House of Commons Hansard #12 of the 40th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was leader.

Topics

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kitchener Centre.

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise to implore the House to support the motion taking note of the economic and fiscal statement. In doing so, I acknowledge that the statement does not identify the details of every stimulus expenditure planned, it does not identify every specific stimulus infrastructure project, and it does not identify the limits of new unplanned stimulus spending.

I ask the members of the House to recognize that none of that should be expected in an economic and fiscal statement for two reason. The first is obvious. An economic and fiscal statement is not a budget.

Many of the details that I have heard some members request will be available in the budget to be presented probably on January 27, a short seven weeks after we complete this debate. In this respect the statement is similar to the Speech from the Throne.

I listened as members opposite criticized the throne speech for lacking details. Then the House approved it anyway, recognizing that it was intended to provide direction with details to follow in legislation.

In the same way, we should take note of the economic and fiscal statement, recognizing that it provides the direction we need with details to follow in the budget.

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Order. I apologize to the hon. member for Kitchener Centre. The hon. member for Timmins--James Bay is rising on a point of order.

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, I did not want to interrupt my hon. colleague, but it does sound to me more like a political speech. I would rather just hear the motion and move on. We have obviously been debating this in public. I do not think we need to have this time for introducing motions be turned into a platform for him to start a debate.

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I hope that misunderstanding has been cleared up. We will resume debate.

The hon. member for Kitchener Centre.

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am gratified that my remarks at least sound like a speech. That is what they were intended to do and I thank my friend for that.

The second point I want to make is that the statement is an evolution of a plan that our government began with an update a year ago. If there are no surprises, it is because we are already pursuing appropriate measures. If there are no flashy new proposals, it is because the plans we have already made in the last year are coming to fruition. If there are no panicky new responses, it is because we have laid out solid preparedness and panic is unnecessary.

Instead of criticizing the government for failing to introduce new measures for 2009, the members of this House should praise the government for having already put in motion stimulus measures for 2009. For example, as a result of the government's stimulus plan, Canadians and businesses will pay $31 billion less in taxes in the coming fiscal year alone. This is almost 2% of our gross domestic product. It is a larger percentage of GDP than anything that has been implemented by our neighbour to the south. Even president-elect Obama is only proposing a temporary 1.1% economic stimulus in 2009. In the U.S., Japan, Germany, France, the U.K., Italy and Australia, none of them have proposed anywhere near the 2% of GDP stimulus that our government has arranged.

Some of our tax reductions were planned to come into effect only in 2009 for staged stimulus. These include raising the amount every individual can earn without paying federal income tax from $9,600 in 2008 to $10,100 in 2009. Also, effective January 1, 2009, Canadians will be able to benefit from the tax-free savings account, a flexible, general purpose account that will encourage investment. Corporations will also benefit from a reduction in the general corporate income tax rate, which will fall from 19.5% to 19% on January 1, 2009 and will fall further to 15% by 2012.

As another example of fiscal stimulus already planned, available federal funding for infrastructure projects rose by 40% this year and will rise by another 40% next year, hitting a record of $6 billion in that year alone. This is double the amount spent in 2007-08.

These measures provide permanent, sustainable, structural fiscal stimulus, unlike the temporary stimulus measures taken by some other countries. Taken together, these tax reductions and infrastructure investments represent a substantial fiscal stimulus.

The government could have waited. It could have held off any increase in this past year and not planned ahead for any increase in the next year, and then the government could have announced in this fiscal and economic statement the whole doubling of infrastructure spending, some $10.5 billion in one year, but while that might have satisfied the thirst of some for sensationalist measures, it would have done no more for the economy than planning ahead has already done.

It is not a coincidence that the U.S. has just determined it has been in a recession for over a year, whereas Canada is only now reaching that point. Does anyone in this House believe that it is just good luck that our success has been noticed around the world? Ordinary Canadians know that it is because of the hard work our government has done.

I understand that some in the media do not like old news. It is natural that newspeople want to report new initiatives, but do some members of this House really believe their own rhetoric? Can they really close their eyes and wish away the 2008 and 2009 stimulus measures the government has already put in place?

It is as if critics are saying, “We know that you've planned ahead. We know that you've had the foresight to arrange in advance all this stimulus. We know that, as a result, our economy has already been buoyed by that and will continue to benefit next year, but we don't care”. It is as if critics are saying, “Because you didn't wait until now, we are going to ignore the fact that you've already dealt with the problem”.

It is a bit like someone giving his or her spouse a birthday present a month before the birthday because the person knows how much the spouse needs that present, only to be criticized for not having a second present ready when the birthday arrives. How unfair is that?

As it is, with the stimulus plan in place since last year, the Prime Minister has been able to meet with other first ministers already and work with them to identify by next month, just a few short weeks from now, specific infrastructure projects. He has secured their commitment to tackle barriers to these specific projects. This is really amazing planning and foresight. This is careful, considered planning and foresight that was set out in the throne speech already approved by the House. This is planning and foresight that Canada needs most in uncertain economic times.

Consider the alternatives. If this economic and fiscal statement does not pass, what will happen to our government's carefully laid plans? Will these plans simply be abandoned by whatever government emerges? Will the implementation of these measures at the very least be delayed while a new government scrambles to forage a new consensus? Or will the country be plunged into yet another election mere weeks after the government's carefully laid plans received the support of the largest number of Canadians of any party in the last election?

Every one of these alternatives would inflict further damage upon our economy. The fact that we are even forced to ask these questions means that the members of this House have foisted a higher level of uncertainty and anxiety upon our nation. This is an entirely unnecessary and damaging thing to do to the economy and to our fellow Canadians.

Also, if this statement is defeated, the many needed fiscal measures it proposes will be lost or at least delayed. RRIF withdrawal relief for seniors will be lost or delayed. The $1.5 billion increased credit capacity for Canada's export sector, most notably in auto-related and other manufacturing, will be lost or delayed. An increased borrowing limit to protect insured depositors will be lost or delayed.

The $1.5 billion of increased credit and loan guarantees for small and medium-sized companies will be lost or delayed. Eliminating tariffs on imported machinery and equipment to encourage capital investment and increased efficiency will be lost or delayed. I could go on. These measures and others in the statement are all measures the House should neither abandon nor delay.

What will happen if we do take note of this economic and fiscal statement? Will the sky fall in? Of course not. First, all of its beneficial measures will proceed immediately. Second, the work of detailed budget planning will be allowed to proceed unhindered. First ministers will identify priority infrastructure projects by next month. Finance ministers from across the country will be consulted in a week or two. The usual prebudget consultations with stakeholders will occur.

Third, several important new pieces will fall into place to complete the picture. Economic variables have been changing with lightning speed. Remember that long ago era when gasoline prices were hitting $1.35 per litre? That was just six short weeks ago. Within a week or two we will receive the detailed funding plan that the government has prudently insisted upon from the automotive sector, which affects 10% of our economy. Within a few short weeks the Americans will decide both their economic plan for auto sector and their broader stimulus package.

Because so much of our economic ills are made in the U.S.A., our largest trading partner, its medicine will have a beneficial effect on our economy too. Is it not simple prudence to have this information before finalizing our budget?

Finally, there is some merit to keeping some of our powder dry. If this economic downturn is prolonged, we will be ill-served by using all of our fiscal ammunition now at the outset.

We must also remember that if the waters we are in really are uncharted, they may turn out to be less dangerous than everyone fears. Let us act accordingly.

I am glad the government has withdrawn parts of the statement that the opposition found wanting. This demonstrates a willingness to work together with the opposition, and I sincerely hope this will encourage a mutual effort.

In passing, however, I want to take strong issue with those who describe this flexibility as a sign of weakness or a sign of lack of credibility. In fact, the ability to change course is a sign of strength. My admiration for our Prime Minister has only deepened from this and has never been greater.

If we are to mature in our deliberations, we have to learn to consider the ability to compromise, as our Prime Minister is doing, to be a virtue. It is not too late for my Liberal friends across the aisle to embrace their own strength and to draw back to a compromise also.

I am glad our government has shown flexibility in withdrawing its proposal to eliminate the subsidy to political parties. This demonstrates a willingness to work together with the opposition, and I hope this will encourage a mutual effort.

In passing, however, I want to take strong issue with those who describe eliminating the subsidy as undemocratic. In fact, the subsidy itself is an attack on democracy.

Democracy should be a level playing field where all citizens have equal opportunity to make themselves heard politically. State-funded parties are more associated with totalitarian dictatorships than with democracies.

A subsidy to any party discriminates against those citizens struggling to compete without a similar subsidy and it is therefore elitist and undemocratic. Replacing corporate and union subsidies with government subsidies simply replaces one anti-democratic elitism with another.

I hope the day will come when all Canadian political parties will rise or fall based solely upon their support among citizens and not upon unequal government subsidies.

Democracy also works best when elected parties deliver, as nearly as possible, the leader and the policies they promised to voters. A vote for a party or a candidate is the voter's consent to that party or candidate's policies and leaders. Violating that consent in any significant way is a violation of democracy.

No Liberal supporter voted for a government that would include a coalition with separatists. No NDP supporter voted for a government that would sign an agreement with a separatist coalition. I do not think a single voter in my riding of Kitchener Centre voted for any government that could be held hostage by a veto of a party that insists Canada does not work and that has no interest in making Canada work.

I have had many friends who once supported the Liberal Party. I can only imagine how they feel about a once strong federalist party being reduced to begging the permission of the separatists to govern. We all know the agenda of the separatists has nothing to do with the economic survival of Canada. The separatists will not even enter this chamber until after we finish singing O Canada.

Many Liberal voters would never have given their consent to this. No party in Canada today obtained the consent of any Canadian to abdicate to the leader of another party. No party in Canada today obtained the consent of any Canadian to govern in a coalition. This would be a government for which no one voted. It would be a government that simply usurped power.

No circumstances in Canada today are so extreme as to justify such a violation of voters' consent. This is a bad time to experiment precipitously with new and uncertain measures.

These are not just my views. Canadians all across our great land are appalled by what the Liberals and the NDP have done in the House. To quote my citizens own Waterloo region Record:

The entire coalition will be propped up by the Bloc Quebecois, a party dedicated to destroying Canada. For the proposed 2 1/2-year life of this experiment, this would-be nation killer gets a veto over every single act of government. Ordinary Canadians helplessly watching all this can have no faith that the Bloc will give a damn about them or Canada's well-being.

These are not my words. These are the words of the people in my riding of Kitchener Centre. A deal signed with the separatists can only be bad for Canada. To quote again:

As sincere as the NDP's beliefs may be, their reflexive vilification of business as well as their ingrained penchant for heavy government spending could be disastrous in a recession.

These are not my words. These are not the words of a Conservative leaning newspaper, believe me. These are the views of people in my riding of Kitchener Centre.

The Liberals themselves said during the election that we could not have a coalition with a party, the NDP, whose platform is bad for the economy.

Another quote is:

In its hour of need, Canada is being asked to make do with a guy whose expiry date is set for May. This will hardly bolster the trust of Canadians—or investors both foreign and domestic looking for a safe place to park their cash.

These are not my words. These are the convictions of people in my riding of Kitchener Centre. If the opposition wants to do this, it should have the integrity to take the deal to the voters. However, the better course for ordinary Canadians and the better course for Canada is to let our government govern with the strengthened mandate it gained in the last election.

In a letter to the editor, one of my constituents, Sherri Helmka, put it very succinctly when she said the following, “My message is to all politicians in this country: Put your differences aside and deal with the future uncertainty facing all candidates. In other words, do your job!”.

We can do that by taking note of the fiscal and economic statement as an outline of direction and by waiting a short seven weeks or so from the conclusion of this debate for the government to propose its detailed budget.

Despite the events of this past week, I again invite each member opposite to walk this path through the forest of economic peril with common focus on the needs of ordinary Canadians. It is not too late.

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge this was the member's maiden speech. I congratulate him at least on the form, if not the content.

I want to ask the member a few questions.

First, would he not acknowledge that the subject matter of the debate is not the reference to separatism? I acknowledge that the Conservative Party and government may be looking at desperate times and maybe this is the time for desperate measures on their part, but the subject matter we are looking at is the economy and Canadians, and the member has addressed that.

However, will he not acknowledge that the economic statement last week did not, in and of itself, address that, and that any big, major economic plan to address the financial tsunami now approaching Canadians is off in the future, in 2009 some time without any commitments from the government?

Will he not also acknowledged that this place is about Parliament and Parliament will decide who governs?

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the member remembers me from 20 years ago, but I remember him with fondness and appreciation. I am glad to have this opportunity to speak with him across the floor of the House, and I thank him for his kind comments to me.

As to the first part of his question about what this debate is really about, I do not think I can do any better than to once again quote from the Waterloo region Record. It states:

At this critical moment in its history, Canada needs a strong, stable government with inspiring leadership that does the right thing. Whatever the Conservatives' failings, it is hard to see the Liberal-NDP, Bloc-sanctioned coalition delivering these essentials.

We need the government's plan.

As to the issue of economic stimulus, in my speech I already referred to a number of matters that were in the statement, which I think—

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi.

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Bloc

Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to denounce the contemptible propaganda of the member for Kitchener Centre. I would point out that every member of the House of Commons has equal legitimacy, no matter the ideas defended by his or her party, which the voters supported.

I wish to inform the member for Kitchener Centre that I was elected based on what I am now saying in this House and on my rebuttals of his claims during the campaign.

This rhetoric implies that members of the Bloc Québécois have less legitimacy because they defend the idea of a sovereign Quebec. His rhetoric becomes despicable when he states that the separatists desire the death and destruction of Canada. That is not true.

That is an insult to people's intelligence. It also shows contempt for the ability of Canadians to affirm themselves as a nation without Quebec. To desire the sovereignty of Quebec does not in any way mean that we want our neighbour to be strong, rich—

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Order, order. I must interrupt the member to give the member for Kitchener Centre enough time to reply.

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, first, I do not for a moment begrudge the right of my hon. friend and the other members of his party to be elected and to come to this chamber with the view of promoting the breakup of our country. All citizens have the right to promote their views and that is what they have done.

However, I hope that my hon. friend does not begrudge me the right to stand up in this chamber and promote the view that Canada should remain strong and united. I hope he also does not begrudge me the right to stand up in this chamber and implore my friends in the Liberal Party, especially, who have such a great tradition of federalism to also stand up for a strong and united Canada and not to enter into a coalition with those who propose that Quebec should separate.

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, what we have seen over the last number of days is the collapse of a coalition, the Reform coalition. Now we see Reform unleashed with its deep hatred toward the people of Quebec. I hear it from the Conservative supporters in western Canada who phone my office with their insulting attacks.

This all goes back to the economic statement which was where we started from and which the Toronto Star referred to it as “irresponsible”, a based “leader obsessed with destroying opponents”. The “result is needless and irresponsible”.

The Calgary Herald today speaking of a lame economic update that was an “obscenity” that was delivered by a “leader who is "plain arrogant”.

The Globe and Mail said the “economic update completely missed the mark - it was a narrow, partisan document that failed to give Canadians the true facts”.

My hon. colleague's present leader has lost the credibility of the House. Will he work with us to restore Parliament so we can continue working, work with us who have left our partisan interests at the door, and perhaps find a new leader who will now be the leader of the opposition?

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what economic background or qualifications the people who write for the Toronto Star have, but I would like to quote Mr. Don Drummond, the TD Bank chief economist, speaking about the stimulus package that the coalition has proposed. He said, “That would be a disaster that would launch us into a structural deficit. Canada's economy is one of the few in the world in which the domestic side of the economy is still growing. No one can point to Canada and say you are the cause of this international problem. I have seen a lot more failures of short-term stimulus than successes. A lot of them just do not work”.

That is what people across the country are saying about the stimulus program that is being proposed by the coalition. I will take what Mr. Harper and our party have done any day over that.

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I would just remind the hon. member for Kitchener Centre that we do not use proper names. We use ridings or titles when referring to other hon. members.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kitchener--Conestoga.

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON

Mr. Speaker, I just want to congratulate my friend from Kitchener Centre. It is obvious, from the degree of professionalism with which he delivered his speech and the passion, that the Kitchener Centre residents made a very wise choice in sending him here.

Throughout the debate we have been talking about the economic features. My colleague mentioned the stimulus package that our government has put in place. I am receiving faxes, emails and phone calls from business leaders in my riding. I want to read one sentence, “Political instability is not what Canada needs during these troubled economic times. The impact on our country could be quite severe as foreign investment could quickly take flight from Canada, resulting in fewer jobs and a weaker economy”.

The residents and the business owners in my riding are very concerned about that.

I have a question for the hon. member for Kitchener Centre. Warren Jestin, the chief economist at Scotiabank, talking about the pre-emptive stimulus package that we put in place, said:

...the Canadian economy already has stimulus built into the books. The GST cut and reductions to corporate and business taxes taken last fall...will...have a greater effect on the economy than a short-term stimulus.

Unlike the U.S., which has tried ad hoc--

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Order, please. I do apologize to the hon. member but I will have to stop him there so that the hon. member for Kitchener Centre has enough time to respond.

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can complete the statement by Mr. Warren Jestin, to which the member referred, because I also noted it.

The GST cut and reductions to corporate and business taxes taken last fall...will...have a greater effect on the economy than a short-term stimulus.

Unlike the U.S., which has tried ad hoc measures such as giving people cheques ... we were following a much more rigorous process.

In fact, the tax cuts that we have already implemented do not just give us relief in 2008. They will give us the same relief and more in 2009, the year after that and the year after that. The Conservative government has given Canadians the gift that just keeps on giving.

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Before we move on to resuming debate, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, Culture.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Elmwood--Transcona.

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

NDP

Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating the member for Kitchener Centre on his leadership speech and I wish him well in the ensuing campaign.

A week is a long time in politics and just last week opposition members were making conciliatory throne speeches. The Liberals were supporting the throne speech with the Bloc and the NDP planning to vote no. The government's survival seemed assured only one week ago. The throne speech even passed on division with no standing vote.

How did this situation change so suddenly? The economic and fiscal statement was presented without a stimulus package, which we and the other opposition parties were expecting, and that prompted action to be taken.

The Prime Minister is acting as though he has a majority government, much the same way that Joe Clark did some years ago, and we know what happened there. Clearly, the Prime Minister has not learned from Joe Clark's disastrous experience. However, unlike Joe Clark, the Prime Minister will not get his election. He has miscalculated terribly and now is about to suffer the consequences of those actions.

A coalition has been formed, not unlike coalitions all over the world. This one will govern and provide stability to the country. In fact, if the PCs had a moderate, personable leader, such as Peter Lougheed or Bill Davis from days gone by, a leader who could actually count, things might be different as we stand here today.

A leader like Bill Davis would have reached out to at least one of the parties and worked out an accord, worked out some sort of arrangement. That is why leaders like Gary Filmon, Bill Davis and David Peterson were successful. Joe Clark, Frank Miller and Stephen Harper are not. We have the spectacle--

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Order, please. I would be remiss if I did not remind the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona that we do not refer to our colleagues by their proper name, but instead by their riding or by their title.

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, I meant the Prime Minister.

We have the spectacle of the PCs raging about the Bloc when the Bloc voted with them for two budgets between 2004 and 2006. The Bloc were honourable members when they were propping up the PCs, but now they are seen as evil. We should give our head a shake on this one.

Conservatives are preaching personal responsibility. Well, they should start owning up to their own mistakes in the House. They should quit blaming the Bloc for their problems. As a matter of fact, the Bloc supported the Conservatives in the 39th Parliament on 14 confidence votes. The Conservatives sure have a short memory given their previous relationship with the Bloc.

The Conservatives were more than happy when the leader of the Bloc and the Bloc propped up the Conservative government to pass critical Conservative measures, including their April 2006 throne speech and both the 2006 and 2007 budgets.

For a party that says that it believes in personal responsibility, we do not see much of that over there. The mantra of the Conservatives is to blame someone else. Now that they find themselves at the brink and are going over the falls, do they blame themselves? No. They look around and try to blame other people.

I have a letter, dated September 9, 2004, addressed to the Governor General. that the Prime Minister signed when he was leader of the opposition. The letter has been distributed quite widely and I am sure we will find a way to distribute it more widely. I am sure all of the people in my riding of Elmwood—Transcona would appreciate a copy of this letter so they could see that on September 9, 2004, the current Prime Minister, the current leader of the Bloc and the current leader of the NDP wrote the following letter to the Governor General of the day. It reads, “Excellency,

“As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government's program”.

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the House and the people reading Hansard or viewing this debate would be well-served if the member were to stay on topic. I am having a little difficulty understanding what this has to do with what we are debating at this point.

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

There was a ruling made yesterday about the wide scope of the motion before the House. I will remind all members that when making remarks they should try to keep their remarks as relevant as possible to the motion before the House.