Blaine Calkins

[Canadian Wheat Board, February 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday a staff member left the Canadian Wheat Board as a result of a vote by the Wheat Board directors.

Yet, on Monday the Leader of the Opposition and the ultimate conspiracy theorists in the NDP made outrageous accusations against the government and misled the House.

Unbelievably, they refuse to recognize that 62% of western farmers voted for marketing choice. Now they will not recognize that the Wheat Board directors have the right to vote on their own staffing issues.

Will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food please correct the record in response to the opposition's baseless accusations?

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, February 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the sock analogy made by my colleague across the way. There is another sock analogy that I think he should heed. It involves putting a sock in it when it comes to this particular issue.

One of the jobs that we have as leaders, whether we are in Parliament, in the legislature or at the municipal level, is of course that of putting first and foremost the safety and well-being of the citizens we are elected to represent.

I seem to recall that in the last election campaign after we made some announcements on what we were going to do on our crime and justice agenda, CBC or CTV, I do not recall exactly, took a look at it. I remember it vividly. It encapsulated the Liberal position on crime in just a great way. A young fellow in prison had had the actual Liberal logo cut out of his hair in prison. He was clearly advocating where he thought his interests would be best represented, that is, in voting for the Liberal Party.

I also take a bit of umbrage with my colleague saying that we are going after users. That is simply not the case. We are not going after the small-time users. If people read the act, if they read the bill, they will see that we are going after organized crime.

If my colleague really is serious about doing what we are sworn to do here as elected members, which is to protect and preserve the safety of our society, can he stand in this place and say that he is or is not going to support sending this bill on to committee so that we can study it and at least make any minor amendments we might need to make, if we have to? Is he going to support this bill getting to committee so that we can move this agenda forward and actually provide for the safety of children on the school grounds?

I have young children. I would hate to think that somebody could go onto the school grounds and start peddling a cigarette or a marijuana cigarette laced with methamphetamine. That is what get the kids addicted and gets them hooked. This is how these things happen. Those are the people we have to go after. I wonder if my colleague at least will support this bill going to committee and support taking a look at some of the positive things coming out of this bill.

[National Sustainable Development Act, December 11th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight. I notice that the member, in his last few comments, compared our government to the U.K. and Sweden, but he did not compare the current government with the past government and for good reason.

The report that he is referring to on sustainability from the Commissioner of the Environment goes back 10 years. Let us take a look at some of the comments that were made in the last 10 years.

In the 1998 report, it said that almost all departments failed to establish the clear and measurable targets and that the lack of benchmarks needed to be dealt with quickly.

For example, in the 1999 report, it said, “The Commissioner is concerned that federal departments have not laid the groundwork needed to reliably achieve the sustainable development goals they set for themselves in 1997”. The report also pointed to a “lack of coordination among departments”.

In the 2002 report, it said, “The government has yet to provide a clear picture of what a sustainable Canada would look like 20 years from now. The federal government's sustainable development strategy after five years and two generations of strategies still fall short”.

If we look at the 2005 report, it said that the federal government had failed to provide departments with the direction they needed to coordinate their sustainable development strategies.

These are just several examples of reports that were issued by the Commissioner that he is referring to and laying at the feet of this Conservative government when in reality there was no plan that we had. We had to start basically from scratch when it comes to dealing with this.

So, how can the hon. member stand in this place and accuse the minister and accuse the Conservative government of not having a plan when, clearly, in 1998, 1999, 2002 and 2005, it was the Liberal Party that was in charge of the sustainability?

[Committees of the House, December 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament regarding its mandate and its quorum.

[Hobbema Cadets, November 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the second anniversary of the Hobbema Community Cadet Corps.

With over 970 participants, this remarkable cadet corps is the largest native cadet program in Alberta and perhaps the world.

Under the direction of RCMP Constable Richard Huculiak and Sergeant Mark Linnell, the program emphasizes native culture, sports, a healthy lifestyle and requires cadets to stay in school. It has proven to be such an effective crime prevention initiative that in two short years school attendance is up and there are fewer bullying issues, fights or other complaints.

So amazing are these cadets, that they received a standing ovation at the 2007 “Models of Excellence for Youth” Provincial Congress in Toronto, following the screening of the documentary Shades of Blue that tracked their remarkable progress.

The Hobbema cadets are discovering that there is an alternative to gangs, drugs and violence. With new found confidence, they are on the road to becoming responsible, future leaders who will ensure the traditions and values of their heritage are upheld in a safe and vibrant community.

I encourage the four Hobbema bands and the community to invest in their young people by continuing to support this most worthwhile initiative.

[Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, October 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-298, the perfluorooctane sulfonate virtual elimination act.

The bill seeks to add perfluorooctane sulfonate and its salts to the virtual elimination list under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. I am pleased to say that the government supports the bill as it has been amended.

Let me explain what the government is doing to protect Canadians and their environment from PFOS and related chemicals and why we are taking action. The departments of the environment and of health undertook an extensive environmental assessment of PFOS, its salts and its precursors, which concluded that PFOS is persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic under CEPA, 1999.

PFOS has been detected in many wildlife species worldwide. Field evidence has identified high concentrations of PFOS accumulating in the liver and blood of fish-eating mammals and birds in the Canadian Arctic far from known sources or manufacturing facilities. PFOS concentrations in polar bears are higher than any other previously reported concentrations of other persistent and bioaccumulative chemicals. Current levels show that some wildlife organisms such as polar bears and some bird species could be near or at levels of effect and could be harmed by current exposures to PFOS

Since the government concluded its scientific risk assessment in the summer of 2006, the government has acted quickly and taken very strong action to prevent the risks from PFOS and its salts and certain other related compounds. These actions address a broad group of approximately 60 known substances in Canada and approximately 120 known substances internationally.

On December 16, 2006 the government published the proposed perfluorooctane sulfonate and its salts and certain other compounds regulations. These regulations propose to prohibit the manufacture, use, sale and import of PFOS and related substances, as well as products and formulations containing these chemicals.

Temporary five year exemptions have been proposed to allow the use of firefighting foams and the sale, use and import of fume suppressants used in the metal plating sector. These actions will prohibit the vast majority of historic PFOS uses immediately and allow for the orderly transition to alternative products for critical applications.

In the case of firefighting foams, the five years will allow users to replace their PFOS containing products without compromising fire safety. For fume suppressants used in metal plating, the five years will allow for the development of alternative formulations. Alternatives to PFOS in this application currently do not exist and we want to provide a phase-out period so that emissions of other harmful substances are minimized.

In comparison with actions taken by other international jurisdictions, the Government of Canada's proposed regulatory approach represents the most comprehensive action to manage PFOS, its salts and other compounds.

We will also conduct environmental and human monitoring domestically to ensure that our objectives are met.

In addition to domestic regulations, the government will also work with international partners to manage the global concerns surrounding PFOS.

Canada is engaged in multinational efforts to address the risks posed by this substance. For example, Canada is actively leading in technical and policy discussions relating to the proposed regional and global restrictions on PFOS. Such restrictions would be taken as a result of the nomination of PFOS to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Protocol on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution and its nomination to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.

Furthermore, Canada is actively engaged at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development forums to share information and promote action on these chemicals. Canada will continue to engage our international partners in global action on PFOS to complement our domestic policy. Supporting these efforts is critical to addressing the long range transport of PFOS into the Canadian environment.

In terms of monitoring, the Department of Environment and the Department of Health are also committed to research and monitoring of PFOS and related chemicals. This research is to ensure that the actions being proposed are making a difference in the Canadian environment and among the Canadian people and to generate relevant information on current and emerging risks associated with these chemicals.

In December 2006 the government announced its chemicals management plan which included significant resources for research and monitoring. The plan, a comprehensive strategy to manage chemicals in Canada, includes a major investment in research and monitoring. The work under the chemicals management plan, which has already been started, will help inform the government and the public on the effectiveness of the PFOS regulations and help to ensure new and emerging risks are identified.

Allow me to read a section on PFOS under our chemical management plan:

The Government of Canada published a proposed order to add PFOS to the List of Toxic Substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 on July 1, 2006. A proposed risk management strategy has also been published. This strategy outlines the Government of Canada's proposed actions to prevent the re-introduction of PFOS into the Canadian market and address the remaining uses in order to reduce or eliminate releases of PFOS into the environment.

At the same time, with the significant reduction in global PFOS production that began in 2000, exposure sources have been reduced and may eventually be eliminated. Since some PFOS production is known to still occur globally, the Government of Canada is continuing to work with other countries to encourage reduction and, eventually, elimination of PFOS manufacturing. Proposed regulations addressing PFOS are expected to be issued by the end of 2006.

The government has acted in developing actions on PFOS since the conclusions of the environmental assessment were finalized in July 2006.

Under the current regulatory process established by the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, a proposed regulation or control instrument must be developed within 24 months of proposing a substance to be added to schedule 1. Once proposed, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health have a further 18 months to finalize the regulation or instrument. Typically, this would result in a period of 42 months, or three and one-half years. The government is well on its way in accomplishing this for PFOS in under one and one-half years.

In conclusion, we are pleased that the environment committee was able to amend this bill to make it something that we can support.

We are committed to taking action against toxic substances. This is just further proof that this is indeed a government of action. We are cleaning up the environment for the sake of the health of our environment and for the health of all Canadians, particularly the most vulnerable in our population.

[Industry, October 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there has been wide coverage in the press of the issue of foreign investment specifically as it relates to concerns about national security and investments by foreign state-owned enterprises.

Last spring the Liberal opposition leader wanted to take us back to the economic policies of the 1970s by calling for a moratorium on foreign investment.

Will the Minister of Industry assure Canadians that the government is not, and will not become, protectionist?

[Criminal Code, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, first, I thank the minister for tabling Bill C-21 in this House and keeping another Conservative platform commitment to eliminate the long gun registry.

I also thank the minister for implementing the amnesties. I know my constituents are very appreciative of that. I know a lot of them received some of the money they had used on their application forms back, and I have received some positive feedback on that.

I also thank the minister for the tremendous work he has done to ensure there are enough RCMP officers on the streets. I have met with my constituents in Breton and Hobbema and there is a lack of RCMP and resources on the ground to do the police work that needs to be done.

However, the question I have for the minister is on something he brought up during his speech. I would like to bring some clarification to the House.

In a former life I was a database administrator. I am fairly conversant in how databases work and how queries work between databases. One of the things I used to do, when I was a faculty member teaching databases, was talk about the importance of processes in place to ensure the information that went into a system was good. We used to call it garbage in equals garbage out.

Could the minister clarify and give us more information about whether the information in the database is good, whether the police officers can use, through CPIC, the licence database, as there is obviously a repository of information there, and whether that information is useful to police officers in lieu of the fact that the registry information is obviously flawed?

[Ponoka Stampede, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Canada Day festivities feature picnics, parades and fireworks. In Ponoka, Alberta, we top all other festivals by hosting the largest and best six-day professional rodeo in the country.

For the last 71 years, the Ponoka Stampede has treated people from all over North America to top notch entertainment, exciting races and affordable family entertainment.

The stampede has become a tradition not only for the spectators but also for the 500 volunteers who come out every year, making this spectacular event one of Alberta's prime annual tourist attractions.

This year the animated mile-long parade, that hearkens back to the days of the old west when gunfighters and yodelling cowboys roamed the Prairies, will be led by none other than the captain of Canada's gold medal hockey team and all-around good guy, Shane Doan.

There is something for all ages: superb stage shows, chuckwagon races, pancake breakfasts, rodeo clowns and much more. The high calibre of stock and contestants, plus the unsurpassed facilities, ensure a great show rain or shine.

I encourage one and all to come to Ponoka from June 26 to July 2 and experience some real western hospitality.

[Canada Transportation Act, June 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed in her speech that the member talked about the rail system being a monopoly. I would like to ask her if she believes it is a monopoly or an oligopoly which is actually a consortium. I believe the term she is looking for is oligopoly, but when she said monopoly, in going after this monopoly and all the power that it has, it made me think of the hypocrisy of the NDP in supporting the Canadian Wheat Board which of course is a true monopoly, not an oligopoly. I would ask her to reconcile that.

If the member and her colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior are so concerned about the shipping of goods from western Canada, why is it the NDP did not support the budget which has billions of dollars in infrastructure for the Asia-Pacific gateway? The hypocrisy of the discussion in the speech and the actions that the NDP show in the House makes me wonder if the member has any credibility at all in discussing this issue.