House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 51% of the vote.
The Budget May 7th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, my colleague says that wanting to split the bill is an ideological position, but it was the position taken by the Prime Minister when he was in opposition.
Has power made him change his principles? For years, the Conservatives promised to do better than the Liberals, but now they are doing exactly the same thing. There is no transparency, no accountability. Why not split the bill and let the committees do their job?
The Budget May 7th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, allow me to quote someone familiar to my friend across the way. That person said:
—I would argue that the subject matter of the bill is so diverse that a single vote on the content would put members in conflict with their own principles.
Who said that? A younger version of the Prime Minister.
I remember working with the government in the early days on accountability. It seems like no one on that side is at all interested in the very word, never mind the notion. Is there anybody left over there who believes that Parliament should have the scrutiny and the power to review laws before it?
The Budget May 7th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have introduced a so-called budget bill more than 400 pages long, 70 acts, more than 753 clauses amended and one Parliament being asked to vote blind, gutting environmental protections, ripping up the Fisheries Act and eliminating entire laws. Asking a single committee to review the bill will mean that it will not get the scrutiny that it deserves.
Will Conservatives work with New Democrats, respect Parliament and agree to split the bill?
Infrastructure May 4th, 2012
Madam Speaker, recently the House stood for a moment of silence to commemorate the day of mourning for those killed and injured at work. People from all across Canada were shocked to hear about the recent tragedy on Alberta's Highway 63. Our hearts go out to those families who lost loved ones.
All Canadians benefit from the development of our natural resources and they want these industries, above all else, to be safe. The twinning of Highway 63 is needed, and the people in Fort McMurray and Alberta are rightly frustrated.
Is the government willing to offer whatever support is needed to prevent this type of tragedy from ever happening again?
Business of the House May 3rd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, hearing the announcement of the reception, I will try to keep this as brief as possible for myself and the government House leader.
We have some questions about what the government plans for the next number of days. First, we would like confirmation from the government on the NDP's next opposition day.
As well, on Bill C-38, the omnibus bill that the government has lumped in a whole suite of quite damaging and fundamental changes, not just to the way Parliament works and the government's procedure of shutting down debate, but also in Canadian life, such as pensions, pay equity and environmental protections, will the five days remaining for debate be in their full context or is the government planning to introduce other measures of disruption of Parliament's ability to hold the government to account?
The Environment May 3rd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives promised the people of Hartley Bay two years ago to clean up this mess. They are not just failing to protect coastal communities, they are putting them at further risk, all the while cheerleading for raw export of pipelines and supertanker projects.
The government recklessly closed B.C.'s only oil spill response centre. Now it is gutting environmental laws for pipeline and fast-tracking of new threats. Why is the government putting the health and life of coastal communities at risk all in favour of their friends in the oil patch?
The Environment May 3rd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are harassing ecologists and slashing funding for oil spill protection and monitoring measures, but that does not solve the problem.
Yet another oil spill has appeared on British Columbia's northern coast. At one kilometre long and 60 metres wide, this catastrophic spill is threatening the community of Hartley Bay.
In 2003, the Conservatives were warned about the growing risk of oil spills. That oil spill appeared two days ago. Can the Conservatives tell us what they have done so far to clean up the mess?
Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act May 3rd, 2012
Madam Speaker, I quoted the Prime Minister to my friend on a conviction that his leader and his party used to have about this type of measure. My friend has used the past record of the Liberal governments to justify his actions now. It seems passing strange, because when the Liberals made these types of actions, his party had convictions around this type of measure.
I will quote to him again, a friend who sits quite close:
Here we go again. This is a very important public policy question that is very complex and we have the arrogance of the government in invoking closure again. When we look at the Liberal Party on arrogance it is like looking at the Grand Canyon. It is this big fact of nature that we cannot help but stare at.
He has to be careful. We have to understand that in these 420 pages, revoking pay equity or destroying environmental protections that Canadians rely upon is not something that his government ran on in the last election, nor does it have a mandate to do so. Lumping it together in an omnibus bill like this is undermining the very institution that we all represent, and our ability to hold government to account.
Does he not believe in the convictions that he, his ministers of culture and immigration, and the Prime Minister, used to have with respect to these types of draconian measures?
Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act May 3rd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, there are two major travesties taking place today, and I will remind the government of its own previous opinions on this. One is how this budget bill is being implemented and two is what is actually contained in these 421 pages is a travesty and injustice to Canadians.
My first question for my friend across the way is on the implementation. Someone he knows well once said:
...in the interest of democracy I ask: How can members represent their constituents on these various areas when they are forced to vote in a block on such legislation and on such concerns?
The bill contains many distinct proposals and principles and asking members to provide simple answers to such complex questions is in contradiction to the conventions and practices of the House.
The Prime Minister said that before he was Prime Minister.
There are 421 pages of complex and individual ideas now lumped together in an omnibus bill. If the government had the actual courage of its convictions and believed that these were right issues to debate and present to Canadians, it would not lump them all together: the rollback of OAS rights to Canadians, the devastation of pay equity rules that apply to federal contracts and a ripping up and destruction of environmental protections when it comes to major projects.
If the Conservatives used to believe that these distinct issues should stand on their own merit for debate so Canadians can understand what is being applied, why the change of heart, why the change of convictions now?
Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act May 2nd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, these are not versions on websites or any such thing. One version is the version that was handed out on the day the bill was introduced and this is a second bill that the government handed out the day after, and they are different. I am looking at the very first page and in the section about part 1 the order is different. There is a clause 3 in here and it does not appear until the second page of a different version of the same bill.
This is difficult because we are now looking through the two bills to see if there are any fundamental substantial discrepancies and the assurance from the government is that there are none, that is exactly the same two pieces of legislation. The page numbering and the order may be different, but there are no different clauses. Otherwise, in a sense, it is impossible to have a debate if there are substantive alterations in the bill.
This is not an attempt to drill the government's agenda or calendar. It is difficult for us as parliamentarians to know with assurance in a 400-page bill that everything is accurate if we have seen differences on page 1 of what was handed out on the day the bill was introduced by the government and what was handed out later by the government. We need that assurance and I am not sure how to actually rectify this. I have never seen this on a budget implementation act before. It is obviously critical legislation.