Claude Gravelle

[Mining Industry, December 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Industry pretended to know nothing about his own notes on Vale Inco. I will therefore repeat the question in the hope that the minister's response will be more informative.

A document obtained by Radio-Canada through access to information clearly reveals that the minister was aware of the violation of the agreement reached between Vale Inco and Investment Canada. Under the circumstances, why did the Conservatives not take legal action against that corporation?

[Foreign Takeovers, December 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, just this morning we learned that the government had planned to approve the BHP deal until political risks grew too great. No wonder the Minister of Industry is refusing to tell Canadians why he turned down the BHP takeover.

The Conservatives voted for the NDP motion calling for greater transparency and openness but now they are lowering the cone of silence again.

Why will the Conservatives not level with Canadians? Why is the Minister of Industry keeping his reasons a secret?

[Potash Industry, December 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it was not so long ago that the Prime Minister decided to ignore concerns about the acquisition of the Potash Corporation by BHP. At the time, his ignorance was amazing. He certainly learned a lot in a very short period of time.

Can the minister now explain what made the Prime Minister change his mind? Was it the NDP's solid economic logic or the Conservatives' political opportunism that made him change his mind?

[Potash Industry, December 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry has told the House he had to wait 30 days before giving his reasons for turning down the BHP hostile takeover of Potash Corporation. Then he assured the House he would act with alacrity.

The House has plenty of reasons not to take the minister at his word. He is already a week late. Is he still working on his lines, or will he tell Canadians today why he and the Prime Minister changed their minds and turned down this deal?

[Safer Railways Act, December 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Sudbury is familiar with a community north of Sudbury called Capreol. Bill C-33 is a railway safety bill. Because of the length of the trains today, often if the train stops in a specific area, the community of Capreol is landlocked, so if there were an emergency such as a fire, it would be in trouble.

Does my colleague believe that these trains should be shortened to make it safer for communities like Capreol?

[Safer Railways Act, December 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Sudbury on his wonderful speech here in the House today.

I know that there has been a lot of talk in his riding of Sudbury and my riding of Nickel Belt about the railway going right through downtown Sudbury. I would like to know if he thinks that the federal government should get back into assisting municipalities that request to have their railroads removed from downtown where they are causing traffic congestions.

Could the hon. member for Sudbury please give me his opinion on that?

[Safer Railways Act, December 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member from Winnipeg's community is cut in half by railway tracks just like my community of Sudbury.

So, I would ask the hon. member if he believes that the government should help fund the removal of those tracks from downtown municipalities that want to have them moved.

[Safer Railways Act, December 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Outremont.

My riding of Nickel Belt is mainly a rural area and, since the railway line crosses roads that do not have barriers, accidents occur frequently. I use the term “accidents” because these incidents are exactly that—accidents.

Does my colleague agree that, when a railway line crosses a road, lights and rail barriers should be mandatory at the level crossing?

[Safer Railways Act, December 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have several communities in my riding where there are problems with the length of trains today. The trains are so long that if an accident were to occur in a community it could be landlocked.

I have s a CNR community in my riding called Capreol. If a serious accident were to happen at the right place, this community would be landlocked possibly for days. I am just wondering if this bill, when it goes to committee, would look after a situation like this?

[Business of Supply, December 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was talking about underwriters and getting insurance for these tankers. If we were to refine our oil in Canada, creating good-paying Canadian jobs, we would not have to worry about the underwriters. Instead of having to underwrite these tankers to process the oil in the U.S.A. and Asia, creating jobs over there where it does not benefit our economy, we want to benefit the Canadian economy and create good-paying Canadian jobs.