Leon Benoit

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, May 8th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I have heard this member and several other members from the official opposition and the third party make comments along the line that they simply do not have enough time to debate the bill. It is such a big bill that they just cannot deal with it for some reason or other. I would like to remind the member and others that it is their job to do some work on legislation like this. They have to spend some time. They have to work on it. If they do their job, then they could handle this much better.

Members opposite talk about not having enough time to debate. Yet one NDP member stood in this House for 11 hours. With ten-minute speeches and five-minute question and comment periods, which is the common speaking time, 44 NDP members could have spoken in the time that one member spoke, so they are really speaking out of both sides of their mouths.

I suggest they change their ways, start to view these things in a more positive fashion and show some support just once. They have never supported a budget bill of this government. Yet around the world, our budgets are looked to as exemplary.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, May 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat surprised by many of the things that the hon. member said.

Many of the members over there have been complaining that there is not enough time to speak to the bill. The reality is that the member for Burnaby—New Westminster took 11 hours on this bill. That would have given 44 of their speakers time to speak to the bill, but they are complaining that there is not enough time. That simply does not wash.

They then said that they did not know about things in the budget like the OAS; that member had to acknowledge that he did, but then said that he did not know about the changes to the regulatory system. He is not paying any attention, then, because we have talked about the need for that in the House.

I chair the natural resources committee and that party has members on the committee. We hear again and again about the need to streamline the regulatory system. We have done it in a way that will protect the environment better because everybody involved would put their information into one stream. We would have a better environmental impact study but done in less time.

Why is the member complaining about these things? We need to look at this from a realistic point of view.

[Committees of the House, May 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources in relation to its study of the current and future state of oil and gas pipelines and refining capacity in Canada.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, April 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have four reports to table today.

First, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association respecting its participation in the joint visit of the Sub-Committees on Energy and Environmental Security and Transatlantic Economic Relations held in Edmonton and Fort McMurray, Alberta, and Dawson Creek, British Columbia, from July 11 to 14, 2011.

Second, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association respecting its participation in the 57th annual meeting of the NATO PA held in Bucharest, Romania, from October 7 to 11, 2011.

Third, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the bureau meeting of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly held in Moscow, Russia, from November 1 to 2, 2011.

Finally, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association respecting its participation in the spring session 2011 held in Varna, Bulgaria, from May 27 to 30, 2011.

[Committees of the House, March 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources in relation to the main estimates for 2012-13.

[Employment Insurance Act, March 15th, 2012]

He cares about victims.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, March 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the following report of the Canadian-NATO Parliamentary Association respecting its participation in the 77th Rose-Roth Seminar held in Tromso, Norway from June 21 to 24, 2011.

[Freedom of Speech, March 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, universities in Canada are often thought of as the bastions of free speech and expression. Certainly they are the last places where censorship should occur. I wish this were true, but sadly, it is not.

When it comes to some of the most sensitive issues, such as pro-life issues, many universities are exactly the opposite.

For example, when students at Ottawa's Carleton University put up a pro-life display, some students found the photos offensive and complained. I expect that most Canadians would find such photos offensive but that was the point the group was making: that abortion and particularly late stage abortion is offensive.

What is of concern is how the university reacted. It demanded that the group remove its display and then charged the students when they refused.

Similar censorship has occurred at universities in Toronto, Calgary, Fredericton and, most recently, Victoria where students are banned from carrying out pro-life activities and were forced to apologize to groups that were offended by their display.

I call on all universities to truly become places where students and society can count on free speech and free expression being allowed and, in fact, encouraged.

[New Democratic Party of Canada, February 17th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, the NDP are at it again. The media is reporting today that the NDP has led a vicious Twitter attack against the public security minister, using taxpayer-funded office resources. It has used taxpayer money for a partisan misinformation attack against the security minister.

I would be surprised by this, but it is just the latest in a series of NDP dirty tricks. The NDP Party attempted to launder party donations last summer. It punished its MPs who wanted to vote with their constituents to end the ineffective and wasteful long gun registry. It bullied and intimidated its MP who abandoned the party recently. It has blocked progress on every bill this government has brought forward.

However, using taxpayer-funded offices for a Twitter attack campaign against our security minister is the low of all lows. Where are the leadership candidates on this issue?

[Multiple Sclerosis, February 16th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this last five minutes of the second hour of debate to make a few closing comments.

My motion is meant to ensure that patients suffering with multiple sclerosis, their families and caregivers have access to good information to help them make the decision on the management of their condition.

I want to be clear that the motion is meant to fill a desperate need for information over the next few months and couple of years until the process that is being gone through now by Health Canada and others is complete. It is also meant to bring attention to the issue so that the process that is taking place now is sped up so that we can lessen the burden of cost and effort on MS patients and others who now travel outside of Canada because they cannot have the liberation therapy procedure completed in Canada.

Motion M-274 would establish an information portal that allows MS sufferers who are considering undergoing liberation therapy treatment outside of Canada to gain anecdotal information from patients who have already had this procedure done. This would allow people who have had the treatment to provide information about the process and the results in various clinics outside of Canada, because the procedure is not available in Canada.

I have had many meetings with constituents throughout my riding of Vegreville—Wainwright, individuals across the country, groups in my constituency, various other players in this whole process, as well as the Minister of Health, representatives from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, doctors researching MS, doctors who work with MS patients, representatives of the MS Society and many others. I certainly learned a lot about this terrible disease and about this procedure, which really does offer hope.

From these discussions, it has been clear that the CCSVI treatment does work for some people and that it offers hope for many more people. I also want to say that our Conservative government has implemented a comprehensive strategy that is being applied on an accelerated timeline to determine the potential of this procedure.

Our government remains committed to working on clinical trials in Canada and continues to operate at an unprecedented rate in studying the liberation therapy treatment. An action plan was developed in 2010 in order to pinpoint areas for federal action and to ensure questions and concerns raised by Canadian MS patients are addressed. This strategy includes three main actions carried out over the course of the past year and a half: first, supporting research led by CIHR; second, developing a Canadian MS monitoring system; and third, facilitating and sharing research evidence to ensure that individuals living with MS have access to up-to-date information.

What else can we do? First, as members of Parliament, we should be encouraging constituents with MS to participate in the studies on liberation therapy treatment, such as the B.C. CCSVI registry and the Alberta multiple sclerosis initiative. If more patients participate in these programs, it may provide better treatment for patients with MS in the future. This could help provide a stop-gap benefit and the information gleaned could help speed up the approval process at the same time.

Second, it seems very unfortunate that the CCSVI treatment, the treatment using angioplasty or venoplasty to open the veins, or stents in some cases, has actually been attached only to MS because that process is used to open veins for other conditions as well. I believe having it attached to MS has actually slowed the whole process down. It is unfortunate that was not realized before but maybe things still can be sped up if that connection is removed.

Third, we can encourage the College of Physicians and Surgeons to take another look at this procedure to be absolutely certain that this long drawn out process cannot be sped up. I encourage it to have another look at that.

I thank all of my colleagues for speaking to this motion. I want my constituents to know that I will not stop here.