Larry Miller

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, May 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for what looks like support for Senate reform. That is good to hear.

When it comes to reforming the Senate, there are further changes I personally would like to see. I ask my colleague across the way to support the government in getting those. In the meantime the indication has been that they will not support the full changes needed for Senate reform.

What we do, like the government did a few years ago when it made the reform changes in as far as limiting the age and making one sit at meetings, is some reform a little at a time. It is not the way we all want to maybe see it happen, but we are trying do a little at a time.

I look very forward to the final vote on this and to see the members support it. I hope the member will be persuaded and that the rest of his colleagues will do the same thing.

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, May 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me today to stand in the House to speak to Bill C-43, the Senate appointment consultations act.

The most important thing about the bill is that it is about democracy, democratic reform, something of which we can all agree. I know the Canadian public agree that we could use a lot more in this great building. It is long overdue.

When we talk about democratic reform, I will give some examples. It baffles me why the opposition across the way have these cold feet and great fear of democratic reform. In an example that did not happen too many years ago, there were some changes made where senators were limited to the age of 75. Some other democratic reform was that they had to attend some meetings, instead of being in Florida or Mexico.

Rome was not built in a day and neither will some of the reforms we need in the country. This is just another one in a list of keeping that reform going.

The bill is also about accountability. It is about giving people a voice in selecting their senators. It is also something the government believes is a practical and very achievable step toward significant democratic reform.

In my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, 86% of people who responded to a question in one of my householders said that they wanted to see an elected Senate. There was also a number in there who wanted to see it totally abolished, but I do not support that. However, some people do because of some of the things that went on over the years. I figure if we get the right kind of reforms in this place and in the other house, we will go a long way to appeasing some of those people.

Although Bill C-43 is not totally about the election of senators, if passed, the bill will provide the type of democratic reform that is supported, as I said, by my constituents, and I believe most Canadians. Canadians will have a say in who will represent them in the Senate.

Bill C-43 is one of the reforms that can generate momentum on comprehensive change to the Senate. The bill does not require any constitutional change and political parties would have more of a limited in relation to the political financing of Senate nominees. Parties would not control the order of the candidates on the ballot, which is a good thing, and voting would also be for individual candidates.

Furthermore, the bill recognizes that citizens, not political friends or big donors to the prime minister are in the best position to advise the prime minister about the people who should speak on their behalf in this great institutions.

We know Canadians think it is time to act on this idea. Canadian voters would be able to indicate their preferences regarding which potential Senate nominees they would like to see represent their provinces or territories.

I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Crowfoot, for sharing his time with me. He spoke about the great Senator from Alberta. Albertans are away ahead of the rest of the country in electing senators and pinpointing who they would like to represent them. Every province and territory should have that same kind of process.

The single transferable vote allowed for in the bill would allow Canadians to rank their preferred Senate nominees in order of preference. They can rank them one, two, three or as many as they see fit. The system is very adaptable in that where there are many vacancies in a province, it provides proportionality in the results.

If there is only one vacancy, the system requires a successful nominee to receive a majority on the vote. How can we argue with that process? What is wrong with it? I cannot think of a valid reason why anyone in the House could argue that point.

Bill C-43 is about consultations and information gathering. The prime minister can consult anyone in making Senate appointments and the bill would provide him or her a mechanism to hold a consultation with Canadians.

Bill C-43 follows through on the promise made to the people of Canada by the government in the recent Speech from the Throne where it said,

—explore means to ensure that the Senate better reflects both the democratic values of Canadians and the needs of Canada's regions.

The bill would provide the country with a revised Senate, with a truly national democratic institution. There is no reason for this bill not to pass. In fact, it should pass unanimously.

I call on all members of the House to clear their minds of all partisan cobwebs and to support the bill.

[Canadian Forces, May 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on April 21, I had the distinct honour and privilege to meet and welcome home 12 of our finest soldiers from their recent tour of duty in Afghanistan. They are proud members of the well-renowned Grey and Simcoe Foresters, and were guests of honour at a barbecue and dance held at the Owen Sound Armouries.

We thank God for the safe return of Warrant Officer Dean Henley, Master Corporals Dennis Dietrich, Kevin Kelley and Jamie Bull, Corporals Joel Chidley, Mike Cottenden, Danny Khoury, Travis Polaniec, Christopher Saumur, Jordan Webb and Ted Runyon-Lloyd, as well as Private Dean Laporte.

I felt great pride in observing this military family mingling with family and friends: Master Corporal Dietrich, with his quiet leadership style; Corporal Cottenden, a true character and inspirational leader; and the youthful exuberance of Private Lapointe.

On behalf of the Government of Canada, I thanked them for their great service to their country and I ask the House to do the same.

[Battle of Vimy Ridge, March 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on April 9, students from my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound will be among the 10,000 people attending the 90th anniversary ceremonies of the battle at Vimy Ridge.

Students from Meaford and Chesley high schools and OSCVI and West Hill high schools in Owen Sound have been researching soldiers from the area who fought in the war. While in Vimy they will be visiting the graves of those soldiers.

While at the ceremony they will hear a song called Vimy, written and performed by an internationally renowned local band called Tanglefoot. Steve and Rob Ritchie, the writers of the song, like myself, were raised in the small farming community of Clavering, Ontario. They are thrilled to be playing their song in recognition of our country's greatest military achievement.

I have no doubt that the students from these four schools and Tanglefoot will be great ambassadors for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound and, indeed, Canada as they attend this historic event.

May we never forget the sacrifices of our soldiers.

[Rail Transportation, March 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, after two weeks of strike action in February, negotiators for CN Rail and the United Transportation Union reached a tentative settlement in their labour dispute on February 24. The ratification vote will be known on Tuesday, April 10.

Can the Minister of Labour please inform the House what this means for Canadians across the country who depend on Canada's rail system?

[Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Senator Carney and my colleague from South Shore—St. Margaret's. I have eight lighthouses in my riding and another one just on the fringes. The member has talked about friends of lighthouses and groups that can take over, possibly the private sector. I would like him to talk a little bit more on whether local municipalities or first nations might have that opportunity in something like this.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I know that in the equalization on a per capita basis P.E.I. finished first, New Brunswick a very close second, and Manitoba--

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

I did not do that deliberately, Mr. Speaker, my apologies.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on this subject that does interest me because I have some very good friends in the Maritimes, people I have known for a long time. The same as any part of the country, as a member of Parliament, I want to see everyone treated right.

At this time I would compliment my colleague from Calgary—Nose Hill for her very obvious understanding of how this budget as it relates to equalization really does work.

I do not know whether it is the dull, dreary, rainy weather today that has affected the judgment of some of my colleagues across the way, particularly my good friend from Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, who is out of the chamber right now, but in all due respect, I am trying to get it through my head.

First of all, I know that P.E.I., for example--

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

Mr. Speaker, as a farmer and as a member of Parliament, I have followed this issue very closely and I have been involved in it. It is so ironic to hear the hon. member across the way talk about inaccuracies and whatnot. I have sat in on the discussions and I cannot believe some of the comments from over there.

The hon. member over there, when he was actively dairy farming, sold his milk the same way a farmer in Quebec, in Ontario and in Alberta did. As a beef farmer, I sell and market my beef the same as a beef farmer in Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Quebec. However, as a wheat or barley producer in Ontario, I can also sell my product like that. It is the same in Quebec, the east coast and parts of British Columbia. However, in the west, where I have a lot of friends, relatives and colleague, farmers do not have the freedom of choice that I have.

How in the world, as somebody who professes to stick up for the agricultural community and for farmers, say that this is fair to the wheat and barley producers and other producers in western Canada? Why can they not have the same option as the rest of us do in the rest of Canada?