Scott Reid

[Transfer payments, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Jean Charest said, “There must be a moment of reckoning on the issue of equalization payments”. We have been waiting for that moment for a long time. The only thing this Prime Minister has done with respect to the fiscal imbalance is unite the provinces against Ottawa.

When will the Prime Minister implement a national plan to resolve the fiscal imbalance issue for all the provinces?

[Mitchell Creek Bridge, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Township of South Frontenac recently announced a plan to replace the 75-year-old bridge over tiny Mitchell Creek. Originally the plan was for the new bridge to be the same height as the old one. The low clearance of the existing span allows canoes and small boats to pass under the bridge, but keeps out jet skis and other more powerful watercraft.

By good fortune this has preserved the creek's pristine environment. Local nesting sites, for loons at the water's edge and for bass just under the surface, have been destroyed elsewhere by boat wakes and turbulence but not in Mitchell Creek. This is about to end.

Transport Canada wants to force the township to raise the height of the bridge because it has decreed that Mitchell Creek is a navigable waterway that must be opened to boat traffic. Leaving aside the additional $60,000 cost, Transport Canada's rationale is preposterous. Mitchell Creek connects two small lakes that are completely cut off by dams from external waterways, besides which the creek is so shallow that a non-swimmer can wade across it.

I therefore call upon the ministry to revoke this decision and allow the municipality to build a bridge like the one that has served the community and the environment so well for 75 years.

[Statistics Act, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the suggestion that the long form be made voluntary. One concern I would have if that were to be done would be that people would exclude themselves on a non-random basis, which means that the data collected, while still true of those who filled it out, might not actually be representative any more of the population as a whole.

People are selected right now on a random basis for the long form. Given the very large number of Canadians and given that these forms are intended primarily for the purposes of data that is aggregated into very large areas--provincial levels, whole metropolitan areas, or national data--I wonder if we could simply reduce the number of people who are required to fill out the long form. Perhaps we could provide a spot for them to indicate whether or not that additional data would be made public in the future. This of course refers not to past censuses but purely to censuses that are being collected in the future and which will be revealed many decades into the future.

[Petitions, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my petition comes from Verona in Frontenac County. It is, as are many other petitions that have been received in the House recently, on the subject of the definition of marriage. The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to preserve the traditional definition of marriage as being the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Supply Management, June 7th, 2005]

Madam Chair, I will be very quick because I do want to hear what the hon. member has to say in response to my question.

Would a Conservative government and would she work to ensure a Conservative government ensures there are some resources devoted to the agricultural sector in Canada? In particular, would some resources be devoted to expanding slaughter and processing capacity to which again the government has contributed nothing?

[Supply Management, June 7th, 2005]

Madam Chair, in making my comments, I would like to return to something the minister of agriculture raised.

The minister mentioned, which I guess is another Liberal talking point, that our party's strengthening commitment to supply management somehow suggests that what occurred in the past is the relevant policy to look at. He stated incorrectly that we did not support supply management prior to the March convention.

What he did infer, which is correct, is that our supply management commitment has grown and did grow at the March convention. That was the result of the fact that there were a number of people, myself included and the hon. member who spoke earlier, who worked very hard to ensure that our commitment to supply management was strengthened. It is a real commitment, not the kind of make believe commitment we see from a government over there that did not give one penny for the support of agriculture in its last budget. This is despite the fact that we have had the worst agricultural year in the history of our country.

That is the record of the government. The fact that its members are squawking over there right now shows just how upset they are when the facts are laid in front of them.

The Liberal government has committed not a penny. Would a Conservative government and would she work to ensure that a Conservative government ensures, first, that there would be some commitment of resources to the agricultural sector in a Conservative budget?

[Supply Management, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I am sorry, but the irony of hearing Liberal members talking about things that have barely passed after this government is surviving on the basis of a tie vote, the only government in Canadian history to survive on the basis of a tie vote decided by the Speaker, is just really laughable.

I was at the Montreal convention of our party. I actually was involved in a fairly controversial issue at that convention, so I know a little about things barely passing, and I can assure members that there was widespread support for the pillars of supply management, for the policy our party now has.

I want to point out as well that I am a former member of Parliament from the Canadian Alliance and I am very much in support of the policy put forward at that convention. It was our agriculture critic who led the charge on it. She herself is a member of Parliament from Ontario and a former Canadian Alliance member.

What this indicates to me, in the special way in which the member opposite chose to word his question, is that he is trying to design it so he can find some way of finding someone who does not support our policy. Then he can leave the impression out there that somehow, despite a clearly stated policy, we are wavering, when in fact his government's policy with regard to agriculture has been one of absolute neglect.

It has been one of absolute neglect and there was not one penny in the latest budget for agriculture, not one penny in the worst year in agriculture in Canadian history. That is the record of the Liberal government. The Liberals should hang their heads in shame. That member in particular should hang his head in shame for not giving the slightest amount of interest to the farmers who put him here in the first place.

My question is simply this. Going back to 2003, our party has taken quite a strong approach on cull cows and as well on increasing slaughter capacity, which is of no small interest to those producers, both supply managed and not, who have cull cows in their herds. I wonder if the critic could comment on plans to deal with slaughter capacity.

[Democratic Reform, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to guess that the minister will be voting in favour of the bill based on the fact that www.vote16.ca has her picture on its front page and has this quote from her:

The new Canada is the future, and lowering the voting age is a step in providing fresh oxygen to our political process.

I might add that the Prime Minister's solution to the democratic deficit seems to be to have a surplus of ministers responsible for democratic reform. Let me ask the one responsible for electoral renewal, will he be acting promptly on the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding electoral reform?

[Democratic Reform, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, before she became a Liberal, the Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal was one of the co-sponsors of Bill C-261, which would lower the voting age to 16. She even toured the country in support of the bill.

My question is, now that she is a minister, does she still support Bill C-261 and the lowering of the voting age to 16?

[Privilege, May 31st, 2005]

No, Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a matter that is related.

I am not revealing anything that was done in camera when I say this, but the committee was reviewing its 40th report to the House of Commons which contained a series of motions put forward by the leader of the New Democratic Party. One specific item with regard to scheduling, which I regarded as impractical, was the subject of discussion.

I will be seeking the unanimous consent of the House to present this draft report and table it here. It then will become evident that what is going on here is in fact very different from the presentation of the facts given by the member for Ottawa Centre.

For this reason, I am asking for unanimous consent to table this draft report in the House.