Joe Comuzzi

[Diabetes Awareness Month, November 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, November is Diabetes Awareness Month in Canada and I am sure I speak for every member of the House in thanking the thousands and thousands of volunteers who volunteer so much of their time to enhance the quality of life for all diabetics in Canada. I say a sincere thanks to all of them for the great work they do.

As members know, diabetes is a serious illness and it can cause, if left unattended, blindness, amputations, heart attacks and strokes. The only way we have now to control it is by following a good exercise program, a healthy diet rich in fruits and vegetables, maintaining a good body weight and getting an early diagnosis.

My colleagues and I congratulate the Canadian Diabetes Association for all the good work they do. We urge all those Canadians suffering from diabetes to follow the rules of diet, weight and exercise, and we guarantee that we will do everything within our power to find a cure for diabetes.

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, let me first compliment my colleague from Kenora—Rainy River. He has mentioned that he has been here for a short time, but he has done a tremendous job in that short period of time. He has been a very active member in our northern Ontario caucus.

As a result of being an active member and coming from an area where the forest industry is the aorta, the lifeblood, of all of northern Ontario, he took upon himself to start a caucus called the forestry caucus, embracing all the members of the House of Commons. He has been doing a marvellous job in trying to get into position to get this issue resolved.

An event has happened in the last four or five days that shows what Canada and the forest business in Canada is all about. Some of us in the House could have been as mean as some of the senators in the United States senate, like Senator Byrd and his Byrd amendment and Senator Baucus who always chastises Canadians for their role in the softwood lumber dispute. However, again Canada opened its arms at a time of distress to our friends in the United States. We never saw one piece of wood, one oriented strand board, one piece of plywood that was denied entry into the United States because our friends there needed it.

That shows the friendship Canadian citizens have for our colleagues in the United States. That is something that should never be forgotten in this dispute. They are our friends.

We do not have some friends and unfortunately we have not found a mechanism to reach those people in the United States senate where the trade disputes are being arbitrated. The administration, unfortunately, listens to some of the senators.

However, we should never lose sight of the fact that we are still the best trading partners with the United States. The citizens of the United States are the best friends, and sometimes very close family members, of the people in Canada. That in itself should prompt the United States senate to move quickly on throwing a signal to the President of the United States and his administration that this has to come to an end.

I know my colleague is in favour of a loan guarantee. He discussed it in his closing remarks. Could he explain to us again his position on a loan guarantee of 50% of what is being held by the Government of the United States to support the Canadian industry?

[Foreign Affairs, May 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I think I just answered that. We do not comment on specific cases of visa applications. It would not be fair to the applicant.

[Foreign Affairs, May 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, visas are very well reviewed at the time of application. In this particular instance the visa was denied.

Our visa officers are very competent and there is a certain discretion that they are allowed. If they in their judgment find that the visa application does not fit the criteria as set down by the regulations and by our guidelines, they have no alternative but to refuse.

[Treaties Act, May 18th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I do not mean to say this in jest to my hon. colleague, but we talk in such huge figures around here, billions for this and billions for that. I have to say that I have always respected the amounts of money, and $274,000 is a lot of money. I would hope that at the end of the day the federal contribution of $274,000 through this program will be made available. We will then have to negotiate with the province of Ontario to match that, because it is a cooperative program between the federal government and the provincial government.

As my colleague knows, as I talk to her on a regular basis on this issue and try to keep her abreast of the situation, sometimes the wheels of government grind slowly. I hope that this comes to a successful conclusion.

[Treaties Act, May 18th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, in answer to my colleague from Renfrew, let me first state that the federal government has never insisted that anyone undertake any water treatment programs.

I think, if she would refer to the letter that the mayor of Laurentian Hills sent to her, that was an onus put on communities within Ontario to upgrade their water treatment plants. The federal government was just a compliant partner coming in with the ability to finance through the Canada-Ontario infrastructure program, COIP, which made significant strides to improve the cost of municipal infrastructure across the whole of Ontario.

We have had over 500 projects under COIP representing a federal investment of almost $700 million. In one of the projects, as my colleague stated, we were a financial partner for $542,000. The investment provides incremental funds to augment provincial and municipal contributions to this project.

The Government of Canada has also supported several other projects in Laurentian Hills. It is indeed unfortunate, and I sympathize with my colleague, that the town of Laurentian Hills, when it went out for the bidding process experienced increases in the tender costs for this water treatment plant.

As she and I have discussed over several months, there are several programs within COIP that may not proceed. That will leave a surplus in the COIP account. We are trying to finalize what these projects are and if they are going to proceed. If they are not going to proceed, those funds that have been committed to COIP, and hopefully for Laurentian Hills, will come back and form part of the residue of the entire program. I sympathize with the member. Hopefully soon the program can be drawn to a conclusion. I think there is $700,000 or so. Hopefully we can make a substantial contribution.

On top of that, we do not do this exclusively on our own. There has to be an agreement between the Ontario and federal governments. I would hope that my colleague would also ask her colleagues in the provincial legislature to support this move if there are extra funds in the Canada-Ontario infrastructure program.

[Employment Insurance Act, April 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the accusation is, but I never left the chamber and I was in my seat when the vote was called.

[The Environment, February 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada-Ontario infrastructure program is coming to a close and while we complete these closures we are finding that some programs which had been funded will not be proceeding.

It is our intention at this time to take those funds and assist those communities that have experienced an overrun in their costing. I hope the hon. member and I can work together on Laurentian Hills and the 800 overage that the community is experiencing.

[Quarantine Act, February 9th, 2005]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-12, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 15 on page 3 with the following:

“professionnel de la santé qualifié à titre d'agent de”

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-12, in Clause 20, be amended by adding after line 7 on page 7 the following:

“(1.1) The health assessment shall be undertaken as soon as reasonably practicable but in any case within 48 hours after the quarantine officer requires the traveller to undergo it.”

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-12, in Clause 23, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 8 with the following:

“this right.”

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-12, in Clause 26, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 1 on page 9 with the following:

“ordonner de se soumettre à un traitement ou à toute autre mesure visant à prévenir”

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-12, in Clause 33.1, be amended by replacing line 12 on page 12 with the following:

“authority of any province concerned if”

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-12, in Clause 33.1, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 35 and 36 on page 12 with the following:

“d) la façon dont il aurait contracté la maladie transmissible ou serait devenu infesté”

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-12, in Clause 40.1, be amended by replacing lines 28 to 30 on page 15 with the following:

“40.1 No person is required”

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-12, in Clause 40.1, be amended by replacing lines 28 and 29 on page 15 with the following:

“40.1 No operator of the conveyance, employee of an owner of the conveyance or employee of any person using it for the”

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-12, in Clause 40.2, be amended by replacing line 37 on page 15 with the following:

“public health authority of any province con-”

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-12, in Clause 57, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 11 and 12 on page 22 with the following:

“f) la façon dont le voyageur aurait contracté la maladie transmissible ou serait devenu infesté”

[Canada Education Savings Act, December 3rd, 2004]

moved that Bill C-5, an act to provide financial assistance for post-secondary education savings, be read the third time and passed.