Gary Goodyear

[Committees of the House, September 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the parliamentary secretary for, what I think most members in the House would agree, the remarkable amount of work that has been done, even by the minister himself. My goodness, the new Conservative government has been here for a reasonably short period of time and we have solved the residential school issue, as well as the situation with the water. Over 100 areas in this country had polluted water. I remember that the previous government took six or eight weeks to even look at the problem while people were being diseased. This government had the problem solved before the dust was off our desks and the fax machines were taken out of their boxes. The previous government never used that kind of technology because it was so far behind. However, this government solved that problem and a number of other issues as well.

My colleague from Saskatchewan spoke earlier but I guess this issue was not important enough, unfortunately, for the member to stick around. He mentioned the issue of land claims but he should have known that land claims are a provincial issue and that it is a provincial Liberal government that is dodging around on that.

I think the truth comes down to the fact that everyone in this House would agree that housing, water, health, education and economic opportunities are things we all want for our aboriginal communities. However, I think what we are disagreeing on is the best approach to take. Would the parliamentary secretary not agree that the difference in the approaches is that this new government tends to act, not spend a decade talking about it?

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I was not going to ask any questions this morning, but I think the member from the no democracy party has drifted off the ranks.

I would just like to bring to our minds the fact that Canadians know very well why the Liberals failed to reach this agreement. It was partly because there was no leadership on that side of the House and partly because they saw the phenomenal financial benefits of dragging out the litigation for another seven to 10 years.

In January, Canadians chose change. They chose a leader who actually brought together a deal that, frankly, represents the wishes and the needs of 90% of the lumber community in Canada. It helps save families' incomes. It allows us to move forward. One would arguably agree, in fact, that the better relationships this Prime Minister has been able to establish around the world have allowed us to bring this agreement together.

There is one thing I would like to ask the member to comment on, because of course he is telling us all these woeful things. I do remember back when NAFTA was brought in by another government with leadership, and our economy is extremely strong today as a direct result of that NAFTA agreement.

I just wondered if the member could comment. I am from Ontario. I remember the Rae days. It took a decade for Ontario to pull itself out of the economic bliss that Bob Rae as premier got us into, yet on the federal level we entered an economic boom as a result of a Conservative government with leadership.

I do not know whether the member wants to comment on that embarrassing period in the history of Canada, particularly Ontario, but maybe he wants to tell us why 90% of the lumber industry wants this agreement. The member has his head in the sand in thinking we should just go on forever with litigation. Maybe he wants to comment on that in some logical way.

[Committees of the House, September 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding a change to the Standing Orders. If the House gives its consent, I move that the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House this day be concurred in.

[Emergency Management Act, September 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to apologize to the hon. member for Yukon. I am seeking unanimous consent to revert back to presenting reports from committees and motions for the purpose of dealing with the 14th report of the procedure and House affairs committee.

[Committees of the House, June 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs entitled, “Improving the Integrity of the Electoral Process, Recommendations for Legislative Change”.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the members of this committee for their incredible teamwork. This was a non-partisan effort to improve democracy in Canada by improving the voter and the electoral system. Specifically, I would like to thank the substitute members who came out for some of the extra meetings when the original members were very busy with other work. I thank them for all their hard work and, indeed, the staff as well. The committee worked very hard with a number of extra meeting. It is not only a privilege to present this report but it was a privilege to work with this team.

In accordance with Standing Order 109 the committee requests a government response to the report within 120 days.

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the member's background, but we came into this debate with a commitment to work together and to speak on compassionate grounds to figure something out. In my entire time here I have never heard anything so divisive and aggressive as that speech. The member should be completely ashamed of himself.

He talked about aboriginal veterans. What did the Liberal Party do for aboriginal veterans? It did zip. The worst thing that could happen to the aboriginal community of Canada is to have that party back in power. Where were those members for 13 years?

I would like to ask the hon. member if he was not paying attention when this government, unlike the past Liberal government, spoke about education for aboriginal students, about women, children and families? How about water on the reserves? Does that member know that the minister of the past government ignored Kashechewan for eight weeks? During their 13 years, 100 reservations still had polluted water.

I would like to ask that member, when did he think the previous government was going to get around to anything? Canadians decided they had 13 years of blah, blah, blah and dithering, and decided to elect a government that gave two thousand, two hundred million dollars toward a residential school commitment, something that group never did. I would like that member to confirm what his government did for aboriginal communities. What did that old, tired, dithering crew do for aboriginal communities? They did nothing.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, June 19th, 2006]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-325, An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Cambridge.

Mr. Speaker, the riding that I represent, Cambridge, Ontario, is actually more than just the city of Cambridge. Just to the southwest of us is a huge, expansive land, with rolling hills, that include a number of small villages, including the village of Ayr. That area is more commonly referred to as North Dumfries.

I propose that the name of the riding be changed from Cambridge to Cambridge—North Dumfries.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Health, June 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, like all Canadians, hospitals too have struggled with a large tax burden left by the Liberals.

The Canada Revenue Agency has been reviewing the application of GST to hospitals. The Ontario Hospital Association says that a retroactive GST payment would cost them $90 million, money they do not have. Hospitals are rightfully concerned that they could be on the hook for GST, going back 10 years.

Could the government show its commitment to sustainable health care and end the uncertainty left by the previous dithering Liberals?

[Petitions, June 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise today to present a petition from my riding of Cambridge. These petitioners call upon the government to use every means necessary, including invoking section 33 of the charter, the notwithstanding clause, to ensure that the definition of marriage remains that of one between one man and one woman.

[Committees of the House, June 9th, 2006]

(Motion agreed to)