Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask that you seek consent to see the clock at 1:30 p.m. so that we may begin private members' business.
Lost his last election, in 2004, with 33% of the vote.
Citizenship of Canada Act November 8th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask that you seek consent to see the clock at 1:30 p.m. so that we may begin private members' business.
Presence in Gallery November 5th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In light of the fact that issue of committee chairs has gripped the collective psyche of Canadians and inherent in this motion is the underlying premise that secrecy seems to be a hallmark of democracy, I propose that you seek the consent of the House to clear the galleries, turn off the cameras and let this recorded division take place by secret ballot under the shroud of this new democracy and completely out of the view of Canadians.
Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2002 November 1st, 2002
Madam Speaker, pursuant to consultations, I believe if you sought it you would find consent to see the clock at 2.30 p.m.
Committees of the House November 1st, 2002
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the selection of votable items in accordance with Standing Order 92.
Questions on the Order Paper October 28th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Government Response to Petitions October 28th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 20 petitions.
Lobbyists Registration Act October 25th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe you would find unanimous consent to see the clock as 2:30 p.m.
Resumption of debate on Address in Reply October 11th, 2002
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place among all parties and I believe you would find consent for the following order:
That at the conclusion of today's debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, all necessary questions to dispose of the main motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to Tuesday, October 22, 2002 at 3 p.m.
Nuclear Safety and Control Act October 10th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the NDP member and point out that through his mannerisms he does not seem to be as sore as I am after playing soccer last night against the EU diplomats. Perhaps he is younger.
The member did make a very interesting point. In the early stages of Parliament it is sometimes tough to be as informed on these issues as possible, so I will stick to the concepts because he has hit on a few things that I have to agree with. I will preface this with a very short story.
A number of years ago I bought a commercial property in a small town in Ontario. On the day the deal was supposed to close, I got an emergency call from my banker who said that because there was a gas station six properties away from mine, which might leak gas, the liability originally assessed on my property and which set the interest rate would change. I looked at my watch, thinking that the deal would close in an hour and all of a sudden the bank was concerned about potential liability, as it should have been.
One of the things that we have to ensure we work toward incorporating into our free market is the assumption of the full cost. The price of things should take into consideration the cost of things, and one of those costs is waste streams. If we look at the problems we have with pollution, that is because pollution pays. It is good business to pollute because in most cases people get away with it. They do not incur any cost. Companies that take on these responsibilities because they have a higher moral standard find they are getting the crap kicked out of them with the price of their goods and services. So good regulation is important.
On the surface this bill concerns me. As the member rightly pointed out, solar power, investments in research and development, and wind power should benefit from the fact that they do not have this potential liability.
If we remove the risk for the lenders, let us not kid ourselves: If there is a problem we know who will pay. It will be the people we represent. I am interested in the member's comments on how the notion of full costing might be impaired, if I am interpreting correctly the changes to the legislation being proposed here today.
Main Estimates, 2002-03 June 6th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the member on his speech. I think he is the first speaker tonight who we could listen to and not have to go to the order paper to check on what we were talking about. He made some very interesting points.
I want to mention a couple of things. He talked about his concern, and I think everyone would share his concern, about the politicization of the Clerk of the Privy Council.
I want to point out that the Clerk of the Privy Council provides advice to the Prime Minister on the machinery of government. That function includes orders in council when there are changes in ministers. The notion that because the Clerk of the Privy Council was somehow involved in the cabinet shuffle he is becoming political, is not entirely accurate in terms of the traditional role the Clerk of the Privy Council has undertaken. I do not think that is a strong enough argument to get at least myself to admit that we have crossed that line. However, the concern is valid. As are many of the concerns the member has raised.
I want to focus in on his comments on election financing. I am an MP who is fortunate enough to represent an area that is on the border. There are a number of issues where I must deal directly with my political counterpart in the United States. I have had a couple of very interesting discussions about the role that money plays in the electoral system there.
The congressman across the river from me, who represents roughly a similar geographical area, has three people on his staff who do nothing but raise money. We are talking about millions of dollars that have to go into war chests, which, incidentally, they can keep when they retire, which is a strange quirk of election law.
A couple of things concern me about the direction in which we are going now. In Ontario, where they mirror the federal ridings, they have increased the amount a candidate can spend in an election in my riding from roughly $70,000 to over $100,000. That takes participation in this process away from people who do not have access to that kind of cash. I echo the member's sentiments and would be interested in hearing his views on how election financing reform could work at the constituents' level.
The other thing that concerns me, and this is an issue in which the Leader of the Opposition is directly involved, is the court case that is trying to appeal the aspects of electoral law that limit third party spending.
We changed the Elections Act. It says that special interest groups cannot spend unlimited amounts of money at election time because the candidate then would have to counter that and that would just drive up the cost. It is certainly a concept that I support and I would be interested in the member's view on that specific topic.