Gary Goodyear

[Petitions, February 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition with approximately 35 names on it. The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to reopen the issue of marriage and to repeal or amend the Marriage for Civil Purposes Act in order to promote and defend marriage as the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Committees of the House, February 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present the 30th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding membership of the committees of the House, and I should like to move concurrence at this time.

[Points of Order, February 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to add that the member opposite just pointed out that it could or it may not, but the fact is that the member himself said that it could cause the spending of government funds, and on this side of the House, we follow the rules when it comes to spending taxpayers' dollars.

[Business of Supply, February 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member on the issue of technology.

I hear time and time again that Ontario is shutting down its coal-fired plants. Ultimately, that was a promise made and another promise broken by the provincial Liberal government. It made that bed and it should sleep in it. I would like to ask the member a question about the silliness of such a suggestion because, obviously, that would require the Ontario government to simply purchase more power to replace the lost power from coal-fired plants in Michigan that produce even more pollution.

Technology exists and has existed for quite a while for clean coal which would reduce the pollutants by 90% but the federal Liberal government did not get the job done. Whatever will get votes is what the provincial Liberal government does.

In Ontario, on the hottest days when power usage is at its peak, the government sends out a brownout warning and factories shut down their consumption and fire up diesel generators to produce their own cogeneration. On the hottest days of the summer in Ontario the answer is to not to use technology but to shut down the coal-fired plants, which means using thousands of generators that pollute the air even worse.

Is the member aware of any other technology, for example, tidal turbine? This government put a tidal turbine in the ocean--

[Business of Supply, February 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting when I read the motion this morning and interesting when I heard the hon. member opposite read the motion asking that the government come up with some kind of a plan because the government already has done that. What is interesting about the motion is that the hon. member is admitting that he did not even have a plan.

However, I did hear the member opposite say something about preparing for an election. That came from the member who said that he would not vote for the budget, a budget he has not even seen. Clearly, the member is preparing for an election.

As far as being ready, I have the honour to tell the House that not just myself but a number of colleagues on this side of the House have been working on this plan since before the last election. We were involved in developing a plan a long time ago and we are rolling out that plan as we speak. However, I guess the polls are suggesting that this is the thing to do today. I noticed that a number of the members opposite are wearing green ribbons which is their attempt at convincing the public that we are green. Maybe those green ribbons are actually living leaves because that would be a step toward cleaning the environment.

The member opposite, who just presented the motion, conceded that future Liberal governments would be unable to meet their Kyoto commitment of reducing greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels. That was said by the member opposite on July 1, 2006. Frankly, the member had 10 years to do this. This morning the member said that in 2008 “I will be part of Kyoto but I will say to the world I don't think I will make it”. He has been saying that for 10 years and he is still saying it, which is incredible.

I want to ask the member a very simple question, although I know I will not get the answer. Could the member tell us what Kyoto will do to reduce the number of smog days for the folks in Ontario that went from four in 1993 to some forty-seven in 2004?

[Committees of the House, February 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 29th report from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs concerning the membership of committees of the House presented to the House earlier this day, be now concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

[Committees of the House, February 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 29th report from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of committees of the House. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 29th report later this day.

[Canada Elections Act, January 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I will get an answer to this question, but it is sincere. It is quite obvious that the member did not do his research on the bill but as I mentioned just a moment ago on a point of order, he has chosen to use his time to write some good quality work for the next edition of his householder.

Is the member aware of the all-party committee that studied the bill intensively and which invited experts from all over the country and indeed some from around the world? The committee had video conferences and we spoke about a number of the issues about which the member obviously has no clue.

Is the member aware that his own party supported this? It was not just the members opposite but rather the Liberal Party of Canada that supported it and brought forward a number of incidents of fraud.

Why is the member so unprepared for the debate and so poorly researched? Is the member not embarrassed to waste taxpayers' dollars while we all sit here trying to debate a different bill? This is planet Earth. Is he not embarrassed to behave like this in the House?

[Canada Elections Act, January 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been listening to the debate all day and this is the first time a member has stood up and used House time to write his next householder. I wonder if the member could focus on the issue before the House so that other members who are putting in their time here could have a constructive debate. The member can write his householder tonight.

[Canada Elections Act, January 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge and thank the hon. member for Kitchener Centre who worked very hard on committee. She had some great input and many of her suggestions actually wound up in the bill. The hon. member for the NDP spoke about a number of witnesses, and the member was at committee when they spoke.

I want to pose a question and make a comment or two.

One of the witnesses described the issue of statutory declaration and the process whereby tables would be set up in various areas and people would declare who they were. I am sure the member will recall one a question that was posed to a witness about how someone would know the individual was exactly who he or she said. The response was that sometimes they asked them to check their pockets. Sometimes parking stubs or perhaps prescription bottles were found in their pockets. This would help firm up who they were.

One of the witnesses prior to that suggested these folks were often robbed, which is a terrible thing, but ultimately suggested that whatever was in their pockets was not there very long. The question was posed that if this was the case, then the first thing that would get stolen would be prescriptions. The statutory declaration issue became a little less reliable, given the way these folks were identified was in itself completely unreliable.

The member understood this issue very well and she made some great comments at committee. Could she perhaps confirm that although statutory declarations have a role, they certainly have a lot of holes in them?