Now the Liberals have taken it to a new level. Part of the logic of the Liberals must be that if they make the announcement enough times then somehow it has happened. On the weekend, I heard the Prime Minister say on a couple of these things, “Promises kept”.

Good heavens above, the municipalities are still waiting for their cheques. I say to him, skip the announcement. How many times is he going to announce some of these things? Could he please send the cheques? That is what the cities want.

The Liberals have taken it to another level. They do not just keep announcing it. Now they say that the promises have been kept. The hon. members across heard all that and they must have been chuckling to themselves. It is a whole new spin on the idea of government announcements.

The budget is not all bad. There are some positive things in it. Interestingly enough, a number of the positive things in the budget came from members of the Conservative Party.

The member for Prince George--Peace River, my seatmate the House leader for the Conservative Party, should take a great deal of pride and satisfaction that his proposal for a new non-refundable $10,000 credit for expenses that couples incur in child adoption was in the budget. He should be very proud of that. I was pleased to see that in the budget.

I flipped through the budget. I looked for things like expenditures on border security and infrastructure and I see references to those. The government acknowledges that it has a responsibility in the whole question of border security.

I was asked by the local press in my riding whether $400 million was enough. It is enough when the job is done efficiently and the borders operate in an effective manner, when goods and services move across Canada's borders and at the same time Canada's security is maintained. Whatever that amount is, is what the country must commit itself to. I am pleased that there are references to that in the budget.

There is one thing I did not see in the budget and it is a glaring oversight. This was raised by one of my colleagues after he heard the budget speech and had a chance to look at the budget. He thinks there is a misprint in the budget. He asked where the chapter is on agriculture. That is a good question. Where is the chapter on agriculture?

I looked at the budget plan 2005 because I thought it must be there somewhere. One has to look real hard. It is hard to find because it does not get its own chapter and there is very little provided. It covers a couple of pages and is very inadequate.

The budget talks about the Canadian agricultural income stabilization program, a program that is of interest to the farmers in my area. The government talks about good intentions, that the government will work with its provincial partners, that it realizes there is a problem. That is an announcement that the Liberals want to do something about it. We had a debate on this issue about a month ago. I say to the government to get on with it. If the government realizes there is a problem with the program, it should get going and do something about it.

What disappointed me the most is the whole issue with respect to the federal excise tax as it applies to the wine industry and small breweries. It had been recommended to the government that it reduce or eliminate that tax. There was considerable hope within those industries. It would make a big difference to them. It would affect the smaller wineries and breweries. The federal government's budget does not sink or swim, the finances of the country do not depend on the relatively small amount of money collected from that tax. Representatives of the wine industry were optimistic that something would be done. I was very disappointed to read on page 158:

With respect to beer and wine, the Committee acknowledged that limited fiscal resources narrow the range of tax relief that can be funded. The recommendations with respect to beer and wine will remain under consideration.

Is that not wonderful. It is under consideration. That is a real shame. I ask the government even at this point to please bring in something, a separate bill. It would be of tremendous help to those industries that are so important to the country. I know the members of my party would welcome and support that.

The Minister of Transport has to be a very disappointed individual. I believe his comments that he would like to see airport rents reduced. It is false economy to try to make our airports as expensive as possible because the costs are passed on to the travelling public. It makes air transport, which is critical for the country's transportation infrastructure, more expensive. I know the minister joins with me and other members of the transport committee and the transport critic in saying it would have been wonderful to see that.

The Minister of Finance will say that these things are under consideration, but that is like a lot of other things. Everything is under consideration and we only get announcements. When does it finally happen? The Minister of Transport must be very disappointed about that.

Quite frankly, I was initially encouraged by comments with respect to defence spending. Defence has been terribly underfunded by the present government. The Liberals have continued this pattern for their 11 and one-half years in office. It is wrong. It is a bad idea. It hurts Canada. When there was all the foofaraw in the Minister of Finance's speech about all this money for defence, I was very pleased.

I went to the budget plan and again, this is not something cooked up by the Conservative Party or other opposition parties; the government puts these things out. If we flip to page 222, we will see defence funding. The fascinating thing is the category “New medium capacity helicopters, logistics trucks, utility aircraft and JTF2 facility”, all great things for Canada's military. Is this not a great idea? As we say in the legal profession, never mind the big print, always look for the small print. What does the government plan to spend on those categories for fiscal year 2005-06? Zero. What about next year, 2006-07? Zero. Like so much of the budget, it is all back-end loaded.

The government cannot get straight how much money it has to spend for the present year. It cannot seem to come up with the right numbers to predict the present year's surplus, so try and figure out how good its predictions are for what it will do in 2007, 2008 and 2009. That is in the area of fiscal never-never land for the government. It is very disappointing.

[The Budget, March 7th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, perhaps the hon. member could clarify something. It is quite correct that the chief of defence said that he welcomed new expenditures in defence. It seems to me the hon. member is going much too far. He somehow then equates that the military is happy. I think those were his words. I am sure the military is a long way from being happy. I do not think the hon. member would like to leave that impression with the House.

The neglect of Canada's military is a national disgrace. I am sure that if we asked anybody in the military if they wanted to see another 50 bucks going into the military, they would say, “Yes, of course, $50, $50 million, $5 billion”. They want to see billions of dollars.

It is going too far for this hon. member to say the military is happy. Putting the general on the spot when he makes himself available to the press, of course, he is going to say he wants to see new funding for the military, but what the Liberals have done to the military in the past and what the military might expect from the Liberals in the future, I think goes way beyond that. I would like him to comment on that.

I would also like him to comment on articles that are starting to appear in the newspapers on this whole subject of clawbacks. This is a classic Liberal trick. The government announces $100. If we look closely enough, we would find out that the $50 has been announced any number of times. So, that is part of the $100 announcement. Then there is something called efficiencies, where we are expected to find savings within the $100.

I want to give the member some time to comment on both. Are they pleased, and tell me about the clawback in the federal proposals on defence?