John Weston

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it would be far more credible if my colleague, whom I admire greatly for his intellect and his rhetoric, occasionally offered support for the government for measures such as accountability and transparency, which he is referring to now.

Which government brought in the most sweeping accountability provisions in Canadian history? Which government puts its focus on transparency every day in its operations? It is our Conservative government. It is hard to take an out-of-context criticism of one particular thing when the member is consistently on his feet voting against the provisions we are talking about today: a budget and environmental measures that are bound to pull us forward into a cleaner and healthier environment.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I believe we have a great contributor to the debate in the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. Certainly, she exemplifies the importance of our government listening.

Mr. Fraser certainly has been involved in that debate and always will be, as long as he has a breath to breathe. He has provided some very good constructive criticism for our government.

I want to give great credit to our Minister of the Environment and our Minister of Finance for the way they have listened. That is why we have such ingenious provisions in the budget. They are provisions that reflect the needs of Canadians, provisions that, for instance, invest $10 million in partnerships with groups across Canada. They are the engines in the protection of habitat. They galvanize volunteers. They understand the on-the-ground needs of the fish and the habitat.

Our government will be standing with those people across Canada as we protect our habitat and produce an environment that is not only as good as but is better than the one we inherited.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her question.

She was correct to emphasize the co-operation between various levels of government. Our minister and our government respect the division of powers between the levels of government, but it is crucial that we work together. That is why we are developing air quality legislation, for example. As parliamentarians, we must listen to the needs of our constituents.

That is why our budget so closely reflects our country's needs. We are listening to the needs of the provinces and, more importantly, the needs of Canadians.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we live in an extraordinary time. Canadians are consistently expressing gratitude for our economic blessings. Again and again, we hear evidence why our economy, under our Prime Minister, Minister of Finance, and this Conservative government, is truly the toast of the world. The evidence is clear: over 900,000 net new jobs since July 2009; the best debt-to-GDP ratio in the western world; and an investment climate which Forbes magazine calls number one in the world.

My purpose in rising today is to highlight aspects of the environment which are integral to our economic success and which figure prominently in budget 2013. I hope by the end of this debate that my colleagues will share with me the notion that the environment is the economy; a notion that goes beyond the more traditional paradigm that suggests the economy and the environment must be in balance.

I am delighted to work in a House where we have a Minister of the Environment who has worked relentlessly on improving climate change, both domestically and internationally. He has done a sector-by-sector effect of GHG assessment, recorded great accomplishments in responsible resource development, and with his predecessors has increased our parkland by over 50%. These are amazing accomplishments.

Every time we consider whether environmental and economic factors are in balance, we are suggesting that the environment and the economy are in conflict with one another. Another way to articulate this supposed polarity is that the one must make sacrifice for the other to advance. In other words, we tend wrongly to start our discussion from the notion that the economy and the environment are at war with one another.

In encouraging Canadians to rethink the economy and the environment, let us have a look at the importance of this discussion. The organization ECO Canada, a foundation which was founded in 1992 and is the country's largest online resource for environmental jobs, training and recruitment, says that some 682,000 jobs in Canada are directly related to the environment; that is, the people in those jobs spend 50% or more of their work time relating to the environment. That is a staggering number.

Today I would like to point to our budget to reset the discussion around the notion that the environment is the economy. As we perhaps discuss the quality of life of Canadians, instead of how the economy and the environment are struggling against one another, our budget in its genius brings out many ways in which this government views our economy and our environment to be interrelated and coexisting.

Starting with this, let us call it a fresh view of the interrelated environment and economy, how can we continue with policies of economic growth? How must our processes be designed to evaluate infrastructure projects that might facilitate responsible resource extraction?

Constituents of mine, as individuals and in groups, have consistently expressed their support for Canada's economic success but have also stood for responsible environmental practices befitting of a riding which many call the most beautiful place on earth. Some of these proud Canadians include David Bromley, a world-renowned environmental engineer; the Sea to Sky Fisheries Roundtable coordinator Dave Brown; Carl Halvorson of the North Vancouver Outdoor School, based in Squamish; and Squamish First Nation Elder, Randall Lewis. Other groups and individuals who have articulated to me clearly the priority they put on fisheries habitat issues include the West Vancouver Streamkeeper group, including leaders such as John Barker and Mike Akerly, the Pacific Salmon Foundation, and the Future of Howe Sound Society.

What is in this budget for fisheries? In the past and current sessions of this Parliament, ministers of fisheries and of the environment have visited our riding and have heard directly from stakeholders, such as those of whom I just spoke. They have heard loud and clear about the importance of protecting fish habitat.

I am, therefore, especially proud to highlight two provisions in this budget which would respond directly to concerns such as those raised by these constituents.

First, Ottawa would contribute $10 million over two years, across Canada, for partnerships with local groups on fisheries and habitat conservation measures. That is something that my colleagues and members right around this House ought to be rejoicing about. There is a direct relationship between this budget and the millions of Canadian volunteers, anglers and recreational fishers who would benefit from this excellent measure.

Second, the Vancouver-based Pacific Salmon Foundation would see its funding increase from about $300,000 a year to $1 million a year as a result of changes in how the government would allocate revenue from the sale of conservation stamps that fishermen would have to purchase when they acquire licences. The Pacific Salmon Foundation is one of the best organizations in Canada in terms of galvanizing volunteers and leveraging government funds many times over, so I am delighted that this foundation has made its voice heard in such an effective way.

Let us look at conservation and biodiversity. John Fraser is in Ottawa today. He is a former minister of fisheries and of the environment. As you know, Mr. Speaker, he is a former Speaker of the House, whose 1991 decision influenced your recent decision concerning members' statements in the House. Mr. Fraser is one of many Conservatives who have created a strong environmental legacy. Among other things, he assisted former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in creating the acid rain treaty with the Americans to clean up our Great Lakes, and he contributed to the founding of a national park in what we now know as Haida Gwaii. Therefore, with the distinguished Mr. Fraser on Parliament Hill today, it is especially meaningful to refer to the remarkable record of this government regarding conservation and biodiversity.

Environment Canada's collaboration with the Nature Conservancy of Canada and other organizations has resulted in the protection of more than 354,000 hectares, including habitat for 146 species at risk. Our investments include $10 million to safeguard the Flathead River Valley in British Columbia. Since 2006, the Government of Canada has added 148,754 square kilometres to Parks Canada's network of protected areas, which is a tremendous accomplishment for this Minister of the Environment and his predecessors. As a result, we have increased the total land and water that comes under our stewardship by more than half. The government's investment of $143 million over 10 years to create Canada's first national urban park in the Rouge Valley of Toronto is a fine example of action. John Fraser will be happy to hear that we are carrying on his great environmental legacy.

What would be in the budget for the environment generally? Well, environmental concerns in B.C. would focus heavily on tanker safety, and Canada is a world-class regulator with an almost unblemished record of tanker safety on the west coast. The Government of Canada would take further action to ensure it continues this world-class tanker safety system for shipping oil and liquefied natural gas safely through Canada's waterways before any major new energy export facilities become operational. New measures would strengthen Canada's current system, including increased tanker inspections, new and modified aids to navigation, and the establishment of a Canadian Coast Guard incident command system, which would allow it to respond more effectively to an incident and integrate its operations with key partners. The government has also introduced the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act, and a new expert panel to review Canada's current tanker safety and proposed measures to strengthen it.

With the new Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, we would provide greater certainty for industry at the same time as increasing penalties in order to ensure compliance. This would allow our natural resources to be developed in a responsible and timely way. We would work to ensure accountability and transparency from industry by conducting a review of industry reporting through the national pollutant release inventory.

These are other concrete examples of Canada strengthening its environmental protection, and there is more. The National Energy Board inspections of oil and gas pipelines would increase by 50% annually to improve pipeline safety across Canada. Canada would double the number of comprehensive audits of oil and gas pipelines to identify potential safety issues before they occur. New enforceable environmental assessment decision statements would ensure that proponents of resource and other economic projects would comply with required mitigation measures to protect the environment. New administrative monitoring penalties would be introduced for violations to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and the National Energy Board Act to help ensure compliance. Companies that violate Canada's environmental laws would now face strong, stiff, new financial penalties.

If members agree with me that the environment is the economy, they will note what the next provision means in terms of its distinctiveness from the previous Liberal approach on the environment which focused on endless debate, vague objectives and unenforceable provisions.

In contrast to that previous Liberal approach, budgets of this Conservative government have created a $1.5 billion trust fund to help provinces and territories invest in major projects that clean our air and result in real GHG emission reductions.

This government is committed to reducing Canada's total GHG emissions by 17%, from 2005 levels, by 2020, and is halfway to meeting its target, a target that is inscribed in the Copenhagen accord. That is concrete and measurable evidence of progress on the environment.

The government is also following a sector-by-sector regulatory approach to align with the United States to achieve GHG emission reductions. To date, stringent regulations to reduce GHG emissions in the electricity and transport sectors have been implemented. In addition, work is also under way to develop regulations for the oil and gas sector.

Our environmental approach is comprehensive and will continue to include actions that create a cleaner healthier environment, improve the lives of Canadians, and support the development and deployment of new environmental and cleaner energy technologies.

Let us look at a bit more of our history. To maintain a strong economy, Canada requires a healthy environment that provides sustainable resources and supports a high quality of life. That is why our government is committed to ensuring that Canada's enviable and pristine environment, never better evidenced than in the riding I represent, is protected and strengthened for current and future generations.

In conclusion, our government listens to stakeholders and is convinced that the environment is the economy and that we are acting in measurable ways to protect it. Secondly, our government is protecting our fisheries. Thirdly, our government is making improvements on environmental protection in a practical and measurable way that allows for responsible resource development.

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, our government is standing up for Labrador. We are delivering results that matter to Labradorians, such as providing a loan guarantee for Lower Churchill, ending the long gun registry and providing funding to improve the Trans-Labrador Highway. While we are delivering results, the leader of the NDP is supporting a job-killing carbon tax that would raise the price of everything and hurt Newfoundland and Labrador.

Would the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development update the House on how his department is getting the job done for the people of Labrador?

[Privilege, April 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to address a question of privilege this morning. Doing so on this day of April 19 allows me to allude to a second related privilege, that of marking the anniversary of the “shot heard round the world”, the day in which the American Revolution began on April 19, 1775, near Boston, especially momentous as Bostonians are in lockdown as we speak, confronted by an assault on freedom and democracy. Let me first reflect briefly on the relevance of the “shot heard round the world” and what is happening today in Boston.

The phrase was coined by Ralph Waldo Emerson in his poem The Concord Hymn which commemorates the shots in Lexington and Concord near Boston, shots which set into play the events that led to, among other things, the signing of the American Declaration of Independence.

As Bostonians stand once again today at the centre of a battle for freedom and democracy, we recognize it is not for the first time in their history. Only last Monday, terrorists attacked innocent people in Boston who had at the Boston Marathon gathered to enjoy the fruits of peace and democracy. They rightly expected to revel in one another's company, secure and unthreatened by tyranny or violence. Bostonians stand against those who menace them.

We offer the people of Boston our prayers and goodwill. I invite members to join with the U.S. ambassador, Running Room manager Phil Marsh, and me on Monday at 1 p.m. to march together to the U.S. Embassy to show that we stand with Bostonians and Americans at this difficult time. I invite you, Mr. Speaker, and all members of the House to join us.

The formal question of privilege to which I speak today relates to the right of a member of the House to speak freely on whatever topic he or she believes merits the attention of our democratically elected House in the execution of our parliamentary duties. Specifically, I understand the question put to you by the member for Langley in his question of privilege is which institution has the right to administer rotating members' statements in the House; you, as the speaker, or the party whips, independent of your authority. I am not referring to the specific motion originally brought by the member for Langley, but to the critical nature of preserving a legislator's free voice in this institution.

My reference to the U.S. experience in freedom and democracy relates to the matter at hand because our American neighbours put the separation of powers at the foundation of their democratic system, right alongside a sister concept, the use of checks and balances to curb powers that tempt one or another institution to overreach.

The writings of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay in The Federalist Papers laid the groundwork for the American Constitution. In the first of their 85 treatises they posed the question whether men and women are really capable of establishing good government. The corralling of normal human deficiencies within institutional checks and balances is at the very heart of the question of privilege raised by my colleague, the MP for Langley.

In the words of Hamilton and company:

It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.

In Federalist 51, the author argued strongly for the independence of the separate arms of government to resist “usurpations” of power and prerogatives of one by the other. Otherwise, each institution stands to suffer encroachment by the others.

To secure these ends, Madison and his partners suggest that “the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department” is to enable each separate institution, be it the executive or the legislature, to fend off attempts to encroach upon one another's domains.

I couch my argument today in institutional language intentionally to remove the debate from the personalities involved. I do not seek to pitch the discussion in terms of a battle for power between individuals, between whatever person happens to preside as a cabinet figure, and whatever legislators are advocating for preservation or expansion of their legislative capacity. Our media are then tempted to build on the personal nature of such a narrative, in turn, attributing personal motives and ascribing malevolent or ambitious motives to the people involved.

It would in fact be easier to make the argument I make today if we had a prime minister who fostered ill will toward the legislature or who was guilty of corruption. Instead, we have a Prime Minister who rose from a world of grassroots democracy and who has fostered unprecedented mechanisms for caucus participation in the formulation of government policy. He has consistently demonstrated a standard of integrity and honest government epitomized in the first bill he passed as Prime Minister: the Accountability Act. Our front bench, whether Prime Minister, Minister of Finance, or others, are consistently toasted as international paragons of good government and sound economic management.

However, does this mean that, because the people in executive or cabinet positions of our government are model democratic leaders, we should allow our institutions to be stretched to accommodate a swelling of power of the executive at the expense of the legislature? I would argue that the doors opened by a good and benevolent prime minister and whip will still be open for access by a much less praiseworthy, less accountable executive who may someday follow.

On a day when the world is focused on the birthplace of American democracy, I have indulged this House to hear my views which, I believe, reflect the views of my constituents concerning the question of privilege raised by the MP for Langley. Its importance stretches back to the birthplace of western democracy, back through the precedents in this House cited by able members of Parliament who have spoken before me on this same point, back through the thinking of Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, and back even further to the Isle of Runnymede in 1215, when King John, an executive with far less devotion and accountability than our current executive, was confronted with the need for the separation of powers. In short, the principles we discuss today have received attention in other western democracies to which we sometimes look for inspiration: those of Great Britain and the United States.

Mr. Speaker, you have an important and sombre duty to execute in ruling on this question of privilege raised by the member for Langley. That is, who has the authority to administer members' statements, the speaker or the party leaders?

In executing your duty, Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the famous incident which occurred in 1642 when King Charles I entered Parliament, searching for parliamentarians who had refused to heed his will. Charles I was anti-democratic and sought not to be accountable to his people, the exact opposite of the Prime Minister and cabinet who serve Canadians today with long-standing, devoted, and proven commitment to freedom and democracy. In response to King Charles I, William Lenthall, the speaker at the time, responded with the following words. He said:

May it please your majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as this house is pleased to direct me whose servant I am here....

I reiterate, the problem relates not to the people in power today, but to the potential impact on the democratic capacity of legislators in the future to perform our roles. I believe it is the speaker, and I mean the institution of speaker, not the person, who should administer rotating members' statements in this House, not a party leader nor his or her representatives. Speaker Lenthall, long ago, observed the importance of the separation of powers.

Mr. Speaker, I urge you to act with the same courage and dignity, as you ponder the important question of privilege raised by the member for Langley.

[Freedom and Democracy, April 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in the face of the tyranny of terrorism, Boston goes into lockdown as we speak. We offer the people of Boston our prayers and good will.

I invite members to join with the U.S. ambassador, Running Room manager Phil Marsh and me on Monday at 1 p.m. to march together to the U.S. embassy to show that we stand with Bostonians and Americans in this difficult time.

As Canadians, we stand for democracy wherever we find it. Last week I had occasion to visit Taiwan with a delegation of fellow members. A little of engine of democracy, Taiwan has seen six straight free presidential elections since lifting martial law in 1987.

Moreover, its vibrant, colourful and democratic legislature has just rejuvenated its Taiwan-Canada friendship group. Fully 43 of its 113 legislators have already joined the group to engage Canadian parliamentarians in a joint promotion of democratic values and the expansion of the healthy relations that exist between the peoples of Taiwan and Canada.

Together we salute those who promote freedom and democracy, whether in Boston, Taiwan or elsewhere.

[Tribute to Boston Bombing Victims, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I invite all members of the House to join a throng of people who will assemble at the eternal flame at 1 p.m. on Monday. We will march to the U.S. Embassy. We will march in freedom, unity and peace to remember those who were lost last Monday in Boston at the hands of people who would impose hatred where others seek love, people who shed blood among those who had gathered as friends.

People in Ottawa will, on behalf of all peace-loving Canadians, stand with those who were killed, injured or bereaved in Boston.

In 1963 a great Bostonian, the late U.S. president John F. Kennedy, stood in Berlin. He stood in unity with all people who crave freedom and democracy. He stood to say that those who believe in freedom would not be intimidated, not by guns and not by tanks.

Brave Bostonians will not be intimidated by bombs. On Monday and always, we will stand with them for freedom. In Berlin, President Kennedy said, “I am a Berliner”. I ask my colleagues in the House to stand with me now as I say, for today, Monday and always, “I am a Bostonian”.

[Petitions, March 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise on behalf of hundreds of constituents in the riding of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country who condemn what they call a reprehensible practice, which targets baby girls for female gendercide.

It is particularly important, given that the motion introduced by the member for Langley may not be heard in the House, that their voices be heard on the matter.

[Persian New Year, March 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as spring arrives in Canada, Nowruz, the Persian New Year, is being celebrated across our country. In 2009, this House unanimously proclaimed Nowruz officially to acknowledge its importance.

As government liaison to the Persian and Iranian community, I am eager to congratulate people of Iranian background on the legacy left by Persian pioneers of democracy, such as Cyrus and Mossadegh.

Persians love their poets. To honour Iranian-Canadians, I have written a poem called “Persian Spring”.

Close your eyes and think back to the dwindling snow
On the slopes of a land three millennia ago.
With the waning of winter, we welcome Nowruz,
The eshgh of springtime, long-sought-after news.
Dream with me; sing with me; candles alight.
Think castles, oases, and sweet-smelling night.
Think freedom--aazaadi--think rule of law;
Think everything noble the great Cyrus saw.
Keep the faith, brothers and sisters and friends.
Our strength is our faith, and our faith never ends.
Remembering history, we're on the right track
Persia's best and her brightest are soon coming back!

Happy Nowruz. Nowruz mobarak. Nowruz pirooz.