House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 69% of the vote.
Forestry Industry May 9th, 2008
Actually, Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of our community development trust fund. It is going to be delivered to Canadians. We are also proud of the things that we have done in this economy. This morning we found out that last month 19,200 new jobs were created across this country. Since the government has come to power, over 830,000 jobs have been created across the country. We are getting the job done.
Forestry Industry May 9th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that we respect the forestry industry. That is why we have created a federal mountain pine beetle program. That is why we launched the forestry industry long term competitiveness initiative. That is why we have ended the softwood lumber dispute with the United States. That is why we put the ecoenergy renewable power initiative in place. That is why we accelerated the capital cost allowance for our forestry industry and that is why we have invested $1 billion in the community development trust fund to help out that very industry.
Forestry Industry May 9th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in the opposition. As he said, we have been working together at committee to put a report together. We thought we had been working in tandem with the opposition. The minister has, as the committee wanted, called a round table of forestry industry across Canada. They will be meeting here next Tuesday to discuss the future of the industry.
We are looking for the opposition to work with us. That is why we invited all the members of the committee to come out to give their input and to hear from other folks about the future of the industry. We look forward to working with them. We wish they would work with us to support the forestry industry across Canada.
Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act May 6th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech with interest yesterday and today. I want to thank him for his support of the bill and for the work we were able to do with him in committee. I think we have a pretty good bill here.
Yesterday he mentioned that the bill does raise the liability limit from $75 million to $650 million. I am going to ask him a couple of questions. Could he reflect on why the NDP has made a decision to oppose some of these things? I would like to ask him if he has any idea of why the NDP would want to leave the liability limit at $75 million.
The bill also tightens the definition of liability, establishes clear criteria for financial instruments for operators and gives alternatives to them to use different financial instruments in ensuring their operations. Again I would like him to answer and tell us why he thinks the NDP would oppose allowing operators to seek alternatives or options when it comes to their financial instruments.
Third, a number of the amendments deal with the nuclear claims tribunal that is going to be set up in the event of a nuclear incident. I wonder if he could also reflect on why the NDP would be willing to interfere with the operation of the tribunal to the extent that it is. It does not even seem to be willing to let the tribunal function properly.
It seems to us that perhaps the NDP is just putting these amendments forward in order to try to delay the bill. Does he have any reflections on that?
Points of Order May 5th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the amendments at report stage of Bill C-5, An Act respecting civil liability and compensation for damage in case of a nuclear incident. Before you make a ruling on the selection of these amendments for debate, I would like to bring two things to your attention.
First, I point out that the member for Western Arctic is his party's energy critic and was present in committee during consideration of the clauses where report stage amendments had been proposed. He had the opportunity to move all these amendments at committee. When these clauses were debated at committee, he was signed in as a full member of the committee.
Standing Order 76.1(5) states:
The Speaker...will normally only select motions which were not or could not be presented in committee.
Second, I have concerns that some of these amendments would increase the cost to the Crown, and I would like to go through those.
Page 711 of Marleau and Montpetit states:
A royal recommendation not only fixes the allowable charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. An amendment which either increases the amount of an appropriation, or extends it objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications is inadmissible on the grounds that it infringes on the Crown's financial initiative.
Therefore, I submit that some of the amendments are inconsistent with the royal recommendation that accompanies the bill.
Motion No. 1 proposes to delete clause 21, which limits the liability of an operator to $650 million. I make the point that a similar motion was ruled out of order at committee. This change would apply to all nuclear operators, including those that are agents of the Crown, such as Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, which are funded by the government through appropriations.
The effect of this motion would increase the costs to the Crown of operating these reactors and therefore would require a royal recommendation. Again, I point out that this was ruled out of order by the Chair at committee. Further clause 26 authorizes the minister to reinsure the risk of operators, which can be funded out of the consolidated revenue fund under clause 27. Therefore, if clause 21 is deleted without the deletion of clause 26, there would be increased liability to the government and that would therefore infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown.
Motion No. 4 would delete subclauses 24(2) to (5). These provisions presently authorize operators to obtain alternate financial security. This change would apply to all nuclear operators, including those that are agents of the Crown such as Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, which are funded by the government through appropriations. The effect of this motion would increase the cost to the Crown of operating these reactors and therefore requires a royal recommendation.
Motion No. 8, as with Motion No. 1, was ruled out of order at committee. It would have the effect of repealing subclause 34(2) of the bill. Clause 34 relates to interim financial assistance that is payable to persons who, in the minister's opinion, have suffered damage as a result of a nuclear incident.
Subsection (2) of this clause states that the maximum amount paid under subsection (1) may not exceed 20% of the difference between: (a) the amount set out in subsection 21(1), which is $650 million; and (b) the total amounts paid by the operator before the declaration of the governor in council is made to compensate persons for damage arising from the nuclear incident.
A motion to increase the amount from 20% to 40% was defeated at committee on the basis that it would require a royal recommendation. By deleting clause 34(2) the minister could pay 100% of claims before the tribunal would be in a position to adjudicate any such claim for damage suffered as a result of the incident. Again, I point out that a similar motion was ruled out of order at committee.
Motions Nos. 6, 7, 9 and 10 propose to delete clauses of the bill which are designed to ensure the efficient operation of the tribunal established by the bill. For example, Motion No. 9 proposes to delete clause 47, which allows the tribunal to refuse to hear claims which are frivolous and vexatious. We dealt with this at committee where it was defeated. The deletion of these clauses would have the effect of increasing the operating costs to the tribunal and therefore should require a royal recommendation.
In conclusion, I point out, once again, that the member for Western Arctic was part of the committee when it heard much of the subject areas that were dealt with by these amendments. He had the opportunity to make those amendments. It is clear that the motions that would require a royal recommendation cannot be selected for debate at report stage.
The annotated Standing Orders at page 271 state:
Though not mentioned in this section, exception is made for motions requiring a Royal Recommendation, which are inadmissible at committee stage but admissible at report stage. However, if the necessary Royal Recommendation has not been placed on notice by the deadline required in section (3), the motion in question will not be selected.
I therefore submit that these motions should not be selected for debate.
Gasoline Prices May 2nd, 2008
Mr. Speaker, there are two ways to deal with this issue.
One is to slap on carbon taxes, raise income taxes and raise the GST to put it back where it was or raise it an additional point. That is what the NDP and the Liberals in the House would do.
Another way of dealing with it is to lower taxes: to lower the GST, to lower income taxes, to raise personal exemptions and let Canadians keep their money. We have done that. Canadians support us because that is what they want to happen in this country.
Biofuels April 29th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, 200 years ago, people opposed to technological progress were known as Luddites.
Today's Luddites are called the NDP.
In 2004, the NDP claimed it wanted to support “family farms by expanding incentives for ethanol as a transitional fuel”.
In 2006, its party platform even called for Canadian ethanol to make up 10% of vehicle fuel by 2010.
Bill C-33 would create a mandate to kickstart a biofuel economy but what are the NDP members doing? They are voting against what they campaigned on two years ago.
The head of the UN environment program stated, “We have enough food on this planet to feed everyone”.
Canadians see biofuels as an important part of a diversified economy. The Saskatchewan and Manitoba provincial NDP leaders support biofuels, while the federal NDP opposes them.
The NDP has turned its back on farmers and on its own provincial leaders. The NDP refuses to support value added for farm families, stands against progress and cannot even be consistent from one year to the next.
It is no wonder Saskatchewan has turned its back on the NDP.
Mr. Speaker, the issue has always been simple. Western Canadian farmers want a fair and open system to market their grains. They want the freedom to make business decisions that work best for them.
This government has listened to farmers and that is quite different from the decade of neglect that was shown by the previous Liberal government. We are actually taking action. We are working to provide what farmers are asking for.
The member just listens to a few people. He selectively picks the people he wants to hear and he tries to weave some great and vast conspiracy out of that.
This government was elected to provide freedom for western Canadian farmers. We were elected to update and improve the marketing and transportation of grain, and we look forward to doing that for western Canadian farmers.
Mr. Speaker, it is good that the member opposite has chosen to stay away from the topic of his question. It showed how out of touch he was in December, and it certainly shows how out of touch he is on this file today.
At the time he asked the question, he had the ridiculous notion that he was going to try to tie Brian Mulroney to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. His notion flopped back in December. It seems like he did not learn his lesson then, so he is back again.
I am told the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food does not personally know, nor has he ever met, Mr. Mulroney. I am also told that Archer Daniels Midland has never met with the minister. Therefore, the member for Malpeque, as usual, is batting zero. This time he is zero for two, and I think he is probably zero for 1,000 on the Canadian Wheat Board file.
He also thinks that giving freedom to farmers is somehow going to benefit big companies. We heard a bit of a rant about that today. He does not realize that farmers in western Canada see the Wheat Board as one of the biggest companies of all. Most of them want some freedom from it. A majority of them are asking for freedom.
It was interesting. His words were that if farmers had freedom, they would be more integrated with the United States market. Does this mean that this year Canadian farmers would have then had access to the $20 plus for durum to which the United States producers had access, while our producers were getting less than half of that?
We are used to hearing these illogical and extreme rants from the member opposite, but his question from December really shows that he has completely lost his grip on this file.
Gasoline Prices April 3rd, 2008
Mr. Speaker, we are getting the job done. We understand the burden that high gas prices put on Canadian families and the cost of living for everyone. We have taken direct steps to help to reduce those gas prices and the cost of living with significant changes, particularly tax reductions, including cuts to the GST. We are focused on energy efficiency and we are getting the job done for Canadians.