Jamie Nicholls

[The Budget, March 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Calgary Centre-North stood up today and boasted about financing for SDTC, Sustainable Development Technology Canada. However, when we look at the numbers, there is only $1 million allocated for this very important agency, which develops the sustainable economy of the future that we would like to have.

My hon. colleague had a lot of experience with finance. Could he explain how $1 million for sustainable development technology is not really putting value to the idea of building that innovative economy of the future, which we so need to build in Canada today?

[Ethics, March 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, they conduct a witch hunt against the unemployed and public servants, yet they can turn a blind eye to the illegal financial dealings of Peter Penashue in Labrador.

The Conservatives would have everyone believe that a campaign volunteer is to blame for violating the Canada Elections Act, except that right after the campaign, the Conservatives appointed that incompetent volunteer to the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board.

Will the Conservatives assure this House that they will stop using that office to hide their scapegoat?

[Business of Supply, March 20th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we have yet another casualty of the ideological Conservative government. The Helmholtz Institute that was working with the University of Alberta has now pulled out. This is a major loss for a Canadian university, and it is all due to the ideological position of the Conservative government that is hurting research, hurting science.

I have spoken with researchers from the University of Alberta, and they said they did not have the logistical support of the federal government to run this kind of collaboration. We see yet another brain drain that has gone on due to the ideology of the government. Losing $25 million for the University of Alberta is significant. Could the hon. member speak to this point?

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, March 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as in trade, human rights and environmental norms, New Democrats support multilateralism and international co-operation. We support this kind of negotiation especially on such things as nuclear safety and safety from nuclear terrorism. Canada has agreed to be legally bound by these conventions, and it requires domestic implementation before we ratify the convention.

On the record of the government in terms of engaging in international multilateralism and international co-operation, we think of climate change accords and different things on the international stage. How can we have confidence that the current government would look after nuclear terrorism when it has abrogated its duty to stand up for Canada on the international stage so many times when it comes to human rights and environmental norms?

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, March 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see some action on the nuclear file by the government. We are still waiting for changes to the Nuclear Liability Act, which would protect Canadians by raising the liability cap.

My question specifically to the member is this. There are fourth generation technologies of nuclear reactors that do not use enriched uranium. A month ago we had someone testify at committee saying that they have this very innovative technology. I asked representatives of TerraPower whether it had any contact with the Canadian government. His answer was that it had zero contact with the government. Therefore, when the member said that the Conservatives are providing leadership on the nuclear file, I fail to see the leadership that is being provided on this.

This is a move in the right direction, but it is a very slow-paced move. I wonder when the member will come forward with the other legislation on this file.

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, March 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have lost count of the number of times the government has muzzled the House. This is completely unacceptable. It is an affront to democracy.

As our finance critic said, we have been waiting for this bill for 11 years. Why are the Conservatives imposing a gag order and cutting debate short?

We heard nothing about this bill for months. We could see on the projected order of business that it was going to be introduced in the House. We wanted to debate it so that we could explain to Canadians just how complex the tax system is. I do not understand why they are cutting debate short again.

The House may be aware that in the 1950s the Speaker of the House of Commons was from my riding of Vaudreuil—Soulanges. At that time, there was a debate on pipelines. The government imposed time allocation on the debate, which wreaked havoc in the House.

Why is the government cutting debate short again?

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in one of my last conversations with Jack Layton, he expressed outrage that the first priority of this majority government was to appoint the defeated candidates of the 2011 election to the Senate. In particular, we were talking about the candidate for Lac-Saint-Louis from the Conservative Party.

Michael Fortier had the decency to quit when he lost his election in 2008. He resigned his Senate seat and never returned.

I keep hearing from the other side of the chamber that abolishing the Senate cannot be done. In the words of Jack Layton, “Don't let them tell you it can't be done”.

Would an NDP government, in 2015, work with the provinces not only on abolishing the Senate but also on energy strategy, on developing a job strategy and on developing a policy framework for skilled trades and a training strategy in this nation, among many other things?

[The Senate, March 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we knew the Conservatives were prepared to do anything to defend the lowliest actions on the part of senators. Now the reason why is clearer to us.

In addition to using their fundraisers to campaign with public funds, they are using their majority in the Senate to strong-arm anyone who dares speak the truth.

Senators now have in their crosshairs the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the person responsible for disclosing to Canadians the true cost of the Conservatives’ bungles. Once he is out of the picture, will the senators start to attack employees who blow the whistle on abuses within their departments?

The Conservative let them lie about where they reside if in exchange they attack those they have issues with. Not a bad system, if you ask me.

The NDP believes the Parliamentary Budget Officer plays a critically important role. We refuse to support an undemocratic, unaccountable relic like the Senate.

The so-called upper chamber must be abolished. That is all there is to it.

[Petitions, February 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the final petition has to do with a national affordable housing strategy.

[Petitions, February 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition seeks to protect old age security and access to it.