House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2021, with 49% of the vote.
Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act June 12th, 2012
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague about the international trend toward energy efficiency.
We have known for decades that better environmental performance, both in a company and in a nation state, is absolutely consistent with enhanced competitiveness for that company and the country involved.
Could she help us understand how important it is for Canada to get into the energy efficiency race to be able to compete properly?
Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act June 12th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I will pick up on my colleague's comments and recap for a second.
Let us see where we have come from.
In 1995, Canada balanced its budget. For 10 years, we had 10 consecutive years of surpluses. In 2006, the Conservative government was elected with a $13 billion surplus. Even before the recession hit, which the government denied, the government increased spending by 19%, the single largest increase in spending in Canadian history, making it the biggest-spending and biggest-borrowing government in Canadian history. The Minister of Finance rejected a bailout of the car industry, but had to because a pistol was put to his head by the Premier of Ontario and the President of the United States.
The record now is we see two sets of books on the F-35 and the PBO cannot get members to actually disclose the facts. We certainly have had the biggest billboards in Canadian history, with $30 million spent on 9,000 billboards across the country to advertise the budget. Now we are left with a $128 billion increase in debt.
It is the same old same old. These republican reformers are the same. They cut taxes, they increase spending, they borrow the money and they compromise public services.
Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act June 12th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. I would like to remind the parliamentary secretary of something and put a question to my colleague at the same time.
The more I hear the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister speak, the more I am reminded of my great-grandparents who used to work for a well-established, old lumber baron from the Ottawa Valley. It sounds like the government is pursuing a 19th century strategy of hewing wood and drawing water instead of focusing on what this country needs and what this budget should be reflecting. We do not have an innovation strategy, our venture capital money is fleeing the country, and there is an energy efficiency race on around the world and we do not even have our sneakers on yet. Professor Porter from Harvard tells us that better environmental performance is absolutely consistent with enhanced competitiveness. The changes that are being brought in this budget would actually erode those standards and our competitiveness.
Could my colleague comment on that?
Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act June 12th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to pick up on something the member raised during his remarks. He cited the case of Yukon.
Yukon has its own environmental assessment process, agreed to by the federal government. It took several years to develop. The good news about the Yukon process is that when it was being developed there was extensive consultation with industry, with the labour movement, with environmental NGOs who were not described as radical or accused of laundering money, and with different groups working with the government. When the final process was brought into play in Yukon, everyone agreed to it and signed off on it. It is a very interesting model for us to be learning from.
Why does the government not follow the good advice and the good system that was put in place under the previous Liberal governments that actually arrived at a system that improved the system, with everybody agreeing with the actual changes?
Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act June 12th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, which I think would be helpful in our overall discussion about the process that has gone on here.
I think it is fair to say that the consensus in the House is, even among some backbenchers in the government, that the bill should have been divided into pieces and that there should have been proper consideration given to the regulatory changes.
For example, we know, in the wake of this week's oil spill in Alberta, that the Government of Canada's regulatory standards right now for pipelines do not distinguish between diluted bitumen and conventional oil. We know that diluted bitumen is more problematic to ship, more toxic, more corrosive, more abrasive and is more likely to lead to more pipeline ruptures.
Could she address how that kind of issue specifically would have benefited from a proper multi-stakeholder process, either through Canada's National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, which was just killed, or perhaps even at a special legislative committee?
Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act June 12th, 2012
Madam Speaker, this morning in the natural resources committee, we heard testimony about the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act. It was very revealing to see how it was arrived at. It was supported by industry, environmental groups, labour groups, and all kinds of players in Yukon society. It took three to four years to craft it. It is in complete contradistinction to what the government is doing here.
I think the government could take a page and learn from the Yukon experience to come up with a better regulatory process, improve it, which is something we all want to see for Canadians, but do it in a way that is inclusive, meaningful, consultative, and end up with a process that everyone believes in.
Perhaps my colleague could respond to that.
Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act June 11th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her speech and pick up on the theme that was raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.
If indeed the government has been working on these changes for years, I am wondering if the member could help us understand why it is that just recently the government dispatched 10 senior cabinet ministers around the country to try to convince Canadians that the environmental assessment process would be capped to two years, only to then have to admit that in fact, when a project proponent delays, the two-year timeline no longer applies.
Maybe the member could help us understand, for example, how that applied in the case of Imperial Oil in the Northwest Territories.
Petitions June 6th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table a petition on behalf of many Ottawa residents who are deeply disturbed by this issue. They urge the government to reinstate funding to the community access program.
Quite unbelievably and sadly, the Conservative government is disconnecting Canadians from their communities, from business opportunities and from government services. It is shutting people out of the online conversations that are shaping our society and that we have all come to count on.
I am pleased to table this petition on behalf of my constituents.
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns June 5th, 2012
With regard to government offices, how many offices have been newly opened or relocated since January 1, 2006, specifying: (a) the department or agency; (b) the division, unit, or other like descriptor; (c) in the case of relocated offices, the former location, including full address; (d) the location of the newly-opened or relocated office, including full address; and (e) in the case of leased space, the name of the firm or person leasing the space to the government?
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns June 5th, 2012
With respect to Treasury Board numbers for public sector employees as of March 31, 2012: (a) what is the number of public sector employees broken down by the following regions for the fiscal years ending March 31, 2009, March 31, 2010, March 31, 2011, and March 31, 2012, namely: (i) Newfoundland and Labrador, (ii) Prince Edward Island, (iii) Nova Scotia, (iv) New Brunswick, (v) Quebec, exclusive of the National Capital Region, (vi) National capital Region, Quebec portion, (vii) Natioanl Capital Region, Ontario portion, (viii) Ontario, exclusive of the National Capital Region, (ix) manitoba, (x) Saskatchewan, (xi) Alberta, (xii) British Columbia, (xiii) Yukon, (xiv) Northwest Territories, (xv) Nunavut, (xiv) outside Canada; and (b) for the answers in (a), what are the numbers in each region broken down by (i) indeterminate employees, (ii) specified term employees, (iii) casual employees, (iv) student employees?