Guy Lauzon

[May 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, smears, smears, smears, more Liberal drive-by smears. The opposition continually twists facts to justify over the top Liberal smears.

All this comes from a party that lured a member of the Conservative caucus across the floor with a cushy cabinet appointment in order to win a vote. All this comes from a party that broke election financing rules only to change its position when it was caught red-handed. All this comes from a party involved in bilking Canadian taxpayers of over $40 million to pad its own pockets. Where is that $40 million? I just wonder what desk drawer that happens to be in.

The Liberals do this with the hope that Canadians will ignore the fact that they have given up on being in opposition, that theLiberal leader is weak, and that the Liberal Party is in total disarray.

[May 27th, 2008]

The member for Ajax—Pickering, Mr. Speaker.

--I guess, Ajax--Pickering making all kinds of allegations and assertions and I'm very concerned about the...the extent that this kind of bantering. I believe that that is, in fact, creating...exerting political pressure on an investigation for reasons that obviously are none of my concern. And all of this...You know, like...There's some legal work being done on what this is all about as well with regards to how me and the OPP are portrayed as being less than honourable and honest. I mean, you know, enough is enough now.

MADELY: Enough is enough in...

FANTINO: And the other thing I should say too, I mean, there is a criminal investigation here and it's up to the courts to make determinations as to what in fact did or didn't happen. And here we have a Member of Parliament that is totally disrespectful of due process and making all kinds of accusations and, by the way, the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services sent him packing because his complaint is frivolous, vexatious, and I will even say more, it's an attempt to interfere with due process.

[May 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, here we have another perfect example of a member who cannot stand to be on the opposition side of the House. Liberals seem to think they have a right to be on this side of the House. The truth of the matter is that the member and his colleagues are really starting to wear thin with the Ontario voter.

I am a proud Ontarian. I am a proud Canadian. The people of Ontario and the people of Canada have told me that enough is enough. They are tired of people like that member taking advantage of the situation in the House of Commons to make repeated, scurrilous, irresponsible, hurtful, misleading attacks on a government that is trying to get things done.

They continue to throw out these drive-by smears in the House of Commons, where they are protected of course. This came to a head yesterday morning. This is how far it has gone. It has gotten to the point where yesterday on a local radio station in Ottawa an interviewer by the name of Steve Madely interviewed OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino. It is a seven minute interview, but let me read a few quotes from it:

MADELY: No one in your... in your police service indicated in any way that they were getting pressure from a Minister's office up in Ottawa?

FANTINO: Not... Not at all. The only pressure we received is since, where complaints have been filed to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Policing by Mr. Mark Holland, the MP for, I guess, Ajax—Pickering--

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened quite closely to my colleague's speech as I did yesterday. I was confused when he finished yesterday and I am even more confused today.

If I did not know better, I would think that he is making a case for big oil. I was under the impression that his party did not necessarily endorse big oil, but he is making quite a case for promoting the profits of big oil companies and supporting big oil companies. I question if that is where the NDP wants to go.

The reason I am confused is that at one stage of the game the NDP was for biofuels. Now, and as a matter of fact to quote the member, he said, “biofuels are madness”.

What has changed in the last month or so? What has changed since the NDP governments in Manitoba and Saskatchewan began promoting the use of biofuels? I really do not understand the NDP and this particular member.

I would like to ask the member why the NDP governments in both Manitoba and Saskatchewan were in support of biofuels and at one time as a matter of fact the federal NDP was in support of biofuels and now he is calling it madness? I would like the member to explain that. There is a dichotomy there that I do not understand.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech. He made a lot of valid points. To be quite frank, his speech was not confusing, but his party's position is terribly confusing. I have two questions for the member.

I want to make the point that the NDP government in Saskatchewan was the first government in Canada to initiate a biofuel mandate. Its mandate of 7.5% required 131 million litres of ethanol to be used in the year 2006. This is in sharp contrast to its federal cousin which has turned its back now on rural Canada and apparently no longer supports biofuels. I would like to ask the hon. member who he thinks got it wrong, was it the NDP government in Saskatchewan, or was it his current New Democratic Party?

My other question for him is with regard to the NDP government in Manitoba. It now requires that 8.5% of all gasoline sold in the province must contain ethanol. This is in sharp contrast to its federal cousin which has turned its back on rural Canada and apparently no longer supports biofuels.

I would like to ask the hon. member a very similar question. Who does he think got it wrong? Was it the NDP government in Manitoba, or was it his New Democratic Party that is wrong?

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her comments, but I have to say that I am a little confused. I know that the Bloc has been powerless for 18 years here in the House, but I thought that the Bloc supported farmers.

My confusion stems from the fact that Bloc members all seem to have different ideas. The member and her colleague suggested sending our corn to be processed in the United States. I do not understand why we would want to give our jobs to the United States. I would like the member to comment on that suggestion.

I am confused about something else as well. Her two colleagues, who are members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, the members for Richmond—Arthabaska and Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, supported this bill while the committee was studying it. Now they have changed their minds.

I would like to ask the member why the Bloc has reversed its position and no longer supports Quebec producers.

[Team Cornwall, May 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to tell the House and all Canadians about an organization I am very proud to belong to. That organization is Team Cornwall.

Team Cornwall was established to spread the good news about Cornwall's positive attributes. Team members, acting as ambassadors, use their own networks to deliver timely information about the community and its economic opportunities.

Today we can be proud of our accomplishments. By working together we have created a sales force of over 340 individuals, including the Prime Minister of Canada, who became an honorary member in August 2006. Team Cornwall members travel across the country informing Canadians of the many advantages of living and doing business in Cornwall and the surrounding area.

I encourage all Canadians looking for a community, where they can work, invest and raise a family, to visit Team Cornwall's most recent initiative online at www.choosecornwall.ca. I want to thank each and every member of Team Cornwall for the outstanding job they are doing promoting the wonderful city of Cornwall.

[Hockey, May 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, last year I stood in the House and told all Canadians how proud I was of the residents of Cornwall for their second place finish in the 2007 national Hockeyville contest.

Well, Cornwall is at it again. Our dynamic city is hosting a 2008 Royal Bank Cup. From May 3 to 11, the city of Cornwall and its exciting junior A hockey team, the Cornwall Colts, will be hosting the National Junior A Hockey Championship.

The city of Cornwall and the riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry have a long, rich history of producing great hockey players and championship hockey teams. Members of team Cornwall and the Chamber of Commerce have asked me to personally invite each and every Canadian to visit the wonderful city of Cornwall and watch the most exciting junior A hockey players in Canada compete for the prestigious RBC Cup.

It just does not get any better than watching the best junior hockey players compete in Canada's national sport, while visiting the most beautiful, safest, friendliest, progressive city in all of Canada. Welcome to Cornwall, Canada.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the experience of the member opposite shows in his speech and his answers to some of the questions.

I wonder if he could shed any light on the NDP's flip-flop. I am tempted to say that he has a little experience in flip-flopping but I will not. Based on the comments I made earlier about 2006, the experienced member was here and was in the 2006 election, in its platform the NDP wanted 10% of motor vehicle fuel by 2010 to be biofuel.

I know the member opposite supports farmers. We on this side put farmers first and I am sure the member would, although he probably does not have a lot of farmers in his riding. I wonder if he could explain to me why a party which two years ago wanted 10% content now thinks it is a bad idea for farmers to make a decent living. What would change in two years? I wonder if he could shed some light on that for me, please.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's comments. Unfortunately, I have to take exception with many of them. This whole food versus fuel debate is absolutely ridiculous. The facts show that Canada has more than enough agricultural production to meet our renewable fuel targets without affecting one iota of Canada's food supply.

The opponents of biofuels, like the NDP and the NFU, are completely disconnected from Canadian agriculture. One of the studies that the NDP used in committee to back its claims referred to much of the prairies as a semi-desert. The breadbasket of the world is a semi-desert according to the NFU and the NDP. It is absurd studies like this that opponents of biofuels use to justify their ridiculous claims.

I wonder if the NDP is not spending too much time in association with the Liberal Party because it seems to flip-flop on these issues. I would like to quote from the NDP's 2006 election platform. On page 17, it states:

Require a phased-in substitution of Canadian ethanol from local inputs for non-renewable fuel sources to 10% of motor vehicle fuel by 2010 and target increases in reliance on biodiesel fuel.

Could the member confirm that the NDP has, as the Liberals do, flip-flopped on this issue? I would be very interested in hearing that.