Bruce Hyer

[Canada Grain Act, March 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the hon. member for Malpeque.

The first is, how soon can we enjoy some of the world's best oysters in Malpeque together?

The second question is even more pressing. Building on the member's comments, there are at least three problems with the grain act. The first problem is that, if I understand it correctly, it appears we are going to lose about 100 grain inspectors, about half of whom protect and inspect the grain in the port of Thunder Bay, which is in my riding. The loss of those professionals and their expertise is further evidence of a government that does not believe in inspection or regulation, but believes that little or no government is best.

The member already mentioned the second problem. You had a letter which said that the grain will not be inspected and that will be a problem in the U.S. and world markets. That is totally true. We have the best grain in the world and we need to be able to prove it.

The third problem is that we will no longer be protecting our own public in terms of food safety, which, as we know, has been an ongoing problem throughout Canada with listeria.

Hon. member for Malpeque, would you care to comment?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, March 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am a biologist, and in a former life I used to write environmental impact assessments and review them.

Over many years of doing that work I have discovered that rarely do environmental assessments stop projects, rather they improve them. Environmental assessment is one more tool, a useful, necessary, and in this case, essential tool to help us to do better planning, better building, better construction, and to assess the likely impacts upon the environment—in this case, upon our streams—by proposed projects.

Environmental assessment is just one more kind of good planning. I am sure everyone in this House supports good planning. We should not be reducing environmental assessments in these days; we should be ensuring, particularly in our waterways, that environmental assessments occur.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, March 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to raise concerns about a budget bill which is not really a budget bill but contains poison pills. It contains poison pills that the Liberals seem all too willing to swallow for months and months to come, poison pills regarding women's rights, workers' rights, and the one on which I especially want to comment today, environmental rights, because the environment should have rights.

I rise today to raise my concerns regarding the review of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. This is an act with good goals but it is a bad act and it especially should not be in the budget bill. It should be a stand-alone bill that we can debate without fear of bringing down the House and precipitating an election.

I have been getting a lot of correspondence from my constituents and many groups in Thunder Bay and the rest of northwestern Ontario, such as the Mattawa First Nation and other first nations, Environment North, which is northwestern Ontario's largest and oldest environmental group, many paddling groups, including the Lakehead Canoe Club, and EcoSuperior, which is a non-profit group seeking to protect the environment of northern Ontario. Those concerns are around the proposed changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. I know that nationally there are many dozens of other organizations that have concerns about this act. They are all up in arms over these changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

In February 2008 the government requested that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities undertake consultations to develop a new Navigable Waters Protection Act. That act was written in 1882. It is one of the oldest pieces of legislation in Canada. It certainly is time to rewrite it, but the way we are going about it and the suggested changes are not acceptable.

Last year the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities wanted to eliminate a lot of the red tape around municipalities, in particular building infrastructure in and around waterways. At the same time, it wanted to modernize this 127-year-old act. Those were laudable goals. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have done it the wrong way and the result of a rewritten Navigable Waters Protection Act is fewer navigation rights, less environmental protection, less accountability and less transparency.

During the committee hearings, numerous government departments, both federal and provincial, testified and brought forth their issues and proposals for modernizing the act. Unfortunately, the committee restricted the number of witnesses from environmental groups, first nations and citizen organizations. The NDP opposed this limitation and regarded this as a violation of both the concept of consultation and the proper functioning of parliamentary committee reviews.

As a result, the committee then attempted to offer a comprehensive proposal for modernizing the entire act, which was the original government request, and instead of doing that, chose to recommend a series of amendments to the act which are problematic at best and completely unexamined at worst. The NDP voted against these proposed amendments.

The committee, through a majority vote of the other parties, would not allow a supplementary or dissenting opinion to be included in the report. This action is rather unusual since it is a traditional practice to include supplementary opinions and recommendations when there is not yet a unanimous vote in favour of the committee reports and studies. This is yet another example of the increasing dysfunction of that committee acting beyond traditional procedures and practices of parliamentary democracy.

While this is the first phase of the process for changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, this method sets a troubling precedent. The committee now awaits the government's legislative amendments which are anticipated and now available. At that time the NDP had intended to ensure that all interests, including environmental, first nations, recreational and citizen organizations, were to be allowed to make both written submissions and oral testimony in regard to all changes, but that has not occurred.

The Navigable Waters Protection Act does need to be modernized. The process must be comprehensive and transparent, and truly consultative. We need to do it, but now is not the time, and this budget is not the place.

A rewritten Navigable Waters Protection Act would create a class system for Canadian streams, granting the minister absolute authority to deem certain waterways worthy and others unworthy of environmental protection, and designate some as minor waterways. There is no such thing as a minor waterway.

Work on newly defined minor waterways is to be exempted from environmental review processes. This would likely mean that most environmental review requirements for projects on Canadian waterways would be eliminated. Reviews for even major bridges, dams, causeways, and barrages will be left up to the discretion of the minister.

By taking out today's automatic triggers for environmental assessment, these changes mean that politics and money will govern our streams and rivers, not the environment, and not society's long-term needs.

Where is the transparency and accountability in all of this? Eliminating public notification and consultation on these projects on the minister's whim will pose problems for the historic public right of navigation on our waterways, which has been in place since the founding of our country.

I can guarantee that this issue will not go away even if the changes in part 7 are not decoupled from the government's omnibus budget legislation. The government is trying to inappropriately slip environmental changes in with a fast-tracked budget omnibus bill. More than just transport, this issue impacts the protection of our waterways and the access to those waterways by everyday recreational Canadians and other Canadians. What we need is a separate debate in the House and in the appropriate committees.

We agree that the Navigable Waters Protection Act must be modernized, but this must not come at the expense of the public's right of navigation or environmental protection.

We propose that these proposed changes be decoupled from the budget implementation legislation.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, thank you for reminding me. Our friends from Newfoundland have been smart enough to figure out, as I commented a minute ago, that the great tradition of conservatism from well over a century ago has failed us. The Premier of Newfoundland has accurately identified that our Prime Minister is not a man to be trusted.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I have been to Newfoundland many times on consulting business and recreation. You are the friendliest people in Canada and among the friendliest people in the world. You are also smart enough to have figured out—

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I have three small businesses. I do understand business principles.

I recently read with interest Pierre Berton's book, The National Dream. At that time, as now, the Liberal Party of Canada wanted to have the Americans build the international dream of the CPR to the west coast.

Interestingly, at that time, the leader of the Conservative Party, Sir John A. Macdonald stood up for Canadian industry and for Canadian provinces. What a shame that we have lost the Conservative Party of Canada. I hope we can get it back some day.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I looked at the Conservative-Liberal alliance budget implementation bill and I was disappointed. I was disappointed to see little for Canadians and especially little for the citizens of communities in northwestern Ontario. I was equally saddened to see that the Leader of the Opposition had chosen to lead the Liberal Party, as his predecessor did, condemning the budget with one breath while rubber stamping it with the next.

Recently I held broad public consultations on the hoped-for budget in my riding and what was asked for is not in the budget. The budget implementation bill does not address the major issues my constituents brought up during those public consultations.

The things that were especially at the forefront of those consultations again and again, in 13 communities, by hundreds of people and dozens of organizations, were a fairer employment insurance system, support for our struggling forest industry and workers and real money for local infrastructure needs.

Employment insurance remains in desperate need of reform. Most workers who pay into it are not eligible for benefits. In Ontario almost 70% of the unemployed do not qualify even though they have paid into it. Paul Martin's Liberals gutted EI and the Conservatives have not fixed it. Nothing was done in the budget to make EI eligibility fairer. The program still maintains regional disparities, keeps the waiting period and there is still a clawback of severance pay.

Over half of the casework at my constituency office, the work of two people, is about EI problems and the failure to access EI fairly and efficiently, and it is growing by the week. Constituents often are unable to get through to the toll-free call centre and do not get the promised callback within 48 hours, or 84 hours, or sometimes weeks. Claims are delayed, deadlines are missed, appeals stretch out for months.

The system is not serving hardworking Canadians who have paid into it, sometimes for decades. This is simply not acceptable. We need a responsive EI system that works for workers laid off through fault of their own.

Thunder Bay—Superior North relies on the forestry sector. The industry has been just about done in by years of neglect by Liberal governments and now the Conservative government. The $170 million over two years announced for marketing is woefully and totally inadequate tor the needs of this industry, which has the potential to sustain northwestern Ontario and many northern Canada communities for many years and decades.

There was no mention of loan guarantees to help companies like Thunder Bay Fine Papers, Longlac Wood Industries and others. In northwestern Ontario and across Canada mills are shutting down and many are in danger of being scrapped. When will the Minister of Industry support the mills and workers in northwestern Ontario?

The AbitibiBowater plant recently announced shutdowns, affecting 1,100 workers in Thunder Bay. Just days ago the Thunder Bay Fine Papers mill narrowly avoided being sold for scrap metal. Three hundred and twenty direct workers and thousands of indirect jobs in Thunder Bay still face an uncertain future due to the credit crisis because the Minister of Industry will not act.

The Minister of Industry has done absolutely nothing. He has one more chance to help this mill survive and the citizens of Thunder Bay are praying that he will take that chance. I have asked him repeatedly and I implore him again. When value-added mills like these are closed, the capacity and workers may be gone for good.

On municipal infrastructure, the lack of vision and strategy is problematic as well. Alleged municipal infrastructure money is a rising tide of red ink and red tape.

There are glaring omissions in the government's implementation of the budget in that there is no preference for Canadian products or Canadian materials, even when billions are planned in stimulus spending, allegedly. What a waste of Canadian dollars to stimulate the economies of the U.S. and China.

Our domestic procurement policies were in the news recently with the buy America amendment to the stimulus bill that was before the U.S. senate. The U.S.A. already had strong domestic procurement rules in place since 1933 and even stronger in the last seven years. Most other industrialized countries have similar rules.

Canada sits alone among the G7 countries in failing to defend domestic jobs and industries with our own made in Canada government buying policy. Where direct federal procurements are somewhat constrained because of NAFTA and WTO agreements, federal transfers to provinces, or states or municipalities for infrastructure are not. All of our other trading partners have already figured this out.

Conservative and Liberal governments in Canada have ignored our rights to buy Canadian. This is a consistent failure of our governments to show courage and resolve in trade negotiations and disputes and to stand up for Canada.

Canada must pass an act mandating made in Canada requirements. Let us really stimulate the Canadian economy and not just the economies of the U.S., Mexico and China. Let us get the most value from hard-earned Canadian taxpayer dollars.

Abandoning key rights in the free market makes no more sense for our industrial strategy than it does for the banking industry. These measures will just bring us in line with other countries. For example, the buy American act has mandated 60% U.S. made products in federally supported transportation projects. The new buy American amendment would take that even further.

In Canada in the last three years we have had B.C. ferries purchased from Germany, York region buses purchased from Belgium, Vancouver sky train, the Canada line, sourced from Korea, just to name a few. Instead let us stimulate Canadian shipyards like the ones in Thunder Bay, vehicle assembly plants and rail production like Bombardier. Millions in tax revenue and spinoff jobs would be created in Canada for a change.

When will the Minister of Industry of the republican party of Canada buy into Canadian industries and stick up for our Canadian workers?

[BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2009, February 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I have spent a lot of time in the Péribonka area, pursuing beautiful ouananiche, and I hope to get back there soon.

I have two blunt questions for the hon. member.

First, could he explain why the Conservative government seems to have abandoned the forestry industry across Canada, as well as in his area, and why it seems to feel that this industry is not worth investing in any more and that we should just let it die?

Second, could he speculate as to why the Liberals seem to have joined the Conservatives in this propping up of the budget, rubber stamping it and allowing our forestry industry, one of the most important industries in the history of Canada, to decline?

[Made in Canada Act, February 10th, 2009]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-312, An Act respecting the use of government procurements and transfers to promote economic development.

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged today to introduce the made in Canada act.

This act respecting the use of government procurements and transfers to promote economic development would stimulate employment and Canadian industry. It would do this by ensuring that our government maintains a minimum level of Canadian content in the procurement of our products and in federally supported infrastructure projects.

A discussion of this must be started if we are to get serious about stimulating our economy and not just stimulating jobs and industries overseas. Our major trading partners, like Europe, Mexico and the U.S.A., have had such policies in place for decades.

This act is intended to catch up and get the best value from hard-earned Canadian taxpayers' dollars.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Climate Change Accountability Act, February 10th, 2009]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change.

Mr. Speaker, I feel honoured to reintroduce the climate change accountability act. This act would ensure that Canada would assume its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change. It received the gracious support of a majority of members in the House this last Parliament, and I look forward to working with my colleagues from all parties to make sure that this vital legislation gets passed as quickly as possible.

Recent developments make it even more urgent that we take immediate steps to deal with greenhouse gas emissions. This act would set firm targets to reduce Canadian emissions. It would set clear objectives that would have to be met on fixed dates. It would help safeguard future generations from the dangerous effects of climate change and it would make us credible again in the eyes of the world.

We must not delay action any longer.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)