Bev Shipley

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the member made the comment a little earlier about the concern about the soil when we take the whole plant. Those in agriculture know what the organic matter content of the soil is. They test it; they know. I would hope that we would never get to the stage in this House where we would start to tell farmers what they can and cannot take off their farms.

I think the direction in which the member is going is to say to the agriculture industry and community that we want to limit, and in fact we are going to limit, the potential of agriculture to diversify the market. If he is saying that we cannot use food for fuel, that is not just ethanol, it is biofuels, and there is an incredible amount of research done. Does he support the fact that we would start to limit agriculture in its diversification for markets because of the food for fuel?

[Liberal Party of Canada, May 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, recently the member for Ottawa South said that his party's internal debate over biofuels was over and that the Liberals would vote in favour of Bill C-33, but then, on the same day, his colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca said that the measure should be defeated.

Canadians are mystified about the Liberals' inability to take a stand on the renewable fuels industry.

Our Conservative Party is the only party that stands for renewable fuels, even though during the last campaign everyone was for it.

Biofuels are good for farmers, good for the rural economy, good for the environment and good for Canadians. When people, such as farmers, truckers, and ordinary Canadians, are struggling with high fuel costs, the Liberals are only interested in taxing fuel another 50¢ or 60¢ a litre.

High taxes, extravagant spending and pulling its support for agriculture is the culture and the opposition's strategy but it is certainly not what Conservatives believe in.

[Liberal Party of Canada, May 9th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government has permanently implemented the gas tax and the GST rebate to all Canadian municipalities for infrastructure.

Recently, I had the opportunity to present display cheques to 13 municipalities in my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex that represented approximately $28 million they are receiving from the federal government, and next year, the gas tax portion will double.

Under the Liberals, Canadians would experience a much different scenario. In fact, Canadians would again pay much higher taxes in order to pay for over $62 billion in new spending.

The GST would shoot back up to at least 7% and Canadians would pay approximately another 50¢ to 60¢ a litre for gas because of the new carbon tax the Leader of the Opposition recently promised to implement.

High taxes and extravagant spending, that is the kind of Canada that the Liberals want back but it is not what Canadians want and it is sure not the kind of Canada this Conservative government provides.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, April 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the NDP raised a number of issues around Bill C-33.

On the weekend, we met with some embassy people from Africa. When we were speaking to them about food prices, we found that in Canada we need to be concerned about how we relate agriculture to food prices. By February 3, Canadians have paid for all of their food. It would appear to me that one of the sustaining factors that keeps us alive has been paid for by February 3. I would suggest that in Canada we have a cheap food policy.

I want to reiterate that Canada is the second largest contributor to food aid in the world. Canada plays its part because we recognize how crucial and significant it is to support and help supply foreign aid to those who are more vulnerable than us. I believe I read, and I may be corrected, that if Canada were to provide its resources to biofuels, we would still use 95% of our crop land for the production of food.

We have had projections of 20% by 2020 and 60% to 70% by 2050. No other government has done that because no other government has taken the initiative. I am wondering how much the member feels we are contributing to the price of food through our agriculture in Canada. Does he believe we should look at new technologies for biofuels so it is not all about agriculture products?

[Judges Act, April 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest. I wonder if the hon. member, who has talked about the amendment to the bill, knows, first, when the Judges Act was last amended to reflect Canadian needs.

Second, and more importantly, I listened to the other speakers, who always talked about two or three appointed people who likely were Conservatives, so I suspect they believe that every judge appointed should be a Liberal. There are those connotations. I really wonder, though, if they are saying that, do they really believe that the appointed judges are not qualified people?

[Community Boosters, April 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, this past week marked the passing of two tremendous citizens and community boosters in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex who lived their lives in service to others.

Murray Newkirk lived 95 years as a businessman and one of the driving forces behind Wallaceburg's Kiltie Band. He loved music and he used his voice as a member of the church choir where he also served on the board for numerous years. Murray is fondly remembered first and foremost as a gentleman.

Reverend Bob Whalls passed away suddenly at the all too young age of 52. Reverend Whalls pastored a United Church three point charge, and he was the longest current serving member of the Wallaceburg Ministerial Association and was the Padre of the Wallaceburg Legion. Uniquely, Reverend Whalls was also an active member of the Soul Patrol, a group of Christian motorcycle enthusiasts who collected can goods for local food banks and provided motorcycle rides to seniors.

I ask the House to please join me in honouring two very well-lived lives.

[Afghanistan, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Cambridge for his passionate speech. As I look around tonight, I see that a number of young people have joined us in the gallery. The member for Cambridge talked about these young people being incredibly impacted by this discussion and by the decision that will happen tomorrow or Thursday night, when there is a vote on this motion. I believe that these young people realize that in the great country of Canada, in the democracy we have, they have freedom, education and hope, and they can have vision.

Could the member for Cambridge express how important that is to the success of a nation and to the building of families? How important is it for the people and parents in Afghanistan to have that same opportunity for their families, although likely in a smaller way, that we share with our families in Canada?

[Afghanistan, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Oxford for his comments and for the support that he has given, not just on this side of the House as the Conservative government but speaking as he passionately has for Canadians.

The Bloc and the NDP quite honestly are basically saying that what we need to do is lay down our guns and just go in and build the infrastructure.

Having been in the enforcement business for a number of years prior to becoming a member of Parliament, I wonder if the member would have some comments with regard to how that might actually benefit Canada and how that might actually help us without losing the number of people that may be protected by just going in and doing the reconstruction without having the security.

[Canadian Content in Public Transportation Projects, February 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in the debate on a motion tabled by the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

On November 6, 2007, the Prime Minister launched the $33 billion building Canada infrastructure plan. This plan is the most comprehensive of its kind in Canadian history. It provides stable and predictable funding for the longest period of time ever committed to by any federal government. No other federal government in Canadian history has ever made such a large, long term investment to modernize infrastructure.

I speak to the plan because of its connection to transit and because of the way we seek to manage it in conjunction with provinces and territories.

Through its new plan, the Government of Canada is providing $33 billion over seven years, which includes: $17.6 billion, or over 50% of the plan, in base funding for municipalities until 2014, including a full GST rebate and $11.8 billion through the gas tax fund; $25 million per year over seven years in base funding to provinces and territories, $175 million for each jurisdiction for basic infrastructure needs like bridge safety; $8.8 billion for the new building Canada fund, which will be applied to strategic projects in large urban centres as well as projects in small communities, with particular attention to those smaller than 100,000 people; $2.1 billion for the new gateway and border crossings fund to improve cross-border trade with the United States; $1.25 billion for a new national fund for public-private partnerships; and $1 billion for the Asia-Pacific gateway

These investments are an important contribution and address the infrastructure needs of municipalities, provinces and territories. This funding will be dedicated to things that matter to Canadians, such as clean water, more efficient public transit, safe roads and green energy.

Building Canada will help support a stronger Canadian economy by investing in infrastructure that contributes to increased trade, efficient movement of goods and people and economic growth that creates jobs. This will include projects such as improvements to the core national highway system, short line railways, short sea shipping, regional and local airports, broadband, and convention centres.

A healthy environment is a clear priority for our government. As such, building Canada will also focus on infrastructure investments that contribute to cleaner air, water and land, including public transit, waste water and solid waste management, brownfield remediation and also green energy, as mentioned before.

To promote the development of strong and prosperous communities of all sizes, building Canada will support investments in public infrastructure that improve the health and safety of families and make communities more liveable. For example, projects that would be eligible for funding include safe drinking water, local roads, bridge rehabilitation and sports and culture.

The Government of Canada is responding to its 2006 consultations with the provinces, territories and the municipal sector. We are doing this by providing more long term and predictable infrastructure funding, as well as more streamlined programs.

Overall, our approach highlights the extent of federal involvement and confirms our respect for jurisdiction, as well as our commitment to working collaboratively on the issues raised during our discussions in developing the plan.

Framework agreements under building Canada have been signed with British Columbia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. We are working closely with the other provinces to complete framework agreements with them as well.

The member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River has made a motion asking the Government of Canada to implement a policy to mandate Canadian content levels for public transportation projects.

Our government agrees that this motion should be at least debated in order to understand how it can best support Canadian industries, while at the same time respecting other federal government responsibilities and commitments, such as our commitment to get the best value for taxpayer dollars.

The government understands the importance of supporting the Canadian economy. Earlier this month our government introduced Bill C-41 to allow $1 billion in federal funding to begin flowing to struggling communities through the community development trust. This was recently announced by the Prime Minister.

This support will greatly help single industry towns suffering from major downturns, as well as communities facing chronic high unemployment or layoffs across a range of sectors. Our government also understands that the transportation industry is strong in Canada. Generally, our partners in infrastructure projects tend to be other levels of government. At this time municipal, provincial and territorial governments together are responsible for over 90% of infrastructure spending in Canada. Procurement decisions with respect to infrastructure are ultimately the responsibility of these governments.

After all, these are the orders of government that will let the contracts choose the suppliers and ultimately bear the responsibility for completing the project on time, handling any cost overruns that occur and also managing the infrastructure plan long term. We treat these other levels of government as partners, able to make their own decisions in their own best interests.

Our government is prepared to discuss with our partners how to encourage more Canadian content in these investments, but we will not and cannot force or dictate to provinces, territories and our municipal governments how they should do their procurement.

As I have noted earlier, our key concerns should be getting as much value for the infrastructure dollar as possible. This decision is consistent with the requirements under the Federal Accountability Act that stipulates that federal procurement be conducted with a commitment to fairness, openness and transparency.

The federal budget of 2006 indicated that the federal government will manage infrastructure funding in a manner that will maximize taxpayers' value for money. I think this is a very valid principle that frankly defines our government.

For public transportation projects that receive federal funds under the building Canada fund, the federal government will require that limitations on tendering, such as sole source contracts, be omitted from consideration. Our government has a responsibility to ensure that procurement decisions are consistent with Canada's international trade obligations. What impacts Canadian content levels may have on this is a subject that should be fully discussed.

Mandating Canadian content levels, as has been proposed in the member's motion, would not necessarily get the best value for taxpayers' dollars. By using incentives to encourage people to buy Canadian, there could be some effects we need to fully understand. These could include increased project costs, as the number of potential suppliers diminish; limiting the choice with respect to rolling stock available for infrastructure projects, which is of particular concern to transit projects; and also limitations on available technology.

Additionally, based on federal experience in dealing with municipalities through several generations of infrastructure programming, we believe that domestic procurement requirements dictated by the federal government with respect to infrastructure provisions would be met with resistance by many of our provincial and municipal partners. Our only requirement is that procurement for projects funded with federal dollars is done in a fair, open, transparent and competitive manner.

Let me restate that our government, through its infrastructure program, is investing heavily in a modern economy and economic growth. Canadian workers, engineers, suppliers and manufacturers will all benefit from these investments. We hope that a fulsome discussion will bring about clear solutions in order to support Canadian industries, while also being mindful of the need to obtain the best value for our taxpayers' dollars.

With the building Canada fund, our government is taking steps to address the infrastructure challenge and ensure that our cities and communities are prepared for current and future growth, and can compete internationally.

Modern infrastructure is at the centre of Canada's standard of living and contributes greatly to the quality of life that we value. The building Canada fund is about investing in our country's future. It is about a stronger economy, about a cleaner environment, and about a more prosperous community.

[Livestock Industry, February 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, to reiterate, when we talk about what will go out, the kick-start, for example, will put $160 million into these funds, which go to the hog and cattle industry. Those funds are going out now.