Joe Comuzzi

[Committees of the House, April 17th, 2008]

He still insists on heckling. He does not want to listen.

One of the comments that I have is when he said that “Do you not understand that members of this side of the House are elected to represent their constituents?” I refer him to the speech by his former leader given at Osgoode Hall in 2003, when he said in eloquent terms that “It's time that we elected members to the House of Commons who represented their constituents”.

That was pretty well the tone of the leadership race that the Liberals just went through. We have to elect members of Parliament who represent first and foremost the constituents that elect them to office.

I would like the member to comment on the statement he made because what he is saying now does not show in the results. What they say and what they do are not the same.

[Committees of the House, April 17th, 2008]

That is the comment that we have always had when he and I were colleagues on the same side.

[Committees of the House, April 17th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, let me comment on the remarks of the member for Mississauga South about the eloquence of the speaker this morning. He stated that the member for Malpeque was perhaps the most knowledgeable person that he knew when it comes to agriculture. Sometimes I may want to agree with that, but the member should have continued and said “but sometimes the member for Malpeque is often misguided”. That is what we have heard here this morning.

Let me explain--

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, December 11th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. He started his speech by saying that there was, and I wrote it down, a deficit in sport in Hamilton. I thought immediately that he was going to refer to the Hamilton Tiger-Cats. I would like him to comment on that, because he did not even mention them and I think that was a deficit in the Hamilton sports scene.

[Canada Marine Act, December 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words to my colleague who just reiterated one of the problems that we have experienced in the maritime business over the last several years. Ten years ago the port at Thunder Bay was number three in Canada and it is now number 16. The bill we are putting forward today would hopefully embellish the resources that we have there and make it a port of northern Ontario that would embrace Sault-Ste-Marie, Wawa, Marathon, Nipigon, Red Rock and Thunder Bay, and utilize a great marine transportation mode in order to enhance our ability to compete globally, not only in the market in the United States.

I thank my colleague from Eglinton--Lawrence and the parliamentary secretary because this instance shows the compatibility of members of Parliament to work together for the betterment of all Canadians.

While we are throwing around laurels, I would hope that my friend from Eglinton--Lawrence would acknowledge that one time during our history, I used to have to take him to transportation committee, as you did, Mr. Speaker, kicking and screaming because he was not very interested in transportation. I am certainly pleased to see that he has now taken a very keen interest in transportation matters in Canada.

[Committees of the House, November 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there is one area of my colleague's comments that I must question him about, and for clarification purposes only. He expressed the thought that the national press had adopted editorial policies that prevent members of Parliament from disagreeing or making their thoughts known. I wonder if my colleague would expand on that. Does it only involve one of the national media or are there others with the same policy?

[Canada Post Corporation Act, November 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment my colleague across for being so eloquent, as he usually is, on areas that affect all Canadians. He is in his usual good form. He is very succinct and gets right to the point. I could not help but be amazed, Mr. Speaker, that you were paying such rapt attention to the member, which adds to all of us in the chamber respecting your interest in this matter.

When the member talks about the displacement of people from one area, which is the remailers, and obviously some of them have already left Canada, I was not quite sure where he meant they would end up, in what employ, if in the postal business or some place else. I wonder if he would be kind enough, in his normal succinct way, to answer that question.

[Forest Industry, November 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, everyone in this House realizes the importance of the forest industry to Canada's economy.

Since coming into office, this government has delivered results, with $127.5 million to the forest industry's long term competitiveness initiative, $200 million to combat the mountain pine beetle infestation in British Columbia and Alberta, and $72.5 million for the targeted initiative to adjust the older worker adjustment program.

These decisions build on the $5 billion that was put back into the pockets of the Canadian forestry business because of reaching an agreement on the softwood lumber dispute.

We solved this problem in less than a year. The members opposite had 13 years to finalize this agreement and just did not get it done. While they sit on their hands, this government is taking real action to keep our forestry and manufacturing sectors viable and profitable.

[Business of Supply, November 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to my friend from Markham. He and I have had this debate several times and this gives us an opportunity.

First, I have two simple questions. One is with regard to the capital cost allowance.

As an old-time banker, my friend from Markham realizes that in order to take advantage of the capital cost allowance in any business venture, there have to be profits. In order to have profits, there has to be a good business climate, and that seems to have been lacking in the forestry business for the last several years.

The Liberal government started the negotiations with Korea I think in 2005, so maybe he would like to respond to that. We just concluded it.

With regard to the Liberal program in forestry, his numbers are wrong. He stated it was $1.3 billion. It was really $1.4 billion, of which $800 million would go to aid the softwood lumber industries across the country.

As we know, there were $5 billion on deposit in the United States. As a former banker, my colleague realizes that banks like to see a flow of money through the till in order to pay off obligations. Most of these companies were being wiped out because of lack of cashflow because they were paying the softwood lumber duty.

Out of that $1.4 billion, $800 million were to go immediately to the softwood lumber industries in the whole country, which would have helped them carry on with their businesses. The other $600 million were to go to the economic development agencies, ACOA, the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, which we are debating today, FedNor and Western Economic Diversification. That would have been primarily to help the industries in those particular sections under debate today.

The Liberals did not do it. They had the opportunity to pass it. Would my friend answer why it was not passed? That forced this government to come in with the legislation the Minister of International Trade brought in as soon as the Conservatives formed the government.

[Points of Order, June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, although I open this debate as a point of order, I truly believe that it is a question of members' privileges. I will rise on a point of order with the understanding that you may decide that it is a question that deals with members' privileges.

I refer to a discussion that was held in the House yesterday regarding the motion to concur in the 53rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs which did not receive the unanimous consent of the House of Commons. The four independent members of the House did not give their consent.

There was really no problem until this was presented by the whip of the Bloc Québécois. He presented it to the standing committee, not to remedy the orders of the House but in order to silence a former member of that party because the Bloc considered she was getting too many questions in the House. That was the purpose of this amendment.

What surprises me is that all the other parties consented to the motion. Every party consented to the motion and it opened a can of worms.

This is an issue that the standing committee presented that affects the privileges of all independent members of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I submit that it is in your exclusive jurisdiction to protect the privileges of every member of the House of Commons. I ask that until this matter is resolved, and since there are only four of us but our party is growing, I am asking for your assurance that this matter will not come before the House for unanimous consent unless some of us are present in order not to give consent and then the matter can be resolved either in committee or through your wise counsel.