Joe Preston

[Main Estimates 2013-14, June 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it would be hard to tell now, but we used to be seatmates. As members can see what happens in this place, one can switch from one end to the other, and I see her very rarely now. She is way down at the other end.

To answer her question, the most important thing has already been done. We have referred the matter of the reform of the Senate to the Supreme Court. We have referred the matter of Senate term limits to the Supreme Court. We have referred the matter of the democratic process to be used to select senators to the Supreme Court. We have also, in that same reference to the Supreme Court, referred the matter of abolition of the Senate and how might it be done.

As I said in one of my speeches quite a few years ago, 140 years ago the country was founded and a Constitution was written. It is very tough for us to crack that open and make these changes.

Let us ask the court of this land, before anybody else puts forward a law suit, ahead of time about how we do these things. That is the most important thing, which has been done by the Prime Minister and this government. We are awaiting the answer. When we get the answer, we will go right to work.

[Main Estimates 2013-14, June 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to apologize to all the flakes out there, I guess. However, I tend to agree with one of my favourite members.

First, I would like to handle the question on my London Knights, who won the Memorial Cup two years in a row and will be hosting it next year, which will be three years in a row. Find me another Canadian team that has done this three years in a row, or at least has been to the Memorial Cup. Halifax should bring its team to London next year.

This may give me an answer to the second part of the member's question.

It is great to be to stand and talk about one's hometown hockey team, or elephants that have been hit by trains in one's hometown, or a number of things like that, but the real answer here is that we are wasting the time of this place. We should be here talking about the jobs, growth and prosperity of the economy and the taxes that we have already cut. However, to use the member's word, we are talking about the “flaky” issues that are out there. I am afraid the people at home are tuned into the hockey game and not into the CPAC channel to watch us speak of this.

[Main Estimates 2013-14, June 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as I stated in my speech, we did talk a lot about reform for a number of years here. As the chair of the procedure and House affairs committee, I can say that we have certainly talked about democratic reform and reform of the Senate. We talked about it over and over, and then we have talked about it in here for a bit, and then we talked about it back there for a bit.

I find it a bit over the top that the member talked about how much we have tried to move toward reform. When we found that the delaying tactics were the way they were, we made a reference to the Supreme Court to try to have those answers clarified. When the answers come back from the Supreme Court, we will see how fast we can work on the reform of the Senate.

[Main Estimates 2013-14, June 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Windsor West for giving me a bit of break during that extremely thrilling and exciting speech. I can see why he would want to pop up and break the momentum there. Again, to use a hockey analogy, he is trying to get the momentum to go the other way.

I know it was just members recording what a great speech they were hearing in the House so they could ensure that their constituents back home would have a record of it too.

I was reading the rules and I think all these rules make pretty good sense. These strong new measure will improve accountability and prevent abuse. We said we would fix the Senate rules governing travel expenses; we have delivered. At least we have made some progress to make things better.

It is unfortunate the rules were broken so badly that we needed to tighten them. It is unfortunate that some people decided not to follow the rules. That is what happened, and we are dealing with it to make sure it does not happen again.

We are dealing with taxpayers' money. That is the most important thing to remember. To go further to ensure that taxpayers' money is being cared for properly, this week the Leader of the Government in the Senate introduced a motion asking the Auditor General of Canada to conduct a comprehensive audit of Senate expenses. Again, this is a strong measure that will protect taxpayers. We have demonstrated that we have a plan and that we will take action when abuses come to light.

That contrasts us with the opposition parties, because they have no plan. They did not have a plan in the past and they still do not have one today. They want to take the easy way out: hold a press conference here, make a speech there and move motions to circumvent our Constitution and our institutions in their free time, instead of talking about things that are important to Canadians, such as the economy. They do not have a plan.

We have a plan. We support reasonable reforms and we will move toward abolition. It is very simple, but our plan's simplicity respects our institutions and our Constitution.

However, we are optimistic on this side of the House that the Senate can and should be reformed. We think Canadians agree that the Senate should be reformed and that politicians can come together and agree on that. If it is not possible and the Senate cannot be reformed because senators will not co-operate or because politicians cannot work together to solve a national problem, then it needs to go.

It would need to go because the status quo is unacceptable. I think that is something we can all agree with.

[Main Estimates 2013-14, June 5th, 2013]

Many of the fans yelled the same thing, sir.

People may not be able to tell by my appearance, but in hockey I seldom got past centre ice. My coach thought I was a far better defenceman than I was a goal scorer. Therefore, I know when players are delaying the game. I know what it looks like when players are not rushing the puck. I would suggest that the party opposite has gone even further than just not rushing the puck.

We have debated Senate reform legislation for over 18 hours in this House, and the NDP just keeps talking and talking. We could be spending that time examining the bill in committee or talking about other important things in the House, such as the economy and jobs.

It is a filibuster, despite their protests. We broke that logjam by referring the bill's subject matter, along with other important questions, to the Supreme Court of Canada. We await their opinion. I know I am interested to hear what they have to say.

As I mentioned before, the Prime Minister has made it clear that the Senate must be reformed or be abolished. We will await the opinion of the Supreme Court. We will examine that opinion when it arrives, and we will take action based on it, as we have promised to do. We will pursue reform, and if that cannot be accomplished, we will pursue abolition.

The aim in seeking the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada was to accelerate the pace of Senate reform and to lay the foundation for further reform to the Senate. That is exactly what it will do. We will receive clarity on the steps that we must take to move forward, and then we will move forward.

In the meantime, we will continue to bring forward measures to strengthen the accountability of senators to taxpayers. We will do what can be done.

Last week the Senate adopted 11 tough new accountability rules governing travel and expenses that were put forward by Conservative senators. I think Canadians would think the rules are reasonable.

They removed the principle from the senate administrative rules that stated that a senator is presumed to act honourably with respect to expenses.

They clarify and make consistent the terminology surrounding residency for the purposes of expense claims.

They require a senator to provide a specific purpose for travel when claiming expenses. They require senators to maintain mileage logs for the purpose of claiming mileage.

They require that taxi receipts be provided when claiming taxi expenses, and they restrict per diems in Ottawa to days the Senate sits, days the senators attend committee meetings and up to 20 additional days while on approved Senate business.

They amend the 64-point travel system to limit senators to 12 trips that are not between Ottawa and the senator's provincial residence, restrict a senator's designated traveller to a spouse or partner and require administration to provide internal economy with monthly reports on travel patterns.

[Main Estimates 2013-14, June 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have the chance to speak tonight. As you may remember, I enjoy speaking about the Senate, and I am glad to have this opportunity to share more of my thoughts tonight.

I am going to discuss a number of things on the motion that has been brought forward by the NDP. The first issue I want to cover is something I have heard a lot about in the House today and it is whether this is truly the best use of our time. When we talk to people in St. Thomas or Aylmer, or other places around the riding in southern Ontario, they do not think it is. They ask me why we spend hours debating motions like this rather than budgets and things that will help create and maintain jobs. They think we should be using our time more effectively, working for them. I agree. My constituents are very wise and very good at selecting members. I am very thankful for the wise people in the riding who keep sending me back here to do their work.

We should be here talking about jobs and the economy. I certainly have that conversation a lot in the riding. My constituents ask me what are we doing in Ottawa to help create jobs and prosperity. They do not ask me about the Senate much because it does not affect their lives. If a discussion of the Senate ever comes up, it is probably because I bring it up. I might do that because the Senate sometimes affects my work as the chair of the procedure and house affairs committee, which is where we talk about the Senate. That is usually the only reason it ever comes up back home. The real questions are about jobs and the economy.

Our government and our Prime Minister have proven that we can multi-task, that we can do a number of things at once. Here we are sharing in that multi-tasking, covering off a topic that does not seem to be of much use to us today. What matters to Canadians and the Canadians in my riding are the economy, creating jobs and maintaining jobs, and building a growing prosperity for the people we represent.

Since we are debating a motion on the main estimates, the fundamental appropriations for our government, we have an obligation to talk about financial matters and how they relate to the performance of our government and the economy in general. I say this in order to contrast our economic plan, something that is of paramount importance, and the NDP gimmick today, which my constituents do not think should be high on our priority list.

Let us talk about what matters back home. We have the lowest tax rate in new business investment in the G7. That is something we set out to do and we have accomplished that. That helps create and sustain jobs back home in the riding. We are saving the average family of four more than $3,100 a year in taxes. That includes reducing the GST twice, and many other tax reductions. That helps families back home in the riding.

We have also provided tax relief in other ways, such as, the registered disability savings plan, the working income tax benefit, pension income splitting for seniors, and tax-free savings accounts, which eight million Canadians already have. All of these things help families in my riding. These things matter to them.

We have signed free trade agreements with nine countries since 2006, and negotiations are ongoing with 60 other countries, including the European Union and Asia-Pacific countries. Other areas that are important for jobs and growth are innovation, research and development, and capital formation, which are fundamental to stimulating business investment, including new high-quality jobs. They equip our country for success in the future. We have taken numerous actions on this file, and the positive results are there to see.

On infrastructure, post-secondary education and jobs training, we have taken positive steps to help Canadians and our economy. Just last week, Statistics Canada announced that Canada's economy grew 2.5% in the first quarter of 2013. This represents the strongest quarterly growth in nearly two years. Additionally, Statistics Canada positively revised its economic growth for the fourth quarter of 2012, up from 0.6% to 0.9%. This is the seventh straight quarter of positive growth, and that is another sign that Canada's economy and our government remain on the right track.

Those are good results. They are good indicators that our focus on jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity is bearing fruit for Canadians.

We have seen over 900,000 net new jobs created in Canada since the depths of the global recession. Over 90% of them are full-time and nearly 75% of them are in the private sector. It represents the best job growth record in the entire G7. Constituents back home appreciate that kind of good economic news. It shows them that we have a good plan for the economy, and it contrasts with the lack of plan on the part of our opposition parties.

Speaking of a lack of a plan, we will come back to the NDP and the Senate. Since this motion on estimates does deal with the Senate, I will relent and spend some time talking about it. It is only polite. We are here at 8 o'clock at night, after all.

However, when we get to Senate reform, we cannot talk about the NDP because it has no plan. Luckily, our government does have a plan. We have been clear for many years that we favour reform first. We are willing to consider a number of options, but we want to work at reforming the Senate first and foremost.

For many years, our party and our government has supported the idea of term limits for Senators. The Prime Minister himself even appeared at a special Senate committee to speak about the bill on Senate reform, something that has never happened before. We have also been consistent in our support of provinces, undertaking democratic processes to suggest nominees for appointment to the Senate. One province has made these recommendations, and this Prime Minister has appointed those people who were recommended by the Province of Alberta. That is something we can be proud of. I hope that other provinces will follow Alberta's lead and let their people make the recommendations, after a democratic process.

That has been our plan. We have been clear and we have been consistent. The Prime Minister has been equally as clear that we support the reform of the Senate, but that if it cannot be reformed, it should be abolished. However, our side of the House has the proper respect for our Constitution, our institutions, regardless of their failings or the failings of their members, and respect for our provincial partners.

Our government recognizes that abolishing the Senate would be tough work. It would require co-operation across the country. With our Constitution, as venerable as it is, it is not entirely clear how Canadians might go about abolishing the Senate. Therefore, our government has done the reasonable thing, something that I think my constituents would endorse. Our government has asked the Supreme Court for its opinion on how we might go about abolishing the Senate.

Let us talk about what has been referred to the Supreme Court. The first thing we have asked the Supreme Court about is simple; we have asked about term limits. What term would be appropriate for senators, if indeed they had term limits? Can Parliament alone limit the terms of senators? How much could we limit them? Is there a point at which Parliament could act alone? We have suggested nine years in one piece of legislation, but we have asked the Supreme Court to give us an opinion on a number of different terms. Those are reasonable questions and I hope the court will provide some clarity, something that I recall the NDP opposes.

I might be mixing up my issues, though. I know that in the past the retirement date was changed, from appointment for life down to age 75. In that respect, we are more likely to get some clarity, which I support. I believe that in the last study I read at committee, the average length of time served by a senator in the House was between nine and ten years. This is how we got the number for a nine-year term. It is the average that a senator currently sits, so we are on the right track.

The next thing is about the democratic selection of the Senate and nominees to the Senate.

Our government has proposed a few different ways to hold democratic processes to recommend Senate nominees, so we have put those questions to the Supreme Court. We have asked whether we can ask provinces to determine themselves who they would like their senators to be. If that happens, they would then be appointed to the Senate by the Prime Minister, as we have already shown in the case of Alberta.

As I have mentioned, Alberta has already chosen to do this. There are senators now who have been elected by the people of Alberta to represent the province of Alberta in the Senate, and they have been appointed by the Prime Minister. That process is in our latest bill, so we are asking the Supreme Court about that. We have also asked about a national process that we proposed previously.

We have also asked the Supreme Court for a couple of opinions. One of them has to do with the net worth of senators.

The requirements in the Constitution on this question are from another age. The Fathers of Confederation in Canada drew up a Constitution in 1867. That was a long time ago. That document has lasted this long, but there are many questions about it.

Very late last Wednesday night there was talk about a time in the 1800s, around the time the Constitution was written. A story was told about an elephant in St. Thomas getting hit by a train. I have had some requests to bring it back, so there it is. I have talked about the elephant in the 1800s in St. Thomas again.

We should consider visiting these rules from another age, from a long time ago. My constituents would agree with doing that.

The last set of questions has to do with what we are talking about today: the abolition of the Senate.

We are asking the opinion of the Supreme Court on this very topic, and our approach reflects well on the government. It shows just how out of its depth the opposition is on this question. We have put a number of specific questions to the Supreme Court because the Constitution is specific.

Amending our Constitution is a weighty matter, so we need take care to ensure that we get the answers we need, but care is not something I detect in today's motion from the NDP. The party opposite knows the Supreme Court has been asked for its opinions on these topics, yet what is its motion today? Let us spend a whole day talking about a backdoor way to vandalize our institutions, bypass our Constitution and use a gimmick to maybe get a few media hits.

That frustrates our constituents. We could respect the Supreme Court of Canada and Canadians, but instead of spending our time talking about important matters like jobs and the economy, we are talking about a topic that New Democrats believe will add some political oomph. It is just a gimmick to allow them to crow about their complete lack of a plan, which I find strange and wasteful of our time and energy.

That is what New Democrats really care about when it comes to taking the Senate out of this place. They just want to hear themselves talk. They have spoken at length on our most recent Senate reform bill. They put up about 40 speakers on that bill, and they all said the same things over and over again.

As the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which has seen its own fair share of filibustering on Senate reform, I can tell the House that this is filibustering. I know it when I see it. New Democrats are not debating anything; they are just hijacking the House to ensure that Senate reform cannot move forward. They are clogging the zone, as we say in hockey.

Back when I could, I was a stay-at-home defenceman when I played hockey. I see the member for Cape Breton—Canso—

[Committees of the House, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 57th, 58th and 59th reports of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in relation to the reports of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the provinces of Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Quebec.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question, and what a great way to put it.

I will finish a bit of my history lesson. There still is a life-size statue of Jumbo at the far end of Talbot Street in St. Thomas. As one comes up the hill, there is Jumbo.

The member is absolutely right about the elephant in the room. It is a late hour and I have sat here for most of the night, five or six hours, listening to all the parties in the House suggest how much they like our bill. There is a saying back home in rural southern Ontario: my momma taught me how to say “thank you”.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I assure my colleague that the fair rail freight service act looks at ways to allow those shippers who must move product in order to get the resources that I spoke about in my speech to market, to move agriculture products across this country, and do it using the existing rail system in Canada, whether it is the two major ones or some very small short lines. This legislation would allow those shippers to have some negotiating power with those railways.

Unlike perhaps my colleague across the way, I believe that a great capitalist way of paying for goods as they are being moved is a far better way to do it.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that is right, my hometown killed an elephant. It was back in a day when rail was king. It was a day when everything moved on the rails and some things, I guess, had to move out of the way.

This bill would bring Canada and the rail system in Canada back to those days of service by our railways. They were days when goods and resources were moved by rail.

There is no question that rail transportation plays a central role in the success of our resource companies and our resources in this economy. In fact, Canada's natural resources industries are the largest users of rail freight services in the country, even to this day. Taken together, Canada's forest, mining and energy industries account for two thirds of all carload rail traffic in Canada. We know that the manufacturers and suppliers to these vital industries and many other vital industries, which provide everything from trucks to pipelines, also depend on railroads to transport their products and materials to market.

Our goal is to provide Canadian shippers and railways with a means of agreeing on service levels and ensuring a more effective supply chain. That is exactly what this proposed legislation will do. With this new legislation, we are highlighting the important role that railways play in supporting our economic prosperity. The goal of the legislation is to encourage railways and shippers to work together and it creates a strong incentive for them to do so.

Bill C-52 is designed to provide shippers with greater reliability and predictability in rail service. It is essential to the success of our natural resources industries. It recognizes the needs of shippers in doing their business and the needs of railways to manage their rail assets effectively. The relationship between railways and shippers is vital to Canada's economy as a whole. We know that when shippers can move more volume, it means more exports, revenue and jobs in Canada.

Here is the bottom line. Improving rail service in Canada will help to unlock the potential of our great natural resources. As most Canadians realize, there is a great deal at stake.

Here are some statistics. In the mining industry last year, more than half a million carloads of coal, sulphur and fertilizer were transported by CP Rail. In 2012, CP Rail alone moved 67,000 carloads of forest products. Many of those in urban ridings may have only sat at a crossing and watched that economy move by them as they impatiently waited for the gate to go back up. However, in rural and resource Canada, that is money going by. In fact, it is about $20 million worth of goods a day.

Additionally, Canadian Pacific recently indicated in its 2013 outlook that its crude oil by rail prospects continue to strengthen as the company expects to move to double the movement of crude oil to 140,000 carloads annually by 2015. That is from today's current volume of 70,000 carloads. That is a doubling of carloads of oil being moved by train.

It would be a lot more efficient to move it by pipeline, I suppose.

Right now, natural resources are directly and indirectly driving almost 20% of the nation's economy and supporting over 10% of all the jobs in Canada. Natural resources are poised to play an even greater role in the future. Our opportunities for growth in Canada's resource sector, arising from the rapid economic ascent of some of the world's most populous countries, are unlike anything we have seen in our history. We have estimated that there are some 600 major resource projects currently under way in Canada or planned in the next 10 years, worth approximately $650 billion in investments.

While global economic conditions may be a factor in investor decisions to move forward, the size and number of the projects is substantial. Whatever the short-term obstacles, the longer-term outlook is one of increased value and a demand for Canadian resources.

We can point to tremendous opportunities that are happening right now across the country, from oil and gas in Alberta, to liquid natural gas in British Columbia, to offshore gas in Newfoundland and Labrador, to new discoveries of minerals and metals in the Ring of Fire in Ontario and in northern Quebec. These opportunities will continue for many years to come.

For generations, agriculture and natural resources have brought employment, growth and opportunity to every region of Canada. We must continue to harness this potential. Long-term growth and development in many of these sectors depend upon our railways and their ability to get the products to market.

In a recent report, the International Energy Agency emphasized that global energy demand will continue to grow by more than one third by 2035, being led by emerging economies like China and India. These trends represent opportunities for Canada's energy exports in helping to meet growing global energy needs. Because one thing that we know for sure is that these growing economies will need resources, resources that are abundant here in Canada, such as minerals and metals, lumber, oil and gas. This trend underscores the urgent need for Canada to diversify our energy export markets, such as that of Asia-Pacific.

Growing and emerging economies highlight the urgent need for Canada to develop infrastructure to export our resources to new markets and to ensure that our railways run smoothly.

Simply put, we know that developing an efficient transportation system is crucial to ensuring that our resource industries can compete globally.

The fair rail freight service act would provide the tools to build a strong and efficient rail network in Canada. This important legislation would support Canada's resource sectors as they continue to create jobs and prosperity right across this country. In these challenging economic times, it is good news for our natural resources sector and good news for all Canadians. With this new legislation, we would build on our country's legacy of railway and natural resources. We would be setting the stage for a brand new era of growth and prosperity in Canada.

Just as we mentioned at the beginning, the country started with a growth in railways and a use of railways to transport those resources from coast to coast and to build this country.

The resource industry today, in Canada, requires this act and railways to ensure that the resource industry can supply the world.