40th Parliament, 3rd Session

Edited Hansard • Number 002
Thursday, March 4, 2010

NOTE: This is an excerpt from Hansard, the official record of Parliament.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to enter into this take note debate.

Moments ago in question period, the opposition tried to make it impossible for me to ask a question of the justice minister, continually shouting me down. The opposition talks a lot about decorum and makes a big issue about democracy and the right to have their voices heard, and yet I had a difficult time speaking while they tried to silence me.

That leads directly into what I have to say in regard to this issue at hand. I rise today to help slay the mythological beast that nips at the heels of our government. Many Canadians have come to believe that once a party forms government the members of Parliament in that party no longer listen to the people they represent. Many believe that assuming power suddenly catapults an MP into such lofty heights that we cannot recognize and empathize with the needs of Canadians.

I can assure Canadians that nothing is further from the truth. Every MP on our side of the House has his or her finger squarely on the pulse of their constituents' needs and priorities.

This February I toured my riding of Yorkton-Melville from top to bottom. I visited with taxpayers in more than 40 villages, towns and cities. After many cups of coffee and hundreds of conversations with the people I represent, I was reminded, again, that their concerns are the same as mine.

I would like to thank everyone who took the time to come out to see me. It does help me represent my constituency here in Ottawa. I appreciate the effort they made to come and talk with me.

Although some concerns are regional in their nature, the single overriding priority that my constituents agree on is the need to maintain jobs and economic growth.

While Canada is on the road to recovery and the envy of many countries around the world, Canadians are not hoodwinked into believing that we are out of the woods just yet.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Kenora.

Canadians are realists. We are pragmatic about the future. We know that blind faith is not the route to economic stability. Growth is not something we can hope for. It is something that is engineered through strategic government planning. It also happens to be something that the current government has been doing very well.

This government predicted the economic storm long before those dark clouds appeared, and as a result Canadians have enjoyed a relatively soft landing from the global recession. As we know, there is a price to pay for that soft landing but it would have been so much tougher if the landscape was littered with the bodies of widespread bankruptcies and increased poverty.

We readily admit that Canada did not emerge completely unscathed from the international economic malaise, but most industrialized countries are in awe of our success. That success is due in no small part to Canada's economic action plan. That action plan is the difference between Canada and the countries that were hammered by the recession. That action plan is the difference between the policies of our government and the other parties in this place.

The action plan is the difference between Canadians who have jobs to go to and those who have been cast aside by our political adversaries. The good news is that Canada's economic action plan remains in place to strive for job stability and economic growth. We have the toolkit to bring this economic downturn to its knees.

Who could possibly suggest that the 12,000 stimulus projects underway across Canada do not affect job stability? Simply arithmetic will reveal that Canadians are working because this government helped keep them working, and it was meaningful work that improved Canada's infrastructure, recreation facilities, airports, commercial buildings and private residences.

Too often government job creation is a paternalistic exercise where paid workers dig holes and fill them in again. Our government had the vision to make meaningful employment opportunities work for everyone. Canada needs to continue building itself and the builders need Canada as a customer.

When I was travelling through my riding during February, I was reminded that the people of the prairies pull no punches. They have concerns over old age pensions. They have concerns about the Canadian Wheat Board, concerns about cattle prices, concerns about the environment, concerns about developing our natural resources, a lot of concerns about crime and punishment, and many other issues.

One of the things that came up time after time was the gun registry, which is something that I have tracked for a long time. They asked me why the other parties are trying to throw sand in the gears. They asked me why they are trying at committee now to seek to do what they can to counter what the will of the House decided at second reading.

While some of these concerns are unique to the prairie provinces, I believe that my riding is anything but an isolated microcosm. I believe that the concerned Canadians in Yorkton--Melville constituency speak for their ilk from the Maritimes to the Rockies.

All Canadians know that meaningful employment and economic growth are the pillars that everything else is built on. Economic stability underpins the route to health and happiness. It dictates our quality of life. As members can see, I am drawing a straight line between Canada's economic action plan and the ongoing quality of life we enjoy in this country.

In listening to opposition criticism of our action plan over recent months, it appears increasing clear that if their parties populated the PMO they would be sitting firmly on their hands.

They do not support the government's stimulus projects. They do not support our job protection strategies. They do not support our laser-like targeting of economic woes that have been threatening the treasuries of every country in the world. One can only wonder what the other parties' response would have been, and one can shudder at the prospect.

It is no coincidence that opposition parties have managed to bray their disapproval when the cameras are turned on, and then just wring their hands in the private bowels of their meeting rooms.

They have announced no alternatives. They have announced no practical action. They have announced no solutions. Are they reticent to leak their sterling policy concepts for fear this government will steal them?

Alas, the opposition parties are floating side by side in a policy vacuum when Canadians need political creativity the most. They will no doubt toss their bricks into the government benches mere seconds after I sit down, but their own houses are made of micro-thin glass.

Contrary to the egos of many in the opposition, they have nothing to teach us about economic growth, and have much to learn. They may wish to start by digesting the salient points in Canada's economic action plan. They will likely be enlightened and privately delighted by what they see.

Mr. Speaker, we are proud of our RInC program. I did not mention it specifically but it is one of those projects that really stimulated the economy. I did not hear of a single community that objected to the fact that we gave it funds that it would not have been able to access otherwise.

On the second issue that my colleague raised, and I presume he is talking about the bill that I had to scrap the firearms registry, that has passed through second reading with the help of my hon. colleague from Portage-Lisgar. Because the opposition would not agree to any amendments, she has taken it through second reading in the House. I thank those opposition members who sided with us and who know that the firearms registry is a complete waste of money. There is some common sense over there.

My colleague asked where it is. It is going to be going to the public safety committee. I hope that we will be able to hear witnesses on both sides of the issue and then I hope that the bill will be referred to the House.

Some on the opposition side have signalled that they would like to gut the bill and not send it back to the House in the same way it is presently constructed. That would be unfortunate seeing as the House already dealt with that issue. It is a simple issue. There is nothing complicated about it. It would then go to third reading in the House and then the usual procedure.

* * * * *