Jay Hill

[Points of Order, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I do not take any solace in stating that I think today we have hit a new low in this place when an hon. member would stand in his place and try to defend the indefensible, try to excuse the inexcusable, which is when he called another member in the House Il Duce, comparing that individual to Mussolini.

Let us just imagine if this is allowed to stand. What will be next? There will be people in this place compared to Adolf Hitler. That is where this is headed. The hon. member knows that.

He has to know that, yet he stands in his place and tries to defend that use of language, saying that to be called a fascist in Parliament is not such a bad thing, that it is okay for this to go on.

He brings in the whole issue of timeliness. I think you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, of the fact that my colleague did not rise on a point of order earlier because he was waiting for the member to return to the chamber.

We are not allowed, of course, to say when a member is or is not in the chamber, but there is such a thing as common courtesy, something that the hon. member would be wise to remember.

Common courtesy dictates that when one is going to challenge an individual about something he or she has said in this place, it is common courtesy to wait until that member returns to the House before one stands and accuses them of something. I think that is only proper. My colleague did that.

As for the whole specious argument about the fact that there was an issue of timeliness here, I do not think that is at all relevant. I think the remarks stand for themselves.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that when you look at the nature of these remarks as directed to the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, you will have to rule that the member withdraw those remarks forthwith and offer an unqualified apology for this use of language.

[Criminal Code, March 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my apologies to the hon. member, but I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions between all the parties, and I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That when no member rises on Bill C-35 today, all questions necessary to dispose of the bill be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, March 27, 2007, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

[Criminal Code, March 23rd, 2007]

Just a little one.

[Committees of the House, March 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which arises from the comments just made by this hon. member in which he alleged something to a colleague of mine, a minister, from question period yesterday which clearly the minister did not say. I want to give the member the offer to retract his statement and correct the record as soon as possible.

Clearly, at page 7503 of yesterday's Hansard, in response to a question from the NDP that the member referenced, the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said:

Mr. Speaker, I heard about the real voice for change group. They met the other day. I think there were about 30 of them who got together. It was a completely non-partisan event. David Orchard introduced the Leader of the Opposition and it just went on from there.

At no place, Mr. Speaker, you will notice, did he say that he refused to meet with this group. That was the allegation the member made. He should check his facts and ensure that he is always truthful in this chamber when he makes those types of allegations against other members.

[Committees of the House, March 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the second motion is with respect to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. I move:

That, five (5) members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs be authorized to travel to Vimy, France to attend the 90th anniversary of the Vimy Ridge Memorial Commemoration, from April 5 to 10, 2007, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee.

(Motion agreed to)

[Committees of the House, March 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between all parties and I think you will find unanimous consent for two travel motions today.

The first motion is in relation to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I move:

That, in relation to its study on the Canadian Seal Harvest, twelve (12) members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans be authorized to travel to the Magdalen Islands, Quebec, in March/April 2007, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee.

(Motion agreed to)

[Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act, March 2nd, 2007]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-47, An Act respecting the protection of marks related to the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games and protection against certain misleading business associations and making a related amendment to the Trade-marks Act.

Mr. Speaker, as a new minister, this is the first occasion I have had to introduce a government bill on behalf of a cabinet colleague. Therefore, it is a great pleasure for me to rise today to introduce the Olympic and Paralympic marks act, an act to protect marks related to the Olympic and Paralympic Games.

This bill will help to ensure that the 2010 winter games in Vancouver-Whistler will leave lasting memories for all Canadians and an enduring legacy for our athletes.

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

[Income Tax Act, February 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think, with the permission of the sponsor, the hon. member for Prince Albert, and with the consent of all members present in the chamber this evening, you might find unanimous consent to pass Bill C-294 at report stage.

[Committees of the House, February 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions and I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding the orders made on Tuesday, April 25, 2006, Thursday, June 22, 2006, and Wednesday, December 13, 2006, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security be authorized to continue its deliberations relating to its review of the Anti-terrorism Act, 2001, beyond February 28, 2007, and to present its final report no later than March 27, 2007.

[Railway Operations Legislation, February 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the action taken by the Minister of Labour. I want to make a couple of comments at this time about the impact this strike is having specifically on my riding of Prince George—Peace River.

As the minister has said, I think this action is incumbent upon a responsible government, hopefully with support from all parties, but failing that, at least, as you said, Mr. Speaker, during the discussion on the point of order about whether this is actually the correct procedure to be using in this circumstance, hopefully the majority of members in the House will act responsibly and support this motion.

I can tell members that in Prince George—Peace River in northern British Columbia this strike is already devastating for the local economy. I have had reports about the problems in getting fuel from the refineries, both propane and diesel, because it travels in tanker cars by rail.

There have been problems conveyed to me by farmers up there as far as grain shipments and a lack of cars to move the grain to market are concerned. They are worrying about the ongoing $300,000 a day in demurrage charges that the farmers themselves are going to have to pick up, because that comes out of the pooled returns under the Canadian Wheat Board. It is the farmers, who can least afford that type of additional cost, who are facing that cost already. It is adding up for them every day that this strike is allowed to continue.

I was very privileged to be at a recent mine opening in my riding for Western Canadian Coal. It is called the Wolverine mine and is just outside of Tumbler Ridge in my riding in northeastern British Columbia. I have information from that mine that it will be shutting down, potentially as early as tomorrow, because it does not have cars to ship its product out to Prince Rupert and on to our customers abroad.

We can see from that one little corner of our country the devastating impact that this strike is having on our local economies, on local jobs and, most importantly, on local Canadian families that are trying to make ends meet.

I fully support the initiative, but if only we could solve this today, it would be great. I still have hope, as we all do, that the two sides can negotiate a settlement. Perhaps they will have that in place before the day is out. That would be great. We had all hoped that it would have been settled long ago and we would not have had to take this action, but it is incumbent upon a responsible government and a responsible minister to act expeditiously when we are faced with this.

Also, I have not even gone into the whole subject of our international reputation as a reliable shipper of natural resources and other products. All of our customers rely on our international reputation for reliability. They rely upon it, and if we cannot show the world that Canada can be relied on to meet our commitments and keep our contractual agreements, it will be devastating to our economy.

I wanted to voice those concerns and ask the minister if he has any other direct evidence that he wishes to share with us about the devastating impact, if not today, then certainly in the hours and days to come, that would result from this strike were it to be allowed to continue much longer.

We cannot solve this today, even with this legislative procedure. It is potentially going to take up to another week to get this in place. It is not like we can just snap our fingers and solve this.