Chris Warkentin

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, October 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is that if people have jobs, which our government has been preoccupied with creating, they will not have to collect EI. We know that the system works such that as people draw down on the system, more needs to be put into the bank account. If people are pulling out EI payments, more has to be put in. That is a principle everyone understands.

The principle most Canadians do not understand is that hard-working workers put money into the EI fund when the Liberals were in control of the coffers, and the Liberals decided to just raid the fund. We know where some of the money went. It was the $40 million that is still missing after the sponsorship scandal. Quite frankly, if that money had not been raided, I am certain that we would not have seen the fluctuations in the rates we have had to see to ensure that there is enough money to offset the cost.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, October 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that the primary goal of the Navigable Waters Protection Act is to preserve navigation. It is to ensure that people who want to use the waterway to float down the river are able to do that.

Of course, a lot has changed since the act was first put in place. We are talking about quite an archaic piece of legislation. It was a time when people were using canoes to transport goods for commerce. That does not happen anymore. We have different types of shipping and different mechanisms to transport our goods and services. Therefore, that provision within the bill has certainly changed based on new modes of transportation.

In terms of environmental assessments, these provisions of the past continue. There is no change to the protection of the environment as a result of changing the definition of what it is to navigate a river.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, October 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to stand in this House to speak in favour of Bill C-45, which truly would bring jobs and opportunity to Canada.

Today, I stand in this House, proud to be a representative of the Peace country. I represent the riding of Peace River, which includes the better part of northwestern Alberta. In this area, we know the value of jobs, opportunity and growth. Over the last number of years, that is exactly what we have seen.

I have often said that I am proud to represent the Peace country. It is a beautiful place, but its beauty is only a small reason for me to be so proud. The larger reason for me to be so proud to represent that constituency, the constituency that is home, that is where I was born and grew up, is that the people who live in the Peace country are dedicated to growing a local economy and building a stronger future, not only for our community but for the country in general.

A couple of weeks ago, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business announced that Grande Prairie, which is the largest urban centre in the riding I represent and the largest city in the Peace country, was recognized as the most entrepreneurial city. That was not just for this year. That was for the third year running.

The people in the Peace country understand the value of jobs and growth. This bill speaks to so many of the issues people from my riding have indicated are priorities for them. That is why I am so proud to stand in this House to support this bill.

I am proud to represent and work for the people of my riding. I am also proud to represent and work for Canadians in general, from coast to coast.

Over the last couple of years, I have had the privilege of serving in two specific and different roles. The first was as a commissioner on the Red Tape Reduction Commission, which travelled this country and heard from small business leaders across Canada. They talked about the necessity of Canada leading in reducing red tape, because one of the biggest hindrances Canadian businesses face is government-created red tape.

The second role I am going to speak to, generally, is my role as the chair of the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Committee. I have served in this capacity since the last election, and I can tell members that it is truly a privilege. This budget has some important and good news for that role, as well.

I will speak, first, to my role as a commissioner on the Red Tape Reduction Commission.

I, along with six of my colleagues, seven MPs in total, as well as seven representatives from the private sector, made up this national commission.

For over a year and a half, we travelled the country of Canada, from one coast to the other, hearing from small business leaders who were concerned about so many things.

We know, and we knew going into this whole exercise, that Canadian small businesses, and businesses in general, have a huge burden when it comes to red tape. As a matter of fact, it is estimated that the cost of compliance with red tape created by government costs businesses across the country $30 billion on an annual basis. That is a huge amount of money. However, there is also the frustration and the missed opportunities businesses have when complying with unnecessary red tape when they could otherwise be growing their companies.

We heard a whole host of different concerns when it comes to the amount of paperwork government requires at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels, and, in some cases, the redundancy of that.

As we have seen, last year's budget began the process of dealing with some of the red tape irritants. Specifically, in the act we see before us today is an issue brought up on a regular basis when we travelled the country, namely, changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

We heard from small business owners across this country about the frustration as it relates to the construction industry and as it relates to industries that actually have to service and build bridges and waterway structures from coast to coast. From fishermen to people in the tourism industry to people in the forestry sector to people in the mining sector, we heard about the frustration as it relates to navigable waters.

I do not have to be a commissioner at the national level to know that this is an irritant. As a matter of fact, I have an example in my hand today. It was interesting that I heard a colleague from the NDP mention that she had never heard of anybody experiencing such frustration. I can say that on a regular basis I hear of business leaders and municipalities that have had major frustrations dealing with this outdated act.

Last year I received a letter from one of the largest forest products companies in my riding. It had an unfortunate circumstance when one of its temporary bridges was washed out. The forestry sector cannot rely solely on provincial and municipal roadways. It has to have an integrated roadway network constructed and owned by forestry companies, independent of government-owned infrastructure.

I will briefly read from the letter. It was as a result of the washout of a temporary bridge that had been in place. The forest company stated:

[It] has received all necessary approvals for the demolition and construction of a new bridge including approvals from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Alberta Environment and Water. Both agencies expedited their approvals

They ensured that all precautions were taken as they related to the environment and protection. It went on to explain the other things they oversaw.

What was clear was that what would be undertaken by the Navigable Waters Protection Act would simply be redundant. There had already been assurance that transportation on that river, which is not used for transportation, would not be impeded. What was interesting to me was that this company was proposing a bridge that would have less environmental impact, because it spanned the water from one coastline to the other without any disturbance of the banks. This bridge was going to be much taller, so it would limit less any traffic underneath it if, in fact, somebody wanted to canoe on what was a pretty small waterway. All of the things we would consider to be common sense had already been addressed by the company, yet there was an unnecessary delay.

Somebody in the House might ask who cares if there was a delay. Let me explain. I care. They described the bridge and its use. They stated:

The bridge is used to transport timber out of the forest. If the replacement is not in place for the remainder of the winter log-haul, the mill will not have enough timber for the coming year, resulting in catastrophic economic impacts on the company and the community.

I found out that there would be mass layoffs at one of the largest mills in the province of Alberta if this bridge was not replaced.

I can say that the changes to the navigation protection act are welcomed by industry, which creates jobs, opportunity and growth in my community, and also by municipalities that have had similar circumstances and frustrations, especially as they relate to responding quickly after infrastructure is damaged as a result of weather.

The second point I want to speak to is something important that has not been discussed in the House very often in this debate and unfortunately not at all by the opposition benches. It is the whole issue of the changes to the land designation for first nations lands.

In 1988, an amendment to the Indian Act was made to create the ability for first nations to have more control over their own land to create economic opportunity and prosperity for their communities. A couple of things are going to be changed as a result of the budget act in place today. The first is that we are going to create an environment in which the threshold for voting would be similar to that of a federal, provincial or municipal election. A simple majority would allow first nations to move forward with changes to the land designation. The second is that we are going to create less onerous and reduced red tape for first nations as it relates to getting government approval.

These are just two points. I would be happy to go further in answering questions on either of these or any other points.

[Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act, October 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise today to speak in support of this private member's bill brought forward by my friend and colleague from the Conservative Party.

The member who brought this forward is the right person to bring it forward. So far in this debate, he is the only one who has ever lived under the Indian Act. I and my colleagues from the other parties who have spoken do not know the life that is lived under the Indian Act like that member.

In fact, I did not agree with much that my friend from Nanaimo—Cowichan said in her speech today, but one quote she did give, which I fully agree with, was, “A bill wrote by indigenous people for indigenous people is the way to go”. That is exactly what we have happening in the House tonight. We have a bill that has been written by a person who has lived under this act, a bill that would rectify some of the most egregious portions of that act.

My colleague just recently suggested that my friend and colleague who brought the bill forward should be silent. I would suggest it is no longer appropriate for my friend to be silent. He has worked to become elected to the House of Commons. He has overcome the travesty that is this act and overcome past injustices to reach the House. He has every right to bring forward a private member's bill and to be heard in the House. I will defend every member's right to do the same thing, to bring legislation forward to change other legislation. I will continue to advocate for that right for my colleague.

Today we have before us this legislation. At the core of this proposed legislation is the acknowledgement that the Indian Act is holding first nations back from achieving their whole social and economic potential.

Bill C-428 is the Indian Act amendment and replacement act. It proposes a series of amendments to the Indian Act that will lead to healthier, more self-sufficient first nations across the country.

At the same time, the bill recognizes the change that must be made in a systematic and thoughtful manner that provides first nations with the tools and the time that they need to eventually transition completely out of the Indian Act. That is consistent with the government's approach, providing first nations with practical, incremental and real alternatives to the Indian Act.

I quote the Prime Minister's speech at the historical First Nations Gathering last January when he said:

The Indian Act cannot be replaced overnight, but through the use of existing tools and the development of new mechanisms, both parties can create the conditions to enable sustainable and successful First Nations.

The bill proposes concrete action that will provide greater autonomy for first nations, lessen the role of the ministerial involvement in the day-to-day lives of first nation citizens and give back the responsibility for several key areas, such as bylaw-making powers and the administration of wills and estates, to first nations where it rightfully belongs.

As my colleague as so appropriately described, quite simply, the bill proposes to do a number of things. First, it will require the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to report annually to a parliamentary committee on the action taken in partnership with first nations and other interested parties to develop new legislation to replace the Indian Act. Second, it will remove the minister's role in the administration of wills and estates and the approval in voiding wills. Third, it will remove the minister's bylaw disallowance powers. Fourth, it will remove many of the outdated and archaic provisions of the act. Finally, it will repeal all references to residential schools and the removal of the outdated schools-related provisions.

These changes are consistent with the direction that our government has taken over the last six years. It is focused on bringing forward initiatives that will unlock the economic development potential by removing certain barriers to first nation governance that currently exist under the Indian Act.

Ultimately, this would lead to the development of strong, accountable and prosperous first nation communities, where first nation citizens would have access to the same rights as other Canadians.

The proposed amendment to repeal all provisions relating to residential schools is particularly symbolic and important for first nations people.

On June 11, 2008, the Prime Minister of Canada, in this House, made an impassioned and heartfelt apology to the first nations people of Canada for the treatment of children in residential schools, a sad and shameful chapter of our nation's history. Following this momentous apology, the government also announced its intent to repeal these sections of the Indian Act that allowed for the establishment of Indian residential schools and the removal of children from their homes and communities.

I believe, by removing this antiquated language and references to residential schools, we could take another step further down the path toward healing.

The bill would contribute to the larger effort underway to create these tools and mechanisms.

The government is proud to support this private member's bill. I urge my hon. colleagues from the other side to reconsider their position, to speak to first nations people within their own communities, as I have, as my colleagues have who have heard the devastating stories and the hope they find in this bill.

The government looks forward to studying this bill in committee, hearing from witnesses and always exploring opportunities to improve the bill, as may be required.

[Entrepreneurs, October 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, for the third year running, the city of Grande Prairie has been named the most entrepreneurial city in the country by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

I am proud to represent the hard-working, innovative and forward-looking entrepreneurs who have led this country in building a thriving local economy that has created significant opportunity and prosperity.

Our community has been blessed with abundant natural resources and fertile land, but to carve opportunity out of the often challenging climate and remote location has demanded unceasing innovation, determination and vision.

Our local entrepreneurs embody the pioneering spirit that settled our region 100 years ago. Like the first pioneers, our local business owners are industrious, generous and committed to their families, neighbours, our community and our country.

On behalf of our Conservative government, I congratulate the business leaders from the Grande Prairie region for truly leading this country.

[Patent Act, October 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-398, An Act to amend the Patent Act (drugs for international humanitarian purposes), which aims to modify certain fundamental aspects of Canada's access to medicines regime.

I join many members of the House in viewing the regime as a key component of Canada's long-term, multi-faceted approach to addressing the serious public health problems that affect many low and middle-income countries. However, this is only one weapon in the arsenal Canada has put together to fight disease, to provide access to medicines and to improve health conditions in the developing world.

In addition to our access to medicines regime, Canada makes significant contributions to global mechanisms for the procurement of low-cost drugs to respond to the needs of the developing world. Canada continues to provide leadership in the global fight against diseases such as AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Canadians are proud to have invested more per capita than any other country, according to the global fund.

Our comprehensive approach combines prevention of the spread of disease in co-operation with international partners to increase the impact of our funding and lower delivery costs; leadership, through initiatives such as the Muskoka initiative, to improve the health of children and mothers; and innovation to provide the right climate for the development of new medicines and treatments. Our strong track record of support also includes being a founding donor to the global drug facility, being the single largest donor of first-line tuberculosis drugs and working with the Gates Foundation to advance the HIV vaccine.

We embrace the bill's laudable objectives of improving public health in the developing world. However, it would not accomplish this goal.

Independent experts have testified that it would not benefit those in need. It cannot change the fact that there is a demand for lower-cost generic drugs from emerging markets. For instance, India produces 80% of the antivirals funded by countries such as Canada for the developing world. The bill would eliminate many of the checks and balances that were built into the current regime to prevent misuse, which could harm researchers who have invested their energy and know-how into developing new life-saving drugs. The approach suggested in the bill would hold back continued pharmaceutical investment here in Canada and reduce the type of new and innovative therapies being brought to the Canadian market.

Finally, many of the bill's proposed changes are not in keeping with the spirit of the World Trade Organization decision on which Canada's access to medicines regime is based. This decision was designed to provide access to countries facing health emergencies but lacking the means of acquiring needed medicines. The intention of the decision was to remove patents viewed as a barrier to the supply of drugs needed to address public health issues in developing nations. The decision brought together divergent stakeholder views to come up with the appropriate response to public health issues in the developing world, while at the same time respecting intellectual property protections. It was viewed as just one part of the broader international strategy to combat diseases that impact the developing world, a strategy to which Canada has been a key contributor.

In the end, the decision achieved the unanimous support of all members of the World Trade Organization. The World Trade Organization decision ensures that patent rules do not preclude the manufacturing and exporting of cheaper generic copies of patented medicines to the developing countries facing public health emergencies. The international consensus was that it was important to have safeguards to guarantee that the system would only be used for humanitarian purposes and would not be used and diverted for unintended purposes.

Canada's access to medicines regime incorporated all the key elements required by the World Trade Organization decision. It provides a framework for countries to access less expensive generic versions of patented drugs. It also respects Canada's domestic intellectual property framework.

Why is a stable and predictable international intellectual property regime important in Canada?

Intellectual property protection provides incentives for companies to invest in research and development into new and innovative drugs and medical devices. This research and development benefits all Canadians by improving our knowledge, generating research infrastructure, creating more highly paid, skilled jobs in Canada and leading to innovations that will help people live longer, healthier and more productive lives.

The protection and promotion of patents and innovation in the domestic pharmaceutical sector is also key in achieving this government's international humanitarian objectives. The generic industry relies on its brand name competitors to innovate in order to have the products to copy and to sell here in Canada and abroad.

Bill C-398 would interfere with the balanced approach of Canada's access to medical regime and make Canada a less stable, less reliable and less welcoming place for those people who want to invest and innovate.

There are clear reasons to believe that the proposed amendments would be inconsistent with Canada's trade obligations and harm our relationship of trust with our international trading and research partners.

The provisions of the Canadian access to medicines regime were carefully considered, designed and implemented to comply with the World Trade Organization rules. The intention of these rules was to address serious health issues in low and middle-income countries and not to create a system of exporting an unlimited amount of medicines for any reason without the proper checks. These rules require that countries have to notify the World Trade Organization of their intention to use the system. Bill C-398 would remove this requirement and, along with other proposed changes, would alter the intended purpose of the regime. It would also remove the mandatory safety reviews by Health Canada that are currently required.

Canada's approach has a proven track record of improving access to treatment and health care delivery. Together, the global efforts that Canada supports are producing significant results. The supply of lower cost medicines has increased as has their ability to those in need. I will give one example. According to the World Health Organization, nearly eight million people living with HIV in low and middle-income countries are now receiving HIV antiviral treatment.

Our government continues to support an access to medicine regime with the proper checks and balances, that respects our international obligations and serves as one essential part of a comprehensive approach to improving health and fighting diseases in developing countries.

For those reasons, I urge all members of the House not to support Bill C-398.

[Aboriginal Affairs, October 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, for years, families in the north have demanded a better alternative to the old food mail program.

Our government responded to these calls by putting in place nutrition north Canada, which is focused on bringing healthier, more nutritious foods to the north at a lower price to consumers.

I wonder if the minister could update this House on whether families in the north have seen lower prices for food as a result of these changes.

[Foreign Affairs, October 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the brutal and repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad continues to show its disregard for human life following yesterday's attack across Turkey's border, which left five people dead, including a six-year-old child. Canada strongly condemns this attack and we offer sincere condolences to those affected.

As the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated yesterday, we continue to stand with Turkey and our other regional partners. The statement from NATO allies speaks for itself. Over the past year, our government has introduced some of the strongest sanctions on Syria in the world and we continue to call on all countries to bring pressure to bear on Syria for Assad to go. We will continue to work with our international partners to isolate this dangerous and murderous regime and to end the bloodshed of its own people and its neighbours.

The Syrian people deserve better than this illegitimate regime. Canada will continue to champion the freedom and human rights of all Syrians.

[Natural Resources, September 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, thanks to our economic action plan, we have the fastest growing economy in the G7. In fact, just today, Statistics Canada announced that retail sales rose in July, beating all forecasts.

However, the economic recovery remains fragile and cannot withstand the dangerous economic experiments proposed by the NDP.

I am wondering if the minister could please update this House as to how the imposition of a new tax could hurt Canadian families and the economic recovery.

[Business of Supply, September 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate you on your new post.

I am sitting here in some astonishment because when my colleague from this side, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, asked her question about the hon. member's plan to raise the GST, he avoided answering the question.

Then in answer to the next question, he actually said, I answer questions because I am a real leader. However, the answer that he gave made it very clear that he was going to go after industry in my province of Alberta and that he was going to pass on the cost to consumers. He was going to make our gasoline, our goods, all go up by implementing a carbon tax that would drive up costs to consumers across this country.

I represent a lot of young families and I can tell members that there is one thing that young families, senior citizens and people in low-income positions cannot handle, and that is a rise in the cost of everyday goods.

What he has planned has been articulated by himself and others. I would ask that he admit that if he were ever in power, he would raise the GST and raise the cost of goods and services for all Canadians through a carbon tax, which would devastate families across this great nation.