Stephen Harper

[Prairie Farmers, October 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it blames the farmers. The government is losing a grip on its own caucus. It should loosen its grip on western farmers.

It is hiding behind the board. It is a government that allows child pornographers to go free but jails farmers. It is a government that allows Hezbollah to operate in Canada but denies farmers the freedom to sell their own wheat. Today, farmers will be handcuffs because of the policies and decisions made by the Canadian Wheat Board and the minister.

For prairie farmers and their families, I ask one more time, why are they being locked up for doing what should be legal and is legal in the rest of Canada, selling their own product?

[Prairie Farmers, October 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to see that member make the choice, that lawyer make the choice of running in a rural riding in Saskatchewan.

The government chose to make it illegal for prairie farmers to market their own grain. The government chose to change the rules to ensure this was the case. The government chose to have a completely different set of rules for western Canada than for eastern Canada. The government also chose to charge these farmers.

Why is the government refusing to allow prairie farmers the same right to market their own grain that it gives to other Canadian producers?

[Prairie Farmers, October 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today some hardworking prairie farmers are going to prison. Why? Because they grew their own wheat on their own land, doing their own work, taking their own risks. Yet this government says they cannot market their own product. It is an industry that is going bankrupt yet the government puts farmers in jail for trying to make a living.

My question is very simple. Why is the government throwing farmers in jail for selling their own wheat?

[Points of Order, October 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend the outbreak of good cheer for a few more moments.

I am told that today is the 30th anniversary of the election of the class of 1972. As I look around the chamber, unless I am mistaken, there are only two survivors of that particular class. One is my House leader, the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, and the other is the outgoing leader of the federal Progressive Conservative Party. Both obviously have long and distinguished records. Although I think both had interludes in this, I nevertheless think all members of the House would like to congratulate them on their very long service and contribution to public life.

[Maurice Gaston Cloutier, October 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join with the Prime Minister in extending congratulations on behalf of all of us to our Sergeant-at-Arms for his 50 years of outstanding public service. He has been a fixture here since his appointment on April 27, 1978 and has fulfilled his duties and responsibilities with honour and integrity for more than 24 years.

It just made me realize that I have been around this Hill off and on for the past 20 years. I have served four times, so I have actually known Gus for a very long time. I certainly can say he has conducted himself with great dignity and retained the sense of humour necessary to survive in this place, not to mention wielding a pretty good mace from time to time.

It is worth noting that in our parliamentary history, dating back to 1867, we have been served by only eight sergeants-at-arm. The longest serving was the second, Henry Robert Smith who served for 26 years. Therefore it is our hope that Maurice Gaston Cloutier will serve for many more years and that at the end of his time at Sergeant-at-Arms he will set a record for the longest service for all time.

On behalf of the official opposition, I extend him our best wishes and hope for his continued success here and in his personal life.

[Economic Update, October 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in recent years, this government has increased spending for wasteful grants, for advertising contracts, for the hiring of an army of bureaucrats and for other dubious priorities.

Meanwhile, the provinces are struggling with increased spending for social priorities such as health.

What will the government do to correct this financial imbalance?

[Economic Update, October 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I was not going to compliment the government, but I will compliment the Prime Minister for having a finance minister with whom he can now work.

The government said yesterday that come hell or high water it would go it alone on the Kyoto accord. The government knows that without the consent of the provinces, the tools available to implement this accord are extremely limited. It can try to interfere in provincial jurisdiction or it can jack up energy taxes.

Since the finance minister did not roll out this possibility, I ask this question about this tax as well. Will the Prime Minister rule out carbon taxes? Will he rule out raising taxes on energy consumption?

[Economic Update, October 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of Finance released his economic update and confirmed once again how badly over taxed Canadians are. In fact, since the government balanced the budget, it has raised taxes by $24 billion. That is how much tax revenues have gone up. Yet yesterday in question period, the government refused to rule out further tax increases for health care.

My question is for the Prime Minister. With the government awash in tax revenues, why will the government not rule out further tax increases to pay for health care?

[Kyoto Protocol, October 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this party says we do not have to accept the Kyoto accord; we will do the made in Canada plan here. We will not accept this international obligation.

The government continues to talk about ratification of Kyoto with no implementation plan and now without even provincial consent for an implementation plan. The federal government, acting alone, has very limited options.

Will the Prime Minister admit to the House that for the federal government acting alone on Kyoto this will require major tax increases on energy consumption?

[Kyoto Protocol, October 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government did nothing for five years on the Kyoto accord. It can now take the time to do things right.

After five years the government has no clear targets, no specific actions, and no comprehensive set of cost estimates. This accord will also have an impact on provincial jurisdiction. Without a first ministers' conference there will be no provincial cooperation.

Can the Prime Minister explain to us, how can the federal government possibly implement the Kyoto accord without provincial consent and cooperation?