Gary Goodyear

[Canada's Clean Air Act, December 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's talk on the bill. However, I am not one hundred per cent convinced that she has actually read the bill or understands the difference between provincial jurisdictions and municipal jurisdictions, those areas that are covered by industry and the folks who protect those in the industry. The member did allude at some point in her conversation to coal fired plants. The hon. colleague who spoke before she did discussed coal fired plants in Ontario.

I want to point out that the broken promise by the McGuinty government in Ontario is something they have to deal with. Mr. McGuinty promised to close those coal fired plants. It is my suspicion that was a promise to gain votes because clearly that would not be possible, especially in a province that has had brownouts. Where would we buy the energy? We would end up buying it from Michigan's coal fired plants which pollute far worse than ours do.

Does my colleague not feel it is important to move toward clean coal fired technology which has very limited particulate matter? I would like to know if she understands that particulate matter is not covered under the Kyoto accord, not at all. In this clean air act it is covered, including higher technologies for things such as coal fired plants that produce our energy. I would like the hon. member to comment on that.

[Canada's Clean Air Act, December 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member opposite for her speech although I have to disagree very strongly with a number of her points. I have great respect for the member opposite but she either has not read the act completely or she has been misguided by her researchers, or perhaps the member does not have the researchers who are available.

I did pay attention to a number of her comments. I regret that I was not here for the whole thing, but I heard a lot about the Liberals setting up this meeting in Montreal, that they had this forum for dialogue, that they were going to have these forums for exchanges of experiences, and all this kind of talk. What has that given Canadians?

The clean air act, unlike whatever the Liberals think they did in the last 10 years, addresses all industries in all aspects, and it is not voluntary or “please do this by whenever”. It is mandatory and there is action in this plan for those sectors that fail to meet their targets.

I know the member is going to say there are no targets but that is not true either. Just a couple of weeks ago we announced the targets for lawnmowers, motorcycles, ATVs and snowmobiles. It is very detailed and very specific.

CEPA was signed in 1999 and what did it do? It did exactly what the country has come to know that the Liberals are famous for: nothing.

The member knows very well that the number of smog days 10 years ago in Ontario was about 4. The number of smog days last year in Toronto alone was about 48. The Liberals, by their own admission and by the admission of the Auditor General and the world, have indicated quite clearly that what they were doing, which I would suggest is nothing but let us be fair they were doing something, did not meet these so-called targets. They went over by 35%.

So, CEPA in 1999, dialogues and conversations in Montreal, and speaking to folks around the world is not what Canadians need. Does the member dispute the facts that under the tenure of the Liberal government, smog days went up? I see that she has a great answer coming back, but what I want to know is, did the smog days not go up? What Canadians want is action. They want to breathe clean air here, not just spend taxpayers' dollars on hot air credits from undeveloped countries.

[HIV-AIDS, December 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in honour of World AIDS Day on December 1, I am proud to highlight the work and leadership of an extraordinary nurse in my riding of Cambridge who is making a difference in the fight against HIV-AIDS.

After learning of the many African nurses treating HIV-AIDS patients who were becoming infected themselves, registered nurse Nancy DiPietro launched the Give an Hour campaign. She calls on the quarter of a million nurses across Canada to pledge the equivalent of one hour of pay each year to help ease the suffering of their African counterparts infected with HIV-AIDS. I am happy to say that she is receiving tremendous support.

In her own words:

Nursing is caring. Knowing that when someone is going through one of the most difficult times of their lives, you are helping to make it more manageable...that is the reward of nursing.

We thank, Nancy. She is an inspiration to the citizens of Cambridge and all of Canada.

[Whistleblower Protection, November 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Auditor General confirmed exactly what happens when the Liberals govern: waste and mismanagement. An example involved Ron Stewart who took taxpayers for a $300,000 ride, including so-called business trips to the Grey Cup and high school reunions, indeed, good, serious government business. This case validates Canadians' choice in the last election, but it also highlights the need for strong whistleblower protection.

Will the President of the Treasury Board tell the House what he is doing to strengthen whistleblower protection in the federal accountability act?

[The Québécois, November 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have been here pretty much all day throughout the debate on this issue, except of course for the odd committee meeting and other meetings that I have had. It is awfully nice to hear the Liberal leadership candidates come forward and take one last shot at getting a speech out.

I just want to ask the hon. member if we are not over-analyzing this thing and forgetting the historical evolution of this particular motion, which was in fact that the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore made a comment to the media about this issue of the nation, which allowed the separatist party to jump on the bandwagon and bring forward a motion that would force the House to make a distinction. I think frankly they underestimated the intelligence and the quick leadership skills of the Prime Minister.

I would like the hon. member to acknowledge the historic outcome of this motion. Perhaps he would like to comment on his own colleague's comments in the first place.

[Committees of the House, November 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 23rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding Bill C-295, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers), presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.

[Committees of the House, November 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 23rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This report deals with Bill C- 295, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers).

Further to the Speaker's ruling of November 7, the committee recommends the following:

--that the member for Vancouver Island North have the option of Bill C-295 being debated in the House for a second hour but the bill will be declared non-votable; or [the member] can advise the Speaker in writing within five days of the adoption of this report that she wishes to have

(1) Bill C-295 withdrawn and the order for second reading discharged; and

(2) that she be given a period of up to 20 sitting days from the adoption of this report to specify another item of Private Members' Business, and, notwithstanding any other Standing Order, such item shall be immediately placed at the bottom of the Order of Precedence; such item shall be entitled to two hours of debate and shall be votable, subject to the application of Standing Orders 86 to 99.

I intend to seek concurrence in this report later this day.

[Committees of the House, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 22nd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2). This report contains the list of items added to the order of precedence as a result of the replenishment that took place on Tuesday, October 31 under private members' business that should not be designated non-votable.

[Federal Accountability Act, November 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member. For heaven's sake, for 13 years we had a government that stacked all these boards with its own members. These boards are now recommending certain members who happen to be Conservative. I think that goes to say how very intelligent some of the recommendations are. We have only been in government for nine months and we sure cannot clean up 13 years of Liberal appointees.

This government made an attempt to put forward the name of a man who was the top, most respected CEO in the entire country. His name is Gwyn Morgan. He would have worked for $1 and would have taken these decisions out of the hands of folks who use patronage to get ahead and infiltrate, almost to the point of infesting all of those areas.

I know the members opposite have a hard time believing or even thinking that anyone but a Liberal could make an appointment to the bench or make any kind of an appointment. However, we put forward an opportunity to remove the patronage issue from this process. To hear the member stand and complain about what is going on is, frankly, very funny but atypical of the members opposite.

I wonder if the member would like to comment on our attempts to clean up the process versus the members' opposite attempt to keep the status quo.

[Federal Accountability Act, November 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal dominated Senate's foot dragging, dithering and delay on the federal accountability act has finally come to an end. Tragically though, over 100 Liberal changes have effectively destroyed the bill, including providing for big money by doubling the $1,000 limit and increasing secrecy by adding exemptions to the Access to Information Act.

Will the President of the Treasury Board tell this House if he will rebuild the accountability act back into the toughest anti-corruption law in Canadian history?