Civil Marriage Act  , is the real Canadian way. The Canadian way is not the blindly, ideological interpretation of the charter put forward by the Prime Minister. It is not a case where one side utterly vanquishes the other in a difficult debate on social issues. It is a constructive way, and as debate in other

Department of International Trade Act  , the critic for our party said, what is this all about? It has to serve people. If it does not benefit the average Canadian, there is no point in this whole exercise. It is not an academic process. The lives of real Canadians are on the line in terms of needing to benefit and increase

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply   for over a decade. It is talking daily about the importance of dealing with real Canadian issues. Last night I sat in the House and the other side was empty. We had many people on our side of the House listening to the very important dialogue and debate that was presented on the crisis

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply   what real Canadians are experiencing. I think the lack of action is just devastating. As I said when I began my remarks, they are making a belly flop. The people who need to have farm programs that work and who need to have government programs that work are not getting them. I think

Government Contracts   in advertising contracts, $40 million in sponsorship money and untold millions to friends for consultation and polling, all charged to real Canadian taxpayers. Will the Prime Minister stand up and admit that he was a major part of that problem?

Address in Reply   that are dealing with these issues. All the issues that we deal with on a daily basis have an incredible impact on one sector of the Canadian economy and they impact real Canadians. The Speech from the Throne is a broad brush, as I said, of finding our compass, our true north, rather than

Budget Implementation Act, 2003  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her intervention. I point out that the government has in the budget dealt with families, communities and with real Canadians. We have done it in a way which is fiscally responsible. We have no deficit again, with a balanced budget or better

Kyoto Protocol   deficiencies, and it does not advance either of these objectives. We oppose the Kyoto protocol and, instead, advocate the adoption, together with the provinces, of real Canadian policies to meet our environmental objectives. In discussing Kyoto today, I have to point out, first

Kyoto Protocol   credits. Even taking into account the benefits to the conservation and renewable energy sectors, the cost would be well over $1,000 per man, woman and child in the country. These are not just simple numbers; they are actual lives of real Canadians that the Prime Minister is playing

Kyoto Protocol  . That is what the Kyoto accord is all about. That is what the government refuses to talk about. It refuses to put a cost on it. It refuses to talk about implementation. This is where the rubber hits the road. This is where real Canadians are at. This is where the costs are going to be, so

Kyoto Protocol   time to move beyond the issue of Kyoto, yes or no. It's time to move on to the issue of whether we can have a real Canadian plan that's going to have a substantive response in terms of greenhouse gases”. That is a question. He is saying that he wants to see the plan and how how

Housing Bill of Rights   that the need for an independent agency may finally come to fruition because the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada has worked for that for a long time. In some ways it is such a sad irony because co-ops are a real Canadian success story. They were started in Canada

Supply   policies which have damaged our relationship with the United States. The government has consistently put the ideological agenda of the Prime Minister and other Liberal ministers ahead of real Canadian interests. Let me refer to just a few examples. In 1998-99 Canada pushed for a review

Supply   was the critic. We stood in the House day after day and hammered home the issues of our constituents. I never intended to make it sound like I represented real Canadians and other members represented false Canadians. We all represent real Canadians. There is just a different kind

Supply   of the Alliance that reiterated the exact policy that we have been following? The member said that her constituents were real Canadians and that she supported them. My constituents are certainly real Canadians, as are yours, Madam Speaker, as are all Canadians real Canadians. I would like