Jamie Nicholls

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, November 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, the government is waging a misinformation campaign. Government members are patting themselves on the back and saying that they are the ones who required oil tankers to have double hulls in 2010, when an international agreement has clearly required tankers to have double hulls since 1993.

The fact is that Canadians are concerned when they hear a natural resources minister taking credit for implementing a standard that actually dates back 20 years. Canadians know that double hulls have been required for 20 years. However, it was not until 2010 that the Minister of Natural Resources woke up and realized that Canada had to comply with a regulation that had been in place for 20 years.

Why is the government being so silent? Has the misinformation campaign affected even government members?

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, November 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I was glad to hear the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley mention the U.S. report that came out accusing Enbridge of being Keystone Cops. The same report also said the company was engaged in a culture of deception.

Last fall, in 2012, a video was released by that company that showed the Douglas Channel free of any obstacles or islands. It was a very misleading video.

I know people in Ocean Falls and all along that coast who are very concerned about tanker traffic. My question for the member is simple. Why is the government silent on this issue, when it is clear that the company was engaged in a culture of deception? Again, why is the government silent on this issue? Why is it not standing up for people on the west coast?

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should have said “uninformed on the economy”. Nowhere has it been mentioned by the Liberals and Conservatives in this debate about the role of netbacks in transport options, which shows a lack of understanding of economics. Some analysts have mentioned that the netbacks are one of the reasons the Keystone XL project is stalled. Therefore, can the member illuminate why commodity prices and netbacks may play a role behind the project going forward or not? If it does not make economic sense, why would the U.S. want the project to go forward? The member seems to think that the motion will make the U.S. say yes to the project because it would mean the export of 40,000 jobs. However, I think he should look more at the argument of netbacks and transport options.

Could he illuminate the House about the role of netbacks in the oil industry?

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, why would the U.S. be saying no to Keystone XL? It is perhaps that Barack Obama knows what most Canadians know, that the Conservatives are stupid on the economy. However, after the Liberal leader's visit, the President also knows that the Liberals are stupid on the economy.

The members have claimed that the economics is not in getting it there, not in taking it out, but in production. This member seems to imply that our motion is somehow influential on the American—

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2013]

And the market.

[Official Languages, November 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner of Official Languages was very clear in his report. The Conservatives' record since 2006 has been catastrophic. People cannot get service in the language of their choice in airports. The government got rid of the census long form, closed the only bilingual rescue centre, appointed unilingual officers, and the list goes on.

What will the new minister do to get Canada moving forward instead of backward on official languages?

[Business of Supply, November 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians do deserve the truth about Senate abuse. The member for Charlottetown complained at the beginning of his speech that Mike Duffy was not a resident of P.E.I. when appointed. We know in our party, from 1993 to 2003, Percy Downe worked for the Liberal prime minister's office, then he was chief of staff to Prime Minister Chrétien. He lived in Ottawa for a decade during this time.

Could the member for Charlottetown confirm that Percy Downe was a resident of P.E.I. when he was appointed as a senator, or was he like Mike Duffy, he had a cottage there and became a resident afterwards?

[Business of Supply, November 5th, 2013]

I have got it now, Mr. Speaker. The misspending and abuse of taxpayers dollars is not an issue for the Liberals. That is clear from the member's speech. The Liberals want Canadians to skip to the end of the book, to the last chapter. They should just read the last chapter. They should not read all the chapters before that about the story. I finally understand.

I also finally understand the Liberal slogan of hope and hard work. Let the NDP do all the hard work and hope that Canadians do not notice the complete absence of the Liberal leader on many files; so I thank the member for enlightening me about that.

The member speaks about a mute party. I know a mute leader in this House. I know a couple of mute leaders in this House, and they are not our leader.

Does the member actually think Canadians will buy this weak motion after months, nay years, of the Liberals burying their heads in the sand on the issue of the Senate?

[Business of Supply, November 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the member clearly thinks that the problem is only between Mike Duffy and the Prime Minister. However, the New Democrats know that it goes beyond that. The Senate structure is fundamentally flawed. Just look at the years of partisan Senate appointments for party cronies and failed candidates.

We have to wonder about someone like Percy Downe—who was former prime minister Chrétien's director of appointments—and his role within the Senate Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, on which he currently sits. This appointment continued in the tradition of Liberal patronage. Mr. Downe charged a $5,000 expense to his hospitality budget for pens and playing cards. That is reminiscent of the sponsorship scandal.

Could the member explain how Liberal senators giving speeches at partisan activities falls under the Liberals' definitions of accountability?

[Business of Supply, November 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not trust the Conservative Party with the Senate either. The member for Oak Ridges—Markham on October 25, stood in the House and said, “we have been very clear since we were elected in this place that we do not want to appoint senators”. That would be news to most Canadians in the fact that Mike Duffy, Patrick Brazeau, Pam Wallin, Fabian Manning, Larry Smith, Josée Verner were all appointed by the Prime Minister.

The member mentioned the debate that happened in the eighties between Brian Mulroney and the Liberal leader, and I remember it well too. Basically the Conservative leader at the time said, “You had an option, sir, about patronage appointments”. Now we are three decades later and we still have the same patronage appointments going on.

The Prime Minister for years said that he wanted to reform the Senate. The Prime Minister had the minimum option in terms of reform of not making patronage appointments to the Senate, but instead he chose to do like Liberal and Conservative governments of the past.

Does the member agree that the 50 people who his Prime Minister appointed should be there, or does he stand by his statement that he made October 25, saying that the Conservatives should not appoint senators?