Frank Valeriote

[Petitions, November 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition urges the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to amend the Criminal Code to better reflect the growing incidence of violence against public transit, school bus, paratransit and intercity operators.

Over 40% of bus operators have indicated that they have been physically assaulted in their careers and that this needs to change. In 2008, there were 2,064 reported incidents of assault committed against transit workers and, as such, the signatories of this petition ask that the government take action to address the alarming and very dangerous escalation of violence against transit operators by amending the Criminal Code so that they are legally recognized in the same fashion as peace officers.

[Petitions, November 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, today I am presenting two petitions. The first petition concerns animal welfare.

Ensuring that animals are treated justly and that their welfare is protected needs to be a priority for the government. There is unquestioning consensus among members of the scientific community that animals can feel pain and they do suffer as a result of abuse or inhumane conditions.

Over one billion people around the world rely on animals for their livelihood and, as such, signatories to this petition find it incumbent upon the Government of Canada to act to better protect animals. Moreover, animals are often significantly affected by natural disasters and yet are seldom considered during relief efforts and emergency planning.

It is for those reasons that I submit this petition urging the government to support a universal declaration on animal welfare.

[Economic Development, November 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, while the minister makes up excuses, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business says its members are dissatisfied with the programs provided by FedDev.

Its members say the application process is time consuming and cumbersome and there is no meaningful way to inquire about applications, and no help from FedDev. Lost jobs in southwestern Ontario have been mostly replaced by contractor part-time service industry jobs, not jobs of the future.

When will the minister work for small businesses that create seven out of eight new jobs, instead of providing one-off funding for companies that cut jobs?

[Economic Development, November 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, despite giving a company in his riding 5.2 million FedDev dollars under the guise of creating jobs, it did not. The same firm, COM DEV, in fact fired 81 employees.

On the other hand, Cynthia Moyer's exemplary FedDev application was rejected for arbitrary reasons, and her firm closed.

Why is the government funding firms without a strategy and funding firms that cut jobs rather than create them? Why do they refuse to help small and medium size businesses in southwestern Ontario? Where is the fairness for those hardest hit by this recession?

[International Co-operation, October 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the government cannot hide from the truth. KAIROS was described by CIDA as being strategically aligned with our country's program objectives, and its programming would have benefited 5.4 million marginalized people. Canadian embassies and senior public servants said that KAIROS should be funded. The minister for CIDA, however, without any explanation, ended 35 years of support by suddenly penning in the word “not” before the recommended word “approved” on the report.

What really prompted the minister to add the word “not” to an otherwise glowing recommendation for funding for KAIROS?

[International Co-operation, October 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we have now learned from CIDA documents obtained through access to information and reviewed by the minister one year ago, that KAIROS' objectives are in fact “strategically aligned with our country program objectives”.

On September 20 of this year, the minister for CIDA, in absolute contradiction of her own department's findings said, “KAIROS was recently refused funding as it did not meet the government's priorities”.

Now that we know the minister's pretext for the KAIROS cuts is false, will the minister now finally restore funding to this organization?

[Huntington's Disease, October 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the inauguration of the Huntington Society of Canada's Great Canadian Series which will honour the life and work of great Canadians who have been afflicted with Huntington's disease.

The disease is an inherited brain disorder that affects both body and mind. It affects thousands of Canadians across our country and, with no known cure, its victims will succumb to cognitive and physical impairment and eventually death.

The society's first honoree is former Speaker of the House, James Jerome, who became speaker in 1974, where he remained through successive Liberal and Progressive Conservative governments. He was instrumental in the development of broadcasting House proceedings and the creation of our current parliamentary page program, giving young Canadians a unique vantage point in their study of Canada's Parliament.

Having had a profound impact on the work we do here, he developed Huntington's disease later in life, eventually succumbing to it in 2005. Mr. Jerome's impact will forever be felt, as will the efforts of the Huntington Society of Canada.

[Employment, October 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, U.S. Steel indefinitely closed its Stelco facility in Hamilton, thereby breaking its commitment to the government.

Neither the Prime Minister nor the industry minister is suffering because the government entered into this shoddy agreement. We can be sure that the people of Hamilton who lost their jobs are suffering.

Lawsuits to restore these jobs have failed, and the symptoms of weak-worded contracts the government is prone to entering into are glaring.

Why is the government so impotent in ensuring that promises are kept and that jobs are protected in southwestern Ontario?

[Employment, October 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, as part of the southern Ontario development program, the minister gave a company in his own riding $5.2 million and stated, “This investment will create jobs”. Well, it did not.

In fact, that same company took that $5.2 million and later fired 81 of its employees, nearly all in Canada, using $3 million of it for severance payments.

Can the minister tell us when he became aware of these job cuts, and how many other jobs have been lost at firms that received FedDev funding?

[Instruction to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, September 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, today I will be speaking favour of Motion 517.

The motion seeks to revitalize parliamentary proceedings through reforming question period, so members of Parliament more effectively and meaningfully communicate their ideas to one another, encouraging us to be more transparent and accountable and to work collaboratively and effectively in this, the most widely reported aspect of parliamentary proceedings. In so doing, it is hoped that Canadians will become re-engaged in parliamentary affairs and less cynical about our ability to be meaningfully engaged with one another. The result will be discussions and policy that better serve Canadians and Canadians who are more deeply engaged in our democratic process.

Instead of speaking to the specific reforms proposed by the motion, all intended to heighten our level of conversation yet without dampening spontaneity, I will instead discuss why the motion represents an important step toward a stronger and more effective Parliament.

As a child, I remember going to my father's office and seeing a plaque on the wall behind his desk. The plaque was from the Rotary Club of Guelph, of which I am now an honorary member. It made reference to a four-way test used to inspire the way in which its members engaged with one another. The principles of the four-way test are: first, is it the truth; second, is it fair; third, will it build goodwill; and fourth, will it be beneficial to all concerned.

These are the very principles from which we have strayed and these are the very principles we must embrace if we are to accomplish a level of transparency and accountability that Canadians want and deserve. These are the principles we must use as a guide in the statements we make to each other in question period. We must avoid language designed merely to make headlines or language only designed to embarrass or diminish a member of the opposite party. We need to attack problems and not people. Issues demand we act collaboratively and not divisively. Sadly, we do not.

Canadians are eager to have question period change. I have heard this everywhere I go, from my constituents in Guelph and from countless other Canadians. They have grown weary of the vitriol, the hate and the disrespect being spewed by their representatives. They are tired of our conduct, of the heckling and of the grandstanding that dominate our question period, and they are checking out. They are disinterested in the House's proceedings and I do not blame them. We have become bad examples and our conduct is appreciated by only the most partisan of politicos.

In my riding, I do not deny anyone the right to meet and speak with me because I believe that everyone's opinion has value. We need to create an environment during question period where we encourage a more thoughtful dialogue among members, a conversation where the opinions of people and parties are respectfully considered and valued, not shunned or degraded because of its source, a question period free from feigned transparency, showmanship or deceit. We need to create an environment in which the level of conversation achieves two things: it discloses to Canadians the state of our nation and where it stands on the important issues of the day; and second, fosters a constructive forum, free from name calling, labelling and accusations.

The motion effectively moves the elephant from the corner of the room onto the table. Because we are all responsible for this problem, we must all participate in the solution. To do that, we need to send this motion to committee so it can be properly analyzed and other ideas introduced to provide the solutions intended by its purpose: to help restore the value of question period and regain Canadians' engagement in parliamentary affairs.

We need to embrace a question period built upon truth, fairness and building goodwill and one of benefit for all. We need to begin to treat each other with greater dignity and with more respect, so Canadians can once again engage in our work and so our democracy is strengthened and made more effective. Canadians are intelligent and Canadians have an interest in meaningful debate. They have an interest in hearing relevant, honest and thoughtful questions and direct answers about the important issues of the day, and not in meaningless and one-sided bluster designed to catch headlines and designed to avoid openness.

By no means do I believe that the changes suggested in Motion 517 will immediately bring about the attitudinal changes about which I speak, but it represents an important step toward, first, admitting a problem exists,and then perhaps in achieving loftier goals.

Let us begin by sending the motion to committee. Let us get back to a question period of which we can be proud.