Gary Goodyear

[Specific Claims Tribunal Act, May 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I will do just that. I simply have a comment of clarification. The Kelowna accord was never signed. I am sure the member just mistakenly misled the House.

The member did read off a litany of issues that the aboriginal communities brought forward in the dying days of the Liberal government, and I want to thank the member for pointing out all those Liberal failures.

[Specific Claims Tribunal Act, May 12th, 2008]

They had enough of talk.

[Specific Claims Tribunal Act, May 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to most of the member's speech. I am actually quite surprised at some of the things I heard and would suggest that maybe I did not hear them correctly. I do not believe that a member of Parliament would endorse or sanction protests that interrupt people's lives and potentially block ambulances that are attempting to take victims of heart attacks to hospital. I am sure I misheard that.

However, I do know it is possible to mishear things in the House, because the member clearly has not heard of some of the good things this government has done. Members do not have to trust the government. We are not asking for trust. We are simply asking for truth.

The member needs to know that just recently we put $900 million into off reserve housing, northern housing, and recently we have introduced the board of trustees with respect to private ownership of property. The party that gentleman chose to run with, to support and to in a sense endorse left almost 90% of the reserves in Canada with poisoned water. Although water issues increased under the Liberals' do nothing policy, we have decreased the water issues by at least 50%.

I want to simply ask a question of the member, because the member knows full well that while the Liberals were in power they spent billions of dollars on all kinds of priorities. However, only as a deathbed conversion, only when the end was near, did the prime minister of the day, the leader of the Liberal Party at the time, the gentleman that member supported, and that party wake up to these aboriginal issues and bring forward what was tantamount to a press release called the Kelowna accord.

That accord, by the way, did not have one dime in it for the issues we are talking about today, not one dime while that member over there voted against the budget last year and was forced to sit idle during our budget this year, which had $2.4 billion for the aboriginal communities.

I need to ask that member a question. Why would he be a Liberal in that party with his clear convictions for the aboriginal community? That member should be on this side of the House where we actually get things done. We do not just talk about them.

[Climate Change Accountability Act, May 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today on behalf of my riding of Cambridge to debate this private member's bill, Bill C-377, the climate change accountability act.

We agree with the NDP that real actions are necessary to tackle climate change. We agree that the time of inaction is over and we recognize that Canadians did so in the last election. However, we are convinced that this is a poorly written piece of legislation and, therefore, is not part of the solution but could in fact be part of a bigger problem.

The medium and long term targets, which Bill C-377 calls for, would be difficult to achieve without causing significant disruption to the country's economy. The witnesses who appeared at committee and even the sponsor of this bill, the member for Toronto—Danforth himself, leader of the NDP, agreed that his party had failed to cost out its own bill. This is simply irresponsible.

We believe we can in fact protect the environment without destroying the economy. We are not prepared, nor should any member of this House be prepared, to blindly adopt targets that could put at risk the well-being of Canadians and the country's ability to participate in the necessary global solutions going forward.

Even at the most simplistic level this bill would result in much higher gas prices at the pumps and, ironically, the first person to rise in the House to challenge and demand that the government take action on the rising gasoline prices is none other than the member for Toronto—Danforth, the sponsor of the bill.

Is the sponsor of this bill prepared to tell the House how much Canadians will have to pay for gasoline under this bill? No, he is not or he would have. Is he prepared to tell how many jobs will be lost in the automotive and other manufacturing sectors in Ontario as a result of the poorly contrived plan to basically bludgeon the Canadian economy into reducing greenhouse gases? He is also not prepared to do that or he would have.

The NDP appears intent on crippling Alberta's oil and gas industry, and driving Ontario further into recession, just like it did provincially in the early 1990s. The NDP does not realize that our ability to fight climate change requires a strong economy. It requires both a plan to attack climate change and to keep the economic fundamentals strong so we can continue to do so. We cannot move forward with a bill that would shut down the economy. This government will not impose that on Canadians.

Financially speaking, the results of years of inaction on climate change has left Canada in a deep hole in terms of reducing gases. We must climb out of that hole but we cannot destroy the country to catch up overnight for the Liberals' decade of inaction.

Between 1990 and 2005, Canada's greenhouse emissions increased from 596 megatonnes to almost 750 megatonnes per year. Without further action on greenhouse gases, they could grow to over 900 megatonnes by 2020 and approach 1,500 megatonnes by 2050. That is double today's current levels.

On March 10 of this year, the government announced further details on its turning the corner plan in order to do what previous governments failed to get done. Our plan will get real reductions at manageable costs. By 2020, under the turning the corner plan of this government, emissions in Canada will be some 20% lower than 2006 levels, and that is good. By 2025, emissions will be some 25% below. That is great news. However, by 2050, under this government's emissions plan, we will be 60% to 70% lower, not double but lower, and that is fantastic.

By any comparison the turning the corner targets will lead to the most significant actions of any G-8 member between now and 2050. Unlike the NDP, the government did not just pick these targets and numbers out of thin air simply because they sounded impressive to Canadians and possibly could gain a vote. As a government that takes responsibility seriously and speaks the truth to Canadians, we designed an approach that would restore Canada's leadership on this most important global environmental issue of our time without crippling our economy or mortgaging the economic future of our children to pay for indecision, poorly written legislation and inaction of the past.

We have ensured that Canadians know what the trade-offs will be under our turning the corner plan. Through the publication of detailed analysis of the emissions and economic impacts of our plan, that is a measure of accountability which it seems the promoters of Bill C-377 have not only failed but have chosen not to assume. Maybe it is because they already know that Bill C-377 would impose punitive penalties on Canadians and would cripple the Canadian economy.

The fact is that Bill C-377 requires a rate of reduction of greenhouse gas emissions for Canada that is three to four times higher than what the analysis of turning the corner shows can be managed by the Canadian economy. This is unprecedented and frankly, completely irresponsible. If members wish to look at the Soviet Union, they will see examples of economies that attempted to do half of this and collapsed in their attempts.

This is a short-sighted publicity motivated bill. It attempts to substitute unrealistic rhetoric, and apparently is sponsored by the Liberals who are famous for such things, for sound economic, public and environmental policy. What Canada and the world need are an approach to climate change that recognizes the importance of keeping the economy strong and the citizens educated and employed. It is only on the basis of a strong economy and innovation by the citizens that the technological breakthroughs and investments essential to address climate change can become possible.

To the contrary, Bill C-377 seems likely to impose a crippling burden on the Canadian economy in the short term and clearly will not allow us to reduce greenhouse gases as our economy falters in the long term.

This government truly desires to work with all parties to find the right solution for Canada and for Canadians. We are committed to achieve real and concrete results and we do not simply want to throw around numbers without appropriately weighing the consequences of what is being proposed.

The member for Toronto—Danforth wants the House to adopt this bill in the absence of any information regarding its impact on the economy. This government cannot do that in all responsibleness. This government believes that Canadians have the right to know the economic impact of this bill.

This government is already on the right path and we have made it clear that we are committed to delivering solutions. We take that commitment very seriously. In establishing targets, the government is taking into account what impacts they will have on all sectors of the economy. Bill C-377 does not do that and therefore is irresponsible.

In closing, I cannot support a bill that is irresponsible in its costing and does not take the future impacts on the Canadian economy, Canada and the people of this country. I cannot support it at this stage.

[The Environment, May 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is committed to helping Canadians do their part for the environment.

After 13 years of Liberals not getting it done on the environment, I want to congratulate the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of the Environment for their hard work and support of made in Canada technologies to save the planet.

I had the pleasure of meeting with students from the University of Waterloo, which is the first university to build a fully functional, hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. This vehicle runs better than my own car and produces absolutely no emissions.

The engineering team told me that the time is coming when solar panels on the car will provide the electricity needed to produce the hydrogen to fuel the car. Power from the sun, fuel for the car, no emissions for our future: that is getting it done.

[Treatment of Rare Disorders, May 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the remainder of my time to speak to this important motion. As I mentioned before, I am always honoured to stand in the House to speak on behalf of the people of Cambridge and North Dumfries.

The government understands the seriousness of the issues faced by Canadians who suffer rare diseases. We have taken action on these issues for this vulnerable population of Canadians and we have every intention of continuing to do so. This government recognizes the challenges facing Canadians who suffer from rare diseases, including limited treatment options, high costs and uneven approaches to reimbursement by the provinces and territories. We have worked with the member for North Vancouver and we appreciate the cooperation of the member. I am pleased today to move the following amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after “That” and substituting the words:

“in the opinion of the House, the government should respond specifically to the challenges faced by Canadians with rare diseases and disorders, in collaboration with provinces and territories (P/Ts) and stakeholders by:

(a) examining options for defining serious rare diseases;

(b) examining options, including the possible creation of a specific fund, to improve access to rare disease treatments, building on the recent work undertaken by federal and provincial/territorial governments under the National Pharmaceuticals Strategy;

(c) considering the establishment of a multi-stakeholder advisory body, including the Common Drug Review, treaters and patients, to recommend treatment access for life-threatening or serious rare disorders, based on scientific standards and social values;

(d) exploring options to consider national and international expert advice in developing criteria for treating patients based on scientific evidence and patient impact, and to link these activities with ongoing post-market monitoring of real world drug safety and effectiveness;

(e) considering options to encourage research and development into treatments for rare diseases and other unmet health needs;

(f) considering internationally accepted standards for conduct of clinical trials in rare disorders appropriate for the challenges inherent to very small patient populations;

(g) considering how Health Canada's work on a progressive licensing framework could provide appropriate support to the design of clinical trials for very small patient populations and appropriate review of evidence submitted from these trials; and,

(h) reporting the progress accomplished to the House within 12 months”.

Rare diseases mean just that. They are rare. That is the good news. Very few people get them--

[New Brunswick Flooding, May 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, over the last several days New Brunswickers living along the Saint John River have been under siege by the rising flood waters. Also, Canadians know that the tax filing date is April 30. Some of these folks living along this river in New Brunswick may have been unable to file their taxes in time because of flood preparations and safety precautions.

I would like to know if the government has any plans to help these people who have been affected by the flooding.

[Business of Supply, April 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, while listening to my hon. colleague from the Bloc, I noticed she made the statement that her party has full confidence in Elections Canada.

I wonder if she could explain why the whip of her party was so aggressive toward Elections Canada at committee with respect to the use of bingo cards and the accuracy of the voter list. The member was very aggressive toward Elections Canada personnel. It did not seem to me that her party had that much support or faith in Elections Canada. Perhaps she could comment on that.

[Petitions, April 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition filled out by people in my constituency. This petition holds to the point of the recent serious criminal charges and actions of fraud against Canadian citizens by the Liberal Party of Canada.

With the recent arrest of Mr. Corbeil, these petitioners request that the Parliament of Canada continue to investigate the location and possible allocation of the $40 million of taxpayers' money which mysteriously vanished under the Liberal Party, many of whom are still in this House today, during the sponsorship scandal.

[Amateur Sports, April 18th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is that time of year when Canadians are enjoying the excitement of the NHL playoffs.

I would like to draw to the attention of the House a local hockey organization that is working to provide amateur athletic sports programs to persons with developmental disabilities.

The Cambridge Ice Hounds began in September 2006 and has grown to over 35 participants, making Cambridge the centre of one of the most successful special hockey programs in the province.

As well, congratulations go to the Galt Minor Hockey School for celebrating its 40th year of operation. Believed to be one of the oldest in Canada, it started in 1967 with an enrolment of 40 kids and has since grown to over 12,000 registrations.

Finally, congratulations to our local athletes of the year at their respective universities: Anthony Maggiacomo, Wilfrid Laurier; Carly Cermak, McMaster; and Lindsay Carson, University of Guelph.

Congratulations, Cambridge. Go, team.