Archive for July, 2005

One of the general inquiries that I’ve had over the last year is: What can an MP do for me? If I have a problem with the federal government, can he “fix it” for me? The answer to the question does depend on the problem. However, there are some general guidelines.

First of all, it usually has to be within the jurisdiction of the federal government. While I’d like to help people with their SGI problems, drug plan problems and property tax questions, these issues do not fall under the control of the federal government. MLAs or municipal officials are better equipped to deal with these types of concerns. Unemployment insurance, federal pensions, CAIS and immigration tend to be more the type of programs that my office is best equipped to handle.

If you don’t know if an issue is federal or provincial, call my office and we’ll direct you to the help you need. My staff often acts as a liaison between constituents and provincial (and local) officials.

The second thing to remember is that I can’t break the rules for a constituent. Regardless of how it is sometimes portrayed on TV, no politician has the power to just make things happen by personal whim. What my office can do is ensure that you are treated fairly, according to both the letter and the spirit of the law.

We can also make sure that your case doesn’t get lost in the bureaucracy. The first case file I worked on after the election was a simple matter of some employment insurance forms getting misplaced. Since I had no staff at the time, I called the department myself. The government workers were very surprised to have an MP call personally. They solved the problem immediately.

All in all, an MP can’t work miracles. But you deserve to be treated fairly. I’m your advocate. I’ll always do my best for you.

I’m Brad Trost your Member of Parliament. Write or call my offices to express your views, or if you need our assistance in any way.

It has been a long time coming, but the U.S. border is open once again to truckloads of Canadian cattle. This is great news for Saskatchewan livestock producers and the thousands of people across Canada employed in agriculture and the food industry. I have written up a summary of the situation and what the Conservative Party plans to do if Montana District Court Judge Richard Cebull announces another court date to re-consider the safety of Canadian cattle and meat products.

Judge Cebull postponed indefinitely a July 27th court hearing that may have re-instituted an American ban on Canadian cattle exports. In fact, Judge Cebull stated that he may cancel the hearing, where he was supposed to consider the merits of a permanent injunction against imports of cattle from Canada. This permanent injunction against Canadian cattle imports was proposed by R-CALF, the protectionist ranchers’ group that derailed the USDA’s plans to reopen the border in March. At the time, R-CALF persuaded Judge Cebull that Canadian cattle had a high risk of BSE. However, now that a higher court has reversed Judge Cebull’s injunction, the U.S. border should remain open to Canadian cattle exports far into the future.

Since Judge Cebull has said that he may cancel the July 27th court hearing altogether, Conservative MPs and Senators have postponed their trip to Montana to attend the hearing. However, if Judge Cebull does go ahead with a hearing to consider R-CALF’s request for a permanent injunction, it will be the Conservative Party defending the interests of Canadian livestock producers in a Montana courtroom. Unfortunately, the Liberals refused to allow the Government of Canada to have official standing in Montana, something that the federal government should have done for Canadian livestock producers in the first place.

I’m Brad Trost, your Member of Parliament. Write or call my offices to express your views, or if you need our assistance in any way.

With summer here and the House of Commons in recess I’ve decided to deal with some more easy going topics and leave off the heavy policy stuff in the column at least for this week. So here are some odds and ends.

Have you ever watched the House of Commons and seen some young people dressed in black hurrying back and forth? These are the Pages of the House of Commons and they make sure that the House operates smoothly. They run messages for MPs, help to move the paperwork for petitions and bills, and get things (water, small lecterns etc.) for the MPs speaking. In exchange for their hard work they get to see the political process up close. (They do get paid too.)

So how do you become a Page? Who is eligible? And what does it take?

Pages are university students at the Universities of Ottawa or Carleton, and they must be bilingual to at least an intermediate level. (I’m no expert in French, but the Pages tell me fluency is not a major requirement.) This doesn’t exclude university students from across Canada as students accepted from across the country frequently transfer to the Ottawa Universities for only the year that they work as Pages. In fact each year one or two of the pages are from Saskatchewan.

So if you or someone you know is interested in becoming a House of Commons page in the future, have them contact my office. We’ll give them a hand in applying for the position. It’s a great learning experience for anyone who is interested in how government really works.

I’m Brad Trost, your Member of Parliament. Write or call my offices to express your views, or if you need our assistance in any way.

Someone asked me the other day to explain what was going on with the government’s “childcare strategy”. There seemed to be a bit of fuss about the idea in the news, however nothing substantive seemed to be coming out. So I thought a little explanation might be helpful.

The federal government has announced plans to spend $5 billion dollars over the next 5 years to set up a government controlled day-care system. Agreements have to be signed with provinces to push forward the plan. Sounds great doesn’t it, the government helping out with the kids? What could possibly be wrong with the plan?

Well there are a few objections I have. First, the plan only will help families that work regular shifts in larger centers. Even with all the money that the government is throwing at the program rural Canada will be ignored, the rural population is too spread out. Also shift workers will be out of luck. Oh, and stay at home parents, or families that have the children looked after by Grandma, or the neighbors, or a non-government controlled centre they won’t qualify either. All in all not many people will qualify for the plan.

Secondly, there’s the real cost. In the House of Commons some government members have admitted that the real cost could be around $15 billion/year. Considering what it has cost to look after Canada’s long gun registry, I wouldn’t be surprised if the cost was actually more. Children are much more expensive than a few shotguns and rifles.

I don’t want to sound too negative. I’m sure the people in charge of the Childcare Strategy have good intentions. However, the best of intentions and the taxpayer’s money can often lead to real problems.

I’m Brad Trost, your Member of Parliament. I welcome your feedback and suggestions. Please write or call my offices.

If there is one issue that my office has received an avalanche of mail on, it has been the debate about marriage. Since the legislation legalizing “gay marriage” has now passed the House of Commons, I though I’d give everyone a brief overview of how the debate went in the House.

The debate in the House of Commons on this issue was cut short by the government bringing in closure, essentially limits on who was and was not allowed to speak to the legislation. This was disappointing for two reasons:

First, MPs should be allowed to put their own views and the views of their constituents forth in the debate. All Canadians should have been allowed to have their representatives explain their vote on the matter.

Secondly, the debate between MPs was much wider and more in-depth than the media coverage allowed. The variety and depth of reasons to vote against the bill were considerable. Sociological, anthropological, and evolutionary reasons were invoked against the bill. Appeals were made to logic, natural law, and world history. All of these arguments revealed that the issue is more complex than is often suggested. The legislation profoundly impacts all Canadians.

So what will happen now, once the bill passes the Senate? Well, MPs opposed to the bill (including myself) will continue to work to preserve traditional marriage. If a Conservative government is elected, pro-marriage MPs will overturn the legislation and return traditional marriage. However, even if the legislation still stands, the country will still have to revisit this matter. This is because in the rush to push through the bill not all the details were thought through, so amendments will have to be made some day.

I’m Brad Trost, your Member of Parliament. I welcome your feedback and suggestions. Write or call my offices.