Bradley Trost

[BUSINESS OF SUPPLY, May 21st, 2013]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to engage in this debate tonight.

Sometimes—not always, but sometimes—it is forgotten that the purpose of the House is to engage in substantive debate on substantive issues. One of the things we need to realize and grasp about the Canadian economy and what is important to Canadians is the importance of the natural resources industry. When we look at our industries that export and create jobs, the natural resources sector, particularly in certain areas of the country, tends to be dominant. We also need to grasp and understand that many of the jobs in the service sector in places such as Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver are based on the natural resources industry.

Tonight the specific aspect that I wish to concentrate on is what mining means to this country in terms of the Canadian economy and jobs for people all across this country.

I have a particular interest in this subject that has to do with my occupation prior to being elected to the House of Commons. I was trained and proudly graduated from the University of Saskatchewan as a geophysicist. This was in the era when there was $20 oil and the price of gold was considerably lower. Now we talk about how the rich oil and mining companies make money, but there have been years when it has been fairly tough to make a living in this industry.

I worked and got great experience in northern Quebec, our three territories of Nunavut, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, and of course Saskatchewan and the neighbouring province of Manitoba. This personal experience in the industry impacts to this very day how I approach policy issues and my understanding of the various things that impact and affect mining and natural resource development specifically. Let me give an example.

Frequently in the House we have dealt with legislation that has to do with the regulatory impacts, meaning regulation and what it means to mining. We in Canada should be proud of our environmental record on mining. There have been grave problems in certain instances, but in general we should be proud.

I think of a specific time when I was working as a junior geophysicist in northern Manitoba and was talking with a senior geologist, a gentleman with close to 20 years of experience.

Geology is one of those occupations that cannot be learned in the classroom. It takes a certain maturing and a certain degree of field experience. It does not matter how long one spends in the classroom; one cannot overestimate the value of that experience.

However, this senior geologist, someone with 20 years of field experience, was explaining to me that more than 50% of his time was spent dealing with regulations and permits, things that, while necessary, were not fundamental things for which his experience as a geologist would be of most use and impact.

That, to this day, has impacted how I think about the industry. There is so much productivity in our mining industry and in our workforce, but we do things to hold it back and slow down what we have there.

We need to grasp who it is that works in the mining industry. We know about the financial sector in Vancouver and Toronto, which I will talk about, but in areas of northern Canada where the aboriginal population in places like Nunavut does not have to this day a very strong, functioning economy in the historic sense based upon trapping and the various traditional arts, mining has in many cases been the only economic driver.

We see that in Nunavut and in northern Saskatchewan. This is an industry that does not pay poor wages; it pays top-dollar wages, not just for highly skilled tradespeople such as electricians and people who work some of the equipment but for miners, because it is tough work. These people very much deserve the wages they receive, and they are very productive because of the high capital put into it.

Coming from Saskatchewan, I can ask what mining fundamentally means to my home province. For people listening tonight, the answer is that Saskatchewan is the province most dependent on mining in the whole country on a per capita basis. It is one of the reasons that Saskatchewan is, per capita, also the province in the country with the highest degree of international exports and the least dependence upon the U.S. market.

Potash in our province is a $7-billion-a-year industry. It has attracted some very large companies. BHP Billiton, the largest company in the world, is looking at building, in the corner of my constituency, an approximately $10-billion mine, give or take a few billion dollars. That is the sort of impact it has in areas such as Saskatoon. Other companies, such as Mosaic and PCS, a Saskatchewan headquartered potash giant, the largest in the world, are from Saskatchewan. Along with Vancouver and Toronto, Saskatoon is becoming the third capital of mining in Canada.

What does mining mean, and not just to areas in the remote north, not just to places like Baffin Island, where we are looking at a brand new iron ore deposit, or places like northern Ontario? I see my hon. friend, who is a big fan of the Ring of Fire and the potential development there. What else does it mean to places like Toronto or Vancouver, places that we do not always automatically connect with the mining sector?

Let me throw out a few facts from the TSX Venture Exchange mining stocks. The percentage of the world's public mining companies listed in Canada: 58%. The ranking in the world for publicly listed: number 1. The number of listed mining companies: 1,665. The number of companies that have mines in production or under development: 326. The numbers go on and show how important mining is to Canada.

Canadian-headquartered mining companies accounted for nearly 37% of budgeted worldwide exploration expenditures in 2012. That means that our lawyers, finance people, accountants, technical people, and legal people have good jobs in the service sector in places such as Vancouver and Toronto. The jobs spin out. We see this in things like the quality of our education, such as at the world-class mining program we find at Queen's University in Kingston. We in Canada are proud of this history. We see it in our scientific research as the world's leader per capita, and very close in real numbers, in terms of knowledge and the number of geological papers produced.

At the base of it, mining is important to all of Canada. Twenty per cent of our exports come from mining, and this does not include oil and gas, which is shipped through the pipelines. Mining is good for Canada, particularly northern Canada, as it is often the only thing there for building its economy.

How has the government and the natural resources committee been working and dealing with supporting mining? Earlier this year, we did a report on development in northern Canada. We broadly and loosely defined the term, but again and again, the overwhelming theme that came out was the importance of mining, the importance of connecting what is down in the south with what is up in the north.

A couple of major themes began to emerge in that report, and we see this throughout everything we are doing. The first is that regulatory changes have an impact. They make a difference. We were talking today in committee about another subject. Thankfully, this involved the United States, where it took 14 years to get permitting done for a project that took only 18 months to get into play. We do not see that in the Canadian mining sector anymore. In fact, one of the things that makes us competitive is the way the federal government has been working in coordination with the provinces to increase regulatory changes that make sense. As someone who experienced that as a junior geophysicist talking with a senior geologist, I understand how that has an impact on the ground.

A second major theme we have been noting is labour force changes. It takes a great deal of skill. People often deride Canadians as hewers of wood and haulers of water, as if extracting natural resources is not something to be proud of. Some of the world's most profitable companies today are extracting natural resources. There are major dollars and large incomes. One hundred thousand dollar a year jobs are not uncommon in this industry.

Those are two areas where the government has been working with the industry and the general public to get them involved. It is providing and streamlining regulatory changes and labour force changes to provide a workforce for the industry and better jobs for Canadians.

As I noted earlier, potash is very important to the province of Saskatchewan. We are also fairly unique as one of the world's major producers of uranium. Along with Kazakhstan and Australia, we are one of the big three. The entire uranium-producing industry in Canada is now located in the province of Saskatchewan.

I wish to ask the parliamentary secretary about the government's approach to regulation and the uranium sector. I am particularly interested in knowing about the regulations and the approach we have had to uranium and to the nuclear sector.

Perhaps the parliamentary secretary would also provide a bit of a contrast with the positions the other parties have taken on this issue and explain how this resource is mined safely, what the strict regulations are and what the government's view on uranium and mining regulations is.

[Memorial Cup, May 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it will be an incredible week in Saskatoon as the city and the province of Saskatchewan host the Memorial Cup. The Memorial Cup will be an outstanding event, thanks to the true Saskatchewan volunteer spirit.

Military representatives, alumni from the host Saskatoon Blades and Canadian Hockey League officials were on hand as the Memorial Cup arrived in Saskatoon. The flyover by two members of the Canadian Forces Snowbirds, Canada's famed aerobatics team, made the opening ceremony special. It was an opportunity to acknowledge the role of the Canadian military in our country today. Its members' sacrifices are extraordinary, and the opening ceremony was an opportunity for the people of Saskatoon to express the gratitude they feel to the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Special thanks to the many volunteers who have worked tirelessly to ensure the success of this Memorial Cup, led by Tim Gitzel and Jack Brodsky. They are to be commended for going above and beyond the call of duty. It is the effort they are demonstrating this week that has made Saskatoon the volunteer capital of Canada. We salute each and every unsung volunteer and thank them for making the Memorial Cup an event of which to be proud.

[Election of Committee Chairs, April 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, could I ask for some more time to consider? At this point, if the member in the second hour or another member would move it again, I suspect I would support it. As it is at this moment, I would like to have a little more time.

I am not opposed to it, I would just like a little more time to review it.

[Election of Committee Chairs, April 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised a fairly valid point because of what has happened frequently in Canadian history with a large number of new MPs coming in. It would therefore be unlikely, but not impossible, for rookie members to get elected as committee chairs. It would be fairly difficult to get to know personalities and so forth before Parliament gets going. That is the situation the way it is now. When one is brand new to a committee, what does that individual know about the person who is running for committee chair? Newer members of Parliament historically, whether de facto or officially, tend to get mentored and turn to veteran members of Parliament for advice and knowledge about colleagues. I suspect that would happen. Every new member has a different personality and would react in a different way.

[Election of Committee Chairs, April 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, if memory serves me right, the research note that I pulled out from the Library of Parliament indicated that Australia and New Zealand have a similar system to ours with respect to election in and around committees. It is the British model that I am asking us to look at in a broader, direct sense. That is where this motion is going.

Before the British parliament is fully set up and people are sitting on committees, members start to campaign. After the speaker is elected they then vote with a large preferential ballot. I have never seen this ballot. I do not know if it is huge with 34 different committees on it. It is numbered one, two, three, and four. In the case of the committee that I noted, and looking through some of its transcripts, four candidates ran for the position. With a preferential ballot, they would have chosen candidate one, candidate two, candidate three by default. That is the British system. In the British system, eight of its committees in the first run through were not contested. Eight members were elected by unanimous consent of the House. They had the experience and the views that members were looking for. That is the British model and that is what I am looking for.

My understanding is that the Australian and New Zealand system are very similar to what we have.

[Election of Committee Chairs, April 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the member's excellent question goes to the point of what I am trying to do. Currently, we effectively have only one candidate for every post. This would encourage several candidates to run for a post.

In Great Britain, four candidates ran for the same post on one of the committees. Four members of the governing Conservative caucus appealed to all 650 members. The Conservatives do not have a majority government in Great Britain so whoever won definitely received votes from the Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, or the minor parties. In that situation, with the preferential ballot, I suspect the winning candidate did not get selected on the first, second, or maybe even the third ballot.

In answer to the first part of the member's question about what makes a good committee chair, in my personal opinion and observation it is someone with good temperament and character, someone who is honest, fair and has integrity, someone with an open personality. The individual must be receptive and balanced, and be able to work back and forth, someone with a good sense of humour. Other things could be added to that, but I look for someone with a good temperament and good character when I look for a good committee chair.

[Election of Committee Chairs, April 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my motion today is a very simple motion in many ways, but it is also a motion that is very profound. Fundamentally it is about democracy, about changing where we go and how we do. I should make it clear at the beginning of my remarks that my position is not a criticism of any particular committee chair. It is not a criticism of the current system. However, every so often we can look to those things and decide what is good, what is better and what is best. As a wise man once said, our good should be better until our better is best. Let us never rest until our good is better and our better is best.

Politics is a place where reality is not always reality. Often perception is reality. It is important for us in this place, as we deal with all of our institutions, including committees, which is one of our most important institutions, to make sure that both the practice, the perception and the reality all come together to bring an image of democratic accountability in all that we do.

Currently the House procedure for election of committee chairs is an election directly at committee. That has not always been so. In fact, a little over a decade ago it was common and normative for all committee chairs to be appointed. Starting with a debate in the 37th Parliament, and I have probably not located all attempts for reform, motions were moved by opposition members. My understanding is that government members were also interested in doing that. Reports were done at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

One of the best sources for finding information as to what the parliaments of the day were thinking, and their desire to make committees more democratic and responsible, is from one of the supply days. That was moved in 2002, by Mr. Reynolds, then a member of the Canadian Alliance. Interestingly, it was one of those situations where there was a considerable degree of cross-party co-operation. In fact, the NDP, which at that time was one of the minor parties, traded with the Canadian Alliance to move up its supply day and give it support.

Some of the remarks from then on the value of an independent chair are very apropos today. As the then member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, the now Minister of National Defence said:

An independently elected chair...would demystify and give greater credibility to the process. What we are talking about is not the election of opposition members to fill those important positions of chair, but government members.

Then the NDP member for Pallister, Mr. Dick Proctor, said:

Frankly we make it far too easy for the media to cover politics in a very partisan fashion. There is the high angle shot which highlights, maybe even exaggerates, the neutral zone between the government side and the opposition side.

This was the sentiment expressed by members from all sides of the House during that day. Growing out of that debate and the discussions around it, we evolved to a place where we now elect committee chairs through our direct votes at committee.

It is interesting that one of the most important things brought about was that we need to have a secret ballot, otherwise, what is the point? However, we only need a secret ballot when there is more than one candidate applying for the post. Again, it is not a criticism of anyone in particular, or a situation, but because of the small size of our committees, five to seven members, it is such a small electoral pool that effectively members feel compelled to only vote for one candidate. In many cases these candidates have been excellent and outstanding personnel, who have served the job well.

Again, to my point, let us strive for what can be better. Let us look to other examples and begin to study what we find is best. I was doing some research on what I was going to move for my private member's motion, and I came across the way the British Parliament has evolved on this issue. The British Parliament has moved from a system where its committee chairs were, first of all, appointed. Eventually, I believe in 1979, it began to have a backbencher's committee to select, through the whips, the prime ministers and leaders, appointments to its chairs, vice-chairs, et cetera, of committees.

Then, in 2009, if memory serves me correctly, the British parliament produced a report calling for changes to the parliamentary system to again enhance and grow the perception and reality of democracy. It came up with a rather interesting and, I think, novel solution that it is now reviewing in a very positive fashion. It is saying that perhaps it should throw open, at the beginning Parliament, to all eligible members, since cabinet members, the Speaker and other members would not be eligible, the opportunity to present themselves to the wider, broader judgment of the House. It did that in a very new fashion, and there are some things that are slightly different in its system, so we cannot bring every idea. It put forward this idea so there would be greater accountability and more interest, power and authority for the committee chairs, a greater sense of independence and belonging.

Those are some of the underlying reasons I am proposing this study be discussed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and then come back to the House with some ideas for the House to decide.

My first rationale for the change is that it enhances the reality and perception of democratic accountability. Again, we have some outstanding chairs and the underlying idea of electing chairs by committees is a wonderful idea, but let us be practical. When there are 12 members on a committee, 5 to 7 depending on a minority or majority situation for the government, there will not be the same vigorous participation, broader discussion and suggestion of ideas to try to attract support for committee chairmanships.

Therefore, people then get a perception, which may not be the reality, and different members can argue about whatever, I am not taking sides on this, that there is not an actual election, only a fake election and an appointment. In a situation such as that, a committee chair and therefore the entirety of the committee, loses a degree of democracy, which may not necessarily be reality. Perhaps the same person might win by the unanimous consent of the House, but it is the perception of democracy. In a democratic system, a lot of what we do is based upon perception. We get our authority from our constituents because they entrust things to us. We get our authority because we stand in our places and speak on their behalf. It is not through raw force, it is through the consent of those who we govern that we hold our offices in this place.

A second rationale for why I am suggesting that we study these changes is that it requires members to engage on what the characteristics are of a good committee chair. I have had opportunities to serve on many committees and be a member of caucuses, and so forth, and there have been some delightful, wonderful, good senior members, who, frankly, cannot chair a meeting. They are wonderful constituency people, they are honest as the day is long and are collegial, but sometimes they may not have it. To be frank, sometimes we may not always want to directly confront them about this on a very small issue.

This would provide an ability to start to discuss and bring forward what the characteristics are and who are the individuals. We may not always concentrate so much on dividing up the membership, but to think in a broader sense of who would bring the most credibility and respect to a committee and who would actually then engage in processes and behaviours to bring people together in ways that are profitable for all members.

That brings me to point three, which would enhance the reality and perception of impartiality. I will address later the fact that I am not suggesting we change the ratios of government and opposition members for committee chairmanships. That is something the British parliament has that is different. That could be for another debate. It is interesting and may even be profitable, but I am not go there today.

We have a situation now, particularly since all of the elections for committee chairs are unanimous, where the perception is that the committee chairs are not always impartial, though not everyone may have that perception. There are many committee chairs who I am sure are viewed impartially by all members of the House, but on occasion that has been a problem, in my observation.

With regard to the speakership, members from all parties elect and vote for Speakers. The previous Speaker, Mr. Milliken, a Liberal, did a fine job in the Speaker's chair. To get elected in a minority Parliament, he had to have support from more than one party.

This is the thing. When we personally vote for colleagues or politicians, we give them a certain degree of credence. We want those people to succeed. We look at them through a different lens. Therefore, both the perception of impartiality and the reality of impartiality are supported.

It also strengthens a committee's ties to the broader House. A committee should be in charge of its own destiny. I am not disputing that. I am not in any way, shape or form trying to take that away. However, a committee has a relationship and a responsibility. It derives its powers, in a broader sense, from the House and also reports back to the House. The broader House trusts each of us on committee to become a specialist to do things, and this back and forth of democratic interaction, and a sense of a stake in each committee, would be a good thing.

This is my most important point. It opens up the discussion for more democratic change. My change is a minor change. Even if this change did not go forward, I would consider it a success if other very good ideas to change committee structure, membership, debate in the House—structure the debate the way we do our caucuses—and the way we elect officials in our caucuses came forward from this. I am hoping to use this as a springboard to encourage other members to engage in a review of the Standing Orders and to think about what we can do to make this a better place.

Our Westminster system was not handed down like the Ten Commandments. It has evolved over the years. Perhaps because it was written by mortals, unlike the Ten Commandments, there is not a degree of perfection in it. However, the broader community is now talking to us through social media, the Internet, various telecommunications and other things we do. They are demanding a broader, more direct sense of accountability. Therefore, we need to be open and discuss how we can make more changes. In fact, I am encouraging members to make amendments, suggestions, etcetera. At this stage, it may be a little complicated, but we need to have that discussion on a wider range of issues.

Again, my experience has been that in most of these committees, only one candidate stands for office. This would actually make it a vigorous election, with the usual suggestions, or what I would call campaign promises, for improvements, better behaviour, better action and better quality of chairmanships. Again, I think we have had excellent chairs. There is no criticism implied.

I will respond to a few quick questions that have come to me.

One of the major concerns for both sides of the House is that the eligibility of the chairs would be affected. Who could be there? Some members of the opposition were concerned that with a majority government, the government could then elect all 24 chairs. That is not what I am proposing. I am proposing that we keep the 24 we currently have.

The concern has also been expressed by members on the government side that in a minority Parliament, all 24 chairs would then be from the opposition. That is expanded and dealt with in other Standing Orders and is not what I am dealing with today.

The other point often brought to me is why we do not go further. I know many members here are veteran members. They understand that with private member's business, if we go too far, it gets too complicated. That goes back to my point that I am using this as a springboard to try to inspire other people to bring forward other broad ideas.

People have talked about vice-chairs and other membership-related issues. I am open to all of those ideas. However, I would encourage other members to bring forward those ideas for another broad debate and try to build consensus.

I thank all members of the House, because at this point, I have received support on this issue from, I believe, every single party, including from the corner populated by the independents. I thank all members for their positive input and ask for their constructive and positive criticism.

[Election of Committee Chairs, April 24th, 2013]

moved:

That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to: (a) consider the election of committee chairs by means of a preferential ballot system by all the Members of the House of Commons, at the beginning of each session and prior to the establishment of the membership of the standing committees; (b) study the practices of other Westminster-style Parliaments in relation to the election of Committee Chairs; (c) propose any necessary modifications to the Standing Orders and practices of the House; and (d) report its findings to the House no later than six months following the adoption of this order.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support I have received from all sides of this House—

[Petitions, March 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have been asked by residents of Burnaby—New Westminster to table a petition that their member of Parliament refused to table.

The petitioners are concerned about the inclusion of subjective terms like gender identity and gender expression in the laws, and they are concerned that these terms are poorly defined.

The petitioners call upon the House of Commons and Parliament to vote against Bill C-279 and to base all future policy decisions and legislative language on objective, measurable criteria.

[Les Pavelick, January 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, a piece of Saskatchewania passed away last week. Les Pavelick, better known as “Metro”, died of a heart attack a week ago yesterday.

Les was a Saskatchewan original whose comedy works represented a slice of rural western Canadian culture that is slowly vanishing. The one-time radio ad salesman is better known for his creation of Metro, an accented, slightly exaggerated character who represented the homespun humour of the Prairies. As Metro, his comedy included music, most notably his 1975 recording 11 Days from Christmas, which included songs like Walkin' in my Winter Underwear and Chesnik Roasting on an Open Fire.

His humour was not just for himself; he entertained Canadian troops on overseas UN tours and working various fundraisers he helped to raise over a million dollars for charities and service groups in Saskatchewan. As his friend Sheila Pelltier said, “It's going to be a few hard days, but we know he's telling jokes up there. [He's]...still bringing joy and happiness to people through their memories”. We laughed with Les because we saw ourselves in him, our province, our friends and our family.

He is missed and lovingly remembered by his wife Barbara.