Stephen Harper

[Agriculture, September 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, none of that answered my questions about the inaction. It does not explain why there is no marketing strategy for our beef. It does not explain why the feeder cattle problem is not resolved. And it does not explain why there has been no trip to Washington.

But there is one possible explanation and that is that this government wants to wait until it has a new Liberal leader to take credit for resolving the problem, at the cost of more worry and money for Canadian farm families. Is this government deliberately dragging its feet so that the new leader can take credit for the border being opened when it finally happens?

[Agriculture, September 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the American border has been closed to Canadian cattle now for 127 days; 127 days and the government still has no marketing strategy for Canadian beef, still has no plans to resolve the feeder cattle issue with the United States, and still has no planned trip to Washington by the Prime Minister and government leaders.

Why is this government acting so systematically slowly in getting this border open?

[Member for LaSalle--Émard, September 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, he will not answer questions in the House, he will not answer them in committee, but apparently he can hold a press conference in the tourist information centre on Parliament Hill. He is responsible for the new budget, making policy statements that he will cut $62.5 billion in spending.

I ask the minister this. Will the government at least agree to consult the member on the answers to these questions and report those answers back to the House of Commons?

[Member for LaSalle--Émard, September 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, he finished by bragging about his new found power on the lawns of Parliament Hill.

However I will tell you this, Mr. Speaker. This man controls the governing party, he is leader of the governing party, he has a seat in the Commons and under our system of responsible government he should be here to answer questions.

This is unprecedented. The member is involved in drafting a new budget.

Therefore, I will ask the government this. Is the government committed to having its new leader come to the House of Commons and answer questions?

[Member for LaSalle--Émard, September 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, last week the new leader of the Liberal Party laid out some of his fiscal plans. He has been calling for new spending initiatives of undisclosed proportions. He also has called for debt reduction targets which, if we take them literally, would require $62.5 billion in spending reductions.

What is the policy of the new leader of the Liberal Party? Is it massive spending increases or $62.5 billion in spending cuts?

[Voyageur Colonial Pension Funds, September 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I will remind the Prime Minister that the minister's senior staff were involved in this decision. We know that for a fact. For this Prime Minister to defend the former finance minister is a bit hypocritical. He is the one who fired him in the first place.

Perhaps the government does not give a hoot about pensioners. Yesterday, the Minister of Finance described our questions as sound and fury signifying nothing.

Is the minister, or the government, prepared to sit down with Voyageur pensioners and tell them that losing 30% of their pension fund means nothing?

[Voyageur Colonial Pension Funds, September 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should read the Financial Administration Act. OSFI is a schedule I agency under the complete control of the minister, and the minister's fingerprints are all over this decision.

The finance minister was not prepared to answer questions on this yesterday. The government has had 24 hours to reflect, so I ask the Prime Minister, does he know, why did OSFI, an agency under the direct control of the former finance minister, allow the former finance minister to shortchange his own retired bus drivers?

[Voyageur Colonial Pension Funds, September 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this morning past employees of the former finance minister gathered on Parliament Hill. These are Voyageur pensioners, people who lost up to 30% of their pensions at the hands of the former finance minister. To quote one of them, the former finance minister stiffed them.

Will the government allow a full, independent inquiry into how these people lost their pensions?

[Marriage Act, September 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my special thanks to the member for Macleod for introducing the bill on behalf of the party. He has been a long time member of our party who will be retiring. I thank him for his service to our party, to the country and for being such a great friend and colleague.

First, just to make it clear, the bill asks Parliament to do what has never been done before, and that is to legislate a legal definition of marriage in this country. The bill proposes that definition be a union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. The bill also encourages provinces to go ahead with the recognition of traditional or non-traditional relationships of civil unions.

The bill is clear. It recognizes that the provinces have the exclusive jurisdiction to create civil unions.

[Voyageur Colonial Pension Fund, September 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether no means they do not know or they have investigated and know the answer.

Let me give the minister some additional information. In the minutes we have obtained from access to information an OSFI official was asked point blank, “What political pressure has been put on OSFI?” The response is blank. The answer has been whited out.

What is the government hiding? What political pressure did the former finance minister apply?