Lynn Myers

[Supply, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am getting to the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan but I needed to build my case a bit. I was interested in the first ballot that went out from the United Alternative.

We are speaking now of audits, transparency and accountability. It printed 6,000 additional ballots and when it came down to the vote all of a sudden, according to one of its executive council members quoted in the Edmonton Sun , it ended up destroying the ballots. This is a party that is trying to lecture us about accountability and about transparency. It really is outrageous.

[Supply, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I was thinking about the grandstanding by the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill. I read a comment from her constituent, a Calgary psychologist, Dr. Allan Mandel, about her allegations with regard to the HRDC money which she raised this morning. He said, “In my case, I can certainly say that this is absolutely not true”, and that he in fact had not donated any money especially to the Liberal Party. He said, “To me, this is a program to stimulate employment and to stimulate getting young workers into the workforce. I think it is great”.

Gina Cameron, program co-ordinator for the Beddington Heights Community Association in the member's own riding had this to say about her MP attacking these all-important programs: “To say that they are a waste of money, she has not been in these doors, she has no concept of what goes on, so it is sort of probably an empty statement”—coming from the member for Calgary—Nose Hill—“I could not run an efficient, well-run program without it. I really could not”.

I would say to her she should get into her constituency and try to see the good work that is done.

[Supply, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be told about the real name by the hon. member for Elk Island who not so recently called me a liar in the House. It was so recorded in Hansard .

[Supply, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. I was astounded to hear him try to take credit for somehow flushing out the government in this all-important area when in fact it was the minister herself who brought forward the audit results.

I find it somewhat disconcerting that the members opposite, the Reformers, CCRAP party, alliance, or whatever they are these days would try to take credit. They should apologize.

[Supply, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the member opposite and was quite dismayed that she would use words such as flout the law and like skirting around the issues.

She has tried to grandstand on the precise issue of HRDC for way too long and to carve out her so-called 15 minutes of fame. It will not work. Canadians see through that kind of shenanigans by whatever that party is now calling itself, be it Reform or CCRAP, or Alliance of whatever nature it tries to be. She has never once apologized to the House and to Canadians for the outrageous statements she has made vis-à-vis the HRDC department.

Here and now in this great house of democracy, the Parliament of Canada, I ask the member whether she has the internal fortitude to stand on her feet in the House and apologize for the outrageous statements she has made against people who are disabled and have received HRDC grants, students who have received HRDC, and people in need across this great country of ours. Will she stand on her feet today to apologize and say full well that it was not, as she likes to say, a boondoggle but rather money well spent?

Instead of going after us on the government side for investments well made in terms of jobs and other things, will she state finally and categorically that she apologizes for the outrageous statements she has made repeatedly?

[Canadian Cancer Society, April 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Cancer Society is the largest single contributor of funds to cancer research in Canada. This year the Canadian Cancer Society contributed more than $30 million to fund a broad base of cancer research across this great country of ours.

The Canadian Cancer Society provides important patient support and is engaged in valuable public education activities. Without donations from the public, this important work would not be possible.

This April thousands of volunteers will hit the streets, knocking on doors across Canada to raise funds for research and to raise public awareness about cancer, a disease that kills tens of thousands of Canadians each year.

Activities planned for cancer month this April include daffodil days in various communities across Canada. Last year volunteers raised over $5.5 million through the sale of beautiful daffodils. This April let us open our hearts and our doors in support of this very worthwhile cause.

[Natural Gas, April 3rd, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating the member for Churchill for his motion and the fact that he gave thought and good judgment to such an important issue as natural gas in Canada and the great resource in industry which that represents.

Speaking of congratulations, I want to indicate that today is a landmark day. Premier Mike Harris is finally back to work in Ontario. This is the same Mr. Harris who spent a mere 41 days in 1999 in the legislature. It is good to see him back at work today. We congratulate him for finally getting back to work because it is important for him to do so.

The natural gas industry in Canada is a very important engine when it comes to resources in our great country. It seems to me that what we on this side of the House have done over the last while underscores the commitment of the Government of Canada when it comes to putting in place the kinds of economic indicators and well-being needed by people no matter where they live in Canada. I point to the fact that we have the deficit under control, interests rates are in hand and employment is growing at an all time record, at least within the last number of decades. There is still more work to do but the government has consistently and with great effort ensured that we have been able to do the kinds of things that were necessary for Canada.

I was thinking the other night that a mere five years ago the G-7 questioned our performance in terms of what we were doing. Now we really do have in place the kind of strength in the economy that is necessary.

Natural gas is a great resource base kind of economic engine that sustains Canadians in all kinds of matters. It is important that we give credit for that major engine growth, for its technological sophistication, for its new export opportunities and the kind of trade advantages that we have, especially within the integrated North American economy, vis-à-vis the natural gas industry. Needless to say, a great many communities across Canada and thousands upon thousands of Canadians benefit either directly or indirectly as a result of the kind opportunities provided by this great energy sector.

As a result of the kind of money and profit that is made in this area, the Government of Canada and other governments benefit with public revenues flowing into the coffers. This sustains us and enables us as governments, either provincial, territorial or federal, to provide the services that are required by Canadians in all areas of this great country.

Why should we be optimistic about our future in this area? We really should be and we must be. The reason is quite simple. The natural gas sector has demonstrated repeatedly that it has enormous management acumen. It has flexibility. It has a technological innovative side to it and a capital raising ability that is almost second to none in terms of engines of growth in Canada. We should be celebrating and congratulating all those involved because it really underscores one of the fundamental economic well-beings for Canada.

Let us take a look for a moment at some of the facts surrounding the natural gas sector and the industry. As has been pointed out a number of times by members opposite, this is a huge area in terms of the kinds of reserves that are built-in in Canada. There is enough to meet not only Canadian demand but export demand well into the future. That is another great shining light in terms of what it means for Canada and all Canadians.

I also want to point out by way of fact that the natural gas industry has demonstrated repeatedly that it can respond to changes quickly in an ever-changing and especially integrated North American market. It has the capacity to meet the growing demand not only of Canada but of the United States as well. We should again celebrate that fact.

Finally, Canada's energy policy framework has allowed the marketplace to demonstrate and determine energy prices and supply without undue government involvement. We should think about that because it really is important. When the free market system works, it often works very well in terms of supply, demand and ultimately how it sets prices. It really underscores the government's ability to leave unfettered an industry that should respond in a very systematic and appropriate way to the issues of supply and demand. I think we have seen over time that the system works well in this area.

As I have pointed out, we have a plentiful resource base, unbelievable resources in this area. We have growing markets and a favourable public policy framework.

By way of looking into the future, I think it is fair to say that we have an industry that is a shining example of good things to come. It is an excellent industry and there are tremendous advantages that will take us well into the next century because of what it is and how it should be best dealt with.

As has been noted—and other members have stated this as well—this is a convenient, efficient, safe supply of fuel. It is clean and it is effective. Faced with the difficult global challenge of climate change and energy consumption throughout North America from homeowners to major industrial users, we will likely be seeking less carbon intensive energy sources. Needless to say, natural gas fits that bill.

Natural gas is also expected to be the fuel of choice for many of the electrical generation projects in North America. As a former chairman of Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro, I welcome that. I sat on the board for 10 years. In the production of electricity there is nothing better than electrical generation projects speared on by natural gas projects. I think that is important, and the country as a whole will benefit as a result.

I also want to point out that Canada's industry is well positioned to meet North America's growing need and demand for natural gas. Over the past decades, the changes in the gas sector have been, frankly, phenomenal. Price deregulation and the unbungling of transmission services have prompted compatible and competitive business environments.

As we all know, deregulation had an immediate effect on Canadian and North American energy markets. There was an immediate decline in the price of gas, which was good not only for consumers but for industrial users as well. Producers responded because lower prices required them to aggressively cut costs and rapidly expand export sales. The end result has been higher production volumes and, accordingly, increased revenues.

To accommodate the growth in export sales, huge capital investments were made into new pipelines. With the completion of projects like the Foothills northern border expansion, export gas pipeline capacity increased from 4.9 billion cubic feet per day in 1985 to over 10 billion cubic feet per day in 1998. That is, by any stretch of the imagination, phenomenal.

Later this year the alliance project will add over 1.3 billion cubic feet per day more to export capacity. Over the past 10 years Canadian gas exports to the United States have increased by 132%, from 1.3 trillion cubic feet to 3.1 trillion cubic feet annually. We are selling more natural gas to U.S. markets than ever before.

What it all means is that we in Canada are well positioned in this very important sector of the economy. It seems to me that we should proceed in the manner that we have been proceeding without going down the path of doing the kinds of things that the member for Churchill wants but rather proceeding in the fashion consistent with what we on the government side have been doing.

I urge all members of this great parliament to vote accordingly on this motion.

[Division No. 1258, March 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite jumps the gun. I was getting to the point where I was going to answer the question. It is really interesting how the Bloc members are so thin-skinned. They are really quite sensitive. We can only imagine that it must be because they do not know why they are here in this parliament any more.

In direct response to him, if he had been listening and paying attention to the minister he would know that the minister, in tabling Bill C-6, announced publicly that Quebec will be exempted from the application of Bill C-6 because it has similar legislation in place. This will be done by an order in council once the bill becomes law.

The member claims to be protecting the interests of his constituents. He claims to be protecting Quebecers wherever they live. Why would he not do his homework and know that this was happening? I find it shameful that he would do what he is doing.

[Division No. 1258, March 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I really do not need a geography lesson from the member opposite, nor do I need a spelling lesson, nor do I need an elocution lesson for that matter in speaking slowly.

What I would ask the hon. member to do, however, speaking of geography, is to take some time to travel our great country and find out exactly what it means to be a Canadian and learn what it means to be a Canadian and where the values of Canada are consistent and part and parcel of our great land.

[Division No. 1258, March 30th, 2000]

The Bloc member opposite said that he did not talk about Quebec. He actually raised it. He said that the Bloc indicated that it had concerns.

What I would point out, and not only as it concerns Alberta and Quebec, is that we on the government side have crossed our t s and dotted our i s in terms of whether this bill is constitutional and respects the jurisdiction of the provinces. In fact, it will not infringe on provincial jurisdiction. We have made that very clear.

Is it not typical of the member opposite to stand in the House and talk about what the Bloc might want to ask? Is that not typical of the party which not so long ago, at its convention in London, Ontario, organized as its keynote lead-off speaker Mr. Biron, who is nothing more than a separatist?

Let us think about that for a minute. We have a western populist reform party, which now calls itself CRAP, which has all of a sudden metamorphosed into something called the Alliance Party, which had a separatist as the lead-off speaker at its convention.