Traditional sovereignists.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 51% of the vote.
SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006 November 22nd, 2006
Traditional sovereignists.
Phthalate Control Act October 31st, 2006
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I have listened to the debate this evening. Canadians watching and members of Parliament listening in on the debate will wonder why so specific a private member's bill has come up, a bill so specific in its target. Why go after these three chemicals in particular?
We believe that this goes to the very heart of the debate on chemicals in our society and government's responsibility to attempt to protect those citizens we represent. The evidence is conclusive on the effects, as listed tonight, that some of these chemicals have on Canadians and in particular young Canadians, those who certainly cannot make the choices for themselves, small infants and even babies.
The effects and risks posed by these chemicals far outweigh any potential benefit we can see in having these chemicals in our society. What also goes to the heart of the matter is the way in which the burden of proof is on governments or citizens at large to somehow prove a chemical unsafe, rather than on the companies that have introduced those chemicals into our society to prove the safety occurs in the chemicals themselves, to prove that these are safe products to put on the market. These chemicals are certainly put in products for those who are most at risk in our society, those who have the least amount of power, children in particular.
The debate also calls into question the very fundamental nature of the one act, the most important one, that we are now dealing with in Parliament with respect to the environment, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The government has made claims, as have previous governments, that the act is strong enough to protect Canadians' health, that the act is well placed to keep those harmful substances away and well regarded in the international community. Yet when we look at it, there is a particular list, a list that calls for chemicals to be virtually eliminated. It is a list of banned substances. When we look over the entire life of the act and the use of the list, we see that there is not one single chemical that has made it onto the list all the way through the many hoops and processes that are in place.
Of all the toxins that exist in our society in the manufacturing and chemical sectors, not one single toxic material has been placed on the virtual elimination list in all the years that it has existed. Clearly, in this system, while the CEPA tools and components are there, governments have refused to act with the courage and conviction to actually use those tools effectively.
This bill changes that story. Based on the precautionary principle, which is used around the world and has not been properly adopted in Canada to this point, it suggests for the first time that the burden of proof must be on those who are introducing the chemical and that if there are risks, even though the science is not 100% complete, then the precautionary principle states that citizens should not incur those risks. Clearly, citizens cannot go out and do the research to understand all the thousands of chemicals that are in our society and have a full and comprehensive understanding of what the effects may or may not be on their lives.
That is the responsibility of this place. It is the responsibility of government and the people working on behalf of government to keep Canadians safe, to keep those harmful elements away from us, particularly when they are of such a complicated nature like these chemicals.
A lot of people will say that we need 100% proof, that we need to have complete and conclusive science not to be refuted in any way. This very much reminds me and other Canadians of the debate around smoking. For years upon years, the smoking industry said it had scientists and health officials who said it was okay to smoke. For years and years, governments delayed and stalled, but finally they took courage and acted.
What we know is that the onus must be placed upon those introducing the chemicals to Canadians. What we know is that the responsibility of parliamentarians, if nothing else, is to try to protect the health of Canadians. We look forward to the full study and the speedy passage of this act to finally change the story, to finally give Canadians the assurance that the people they elect and send into this place are defending their interests and defending the health of all Canadians.
Climate Change October 30th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, today the former chief economist of the World Bank, Nicholas Stern, sounded the alarm about the environmental crisis we are facing. I will quote: “Climate change...is the greatest...market failure” the world has every seen. He said that unchecked global warming will devastate the world economy on the scale of the world wars and the Great Depression.
The Conservatives' so-called clean air act, which is dead on arrival, fails to address the climate change crisis. Under their plan, pollution will go up, not down. Ordinary Canadians cannot wait any longer.
That is why the NDP has called on the government to achieve these five critical points: an 80% reduction in Canada's greenhouse gas pollution by 2050; an end to subsidies to the oil and gas industry; a moratorium on new oil sands development; support for an east-west power grid; and most important, encouragement of green investment.
The NDP calls on the House of Commons to act now on the climate change crisis and not wait until it is too late.
Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2 October 25th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague about the great alliance we have seen between the Conservatives and the Bloc. I would just like to know whether the alliance between the two parties is finally over? Will the marriage continue?
For I do not know how many years, we have seen the Bloc Québécois accomplish absolutely nothing in this country for Quebeckers as far as the fiscal imbalance is concerned. There were good negotiations with the current government to correct that. But now is the marriage over or it will continue?
Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2 October 25th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, Prince George is a fine city. I live in Skeena and visit Prince George as often as I can.
The question I have for the member is twofold and the first part concerns the United States. Within the U.S. congressional district there is a separate accounting office which was established to prevent what we have seen the Canadian government do, which is to collect more revenues than it was expecting in order to play with the numbers. I am sure his government, when it was in office, perfected the ability to stretch and extrapolate. At the end of every budget cycle, lo and behold, his government would run out to the truck, throw a bunch of cash in it and drive around the country dumping it as quickly as it could.
Would he support having an arm's length accounting office in this country and, at long last, removing the politics over the numbers and just allow the debate to exist over where the priorities need to be?
I also could not help but hear the finance minister talk about the $80 a year benefit to university students. Would the member comment on how his party was able to, year in and year out for 11 years in a row, have students leaving university with an average increase of $1,000 a year in debt. Students in Canada under his government's regime were having an extra $1,000 of debt tacked on every year. The government is purporting to change that trend but it is in fact just supporting it.
Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2 October 25th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's zeal and I would like to know if that zeal is matched by any sort of analysis that went into the budget.
In particular, he mentioned the transit passes. Just recently, I was on the Toronto transit system and when I looked up, lo and behold there was an ad from the Canadian government with a lot of words. I leaned over to the transit rider beside me who had a monthly pass and tried to find out if she understood it. She had absolutely no understanding of this issue at all.
The government claims to use prudence and sound advice, but on the transit pass issue, we have managers of the major transit systems in this country saying that if we want to invest in transit, we should get more riders into the system. We do not do it the way the government has shown. Managers in Toronto, Montreal, Calgary and Ottawa have all said that if we really want to affect the number of people using the transit system, we should go after infrastructure.
The government also claims that this is a measure to fight the climate change issue. Whereas, we know that this is one of the most expensive forms of reducing carbon available to the government. It is one of the most expensive ways to reduce the pollution that is emitted.
I am seeking some sort of clarity on the analysis that the minister and his department used in applying these measures: first, to increase ridership when the people in charge of the system say it is not the way to do it; and second, to help the environment out when it is the most expensive ways to reduce CO2. that we know of.
Petitions October 25th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to present a petition, also signed by more than 100 people within my constituency.
The petitioners fear that Canada is at risk of losing our heritage of welcome, a long tradition. They call upon Parliament to enact a welcome to strangers in need and significantly increase the number of refugees that Canada accepts annually, lift barriers that prevent refugees from reaching Canada, provide international leadership, which is called for in this day and age, and finally fix our refugee system.
Mr. Speaker, what I cannot find in the hon. parliamentary secretary's answer is how, at a time when there is unmitigated devastation of the forests of British Columbia and a government absolutely swimming in extra tax dollars, the Conservatives found the will to actually pull out $12 million from a fund that was set up to help the communities transition and to develop the next economy as they fight this pine beetle epidemic.
Why so cynical a move? Why a promise of $1 billion that are not to be found and yet they are able, in the midst of a clean air act, which has turned into a hot air act, to still promote a $1.5 billion tax subsidy into a sector that is swimming in its own cash? There is absolutely no call from Canadians to keep subsidizing this sector.
Fort McMurray, Ralph Klein and former Premier Lougheed have all said that the ship should be slowed down because there is no plan. If the communities and the people involved in this sector are saying that we need a plan and some sort of timeline to develop this, why would the government keep subsidizing this while continuing to hurt communities in my region?
Mr. Speaker, what an engaging debate for Canadians to watch again as the ideologues on the Conservative benches reared their heads to strike a blow on the idea of farmers working together collectively.
Governing is about choices and the Conservative government has made a very clear choice to follow in the path of the previous Liberal government. It is offering up to the oil and gas sector, particularly those who are focused in the northern Alberta tar sands around the Fort McMurray area, a little present wrapped with a bow, of $1.5 billion each and every year. I use the word “little” facetiously because $1.5 billion is a significant amount for a government to use taxpayers' dollars to subsidize an industry. It is a deal that was made at a time when the industry actually needed some support some many years ago. If we were to ask any person on the street of all the industries in Canada that need help and support in growing, certainly the oil and gas sector, particularly those companies operating in the tar sands, would not be on the list. The profits have been, as one corporate executive in Calgary quipped, “obscene”.
At a time when there is a $13 billion surplus, the government has chosen to cut a billion dollars from much needed programs for Canadians to help them gain literacy skills, to help women define their rights and freedoms under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to help first nations quit smoking, and to help with court challenges. I do not recall these programs being in the Conservative Party's platform at the time of the last election. Lo and behold when the government is absolutely swimming in taxpayers' money, it can find $1.5 billion to shuffle over to its friends in the office towers in Calgary but somehow it also sees the need to cut a billion dollars from programs that were serving Canadians well.
The government exacerbated the problem by trotting out one of the most sad and lonesome pieces of legislation, the hot air act. It is a bill that purports to delay and hopes to confuse and confound Canadians about what is going to happen with our environment. It is a bill that does not call for any serious regulations for the greatest polluters in the country for 15 to 20 years. We will not see any result in emissions reduction or pollution reduction in this country until 2050, a year when I despair to say that many hon. members in this House will no longer be with us. The legacy we will leave for the generations to come will be a planet with a climate that has warmed up potentially more than five degrees.
We are already seeing what is taking place in my riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley in the northwest corner of British Columbia. A pine beetle epidemic has absolutely roared across our province. I will challenge the parliamentary secretary tonight to explain why, in the midst of this challenge and the promise of a billion dollars, which is a significant amount of money to help communities in my region and in other regions across British Columbia to deal with the economic devastation, the government has chosen to take out $12 million. Nowhere is the promise of a billion dollars to be found.
I am sure that somewhere around this place the government has a Mack truck loaded up with cash and is ready to roll it out just prior to the next election, but communities need the money now. We are on the verge of an economic swing inSkeena—Bulkley Valley. We need the support to help communities acquire the trade skills. Instead the current government continues the legacy of the last government of robbing from the employment insurance fund, of not supplying the training and development that workers need across our region and other parts of Canada to seize those opportunities and make choices.
Jack Mintz, one of the leading economists in this country, was speaking of the income trust fiasco that is taking place across our land. Companies are devolving themselves into income trusts, thereby avoiding many of the taxes that help pay for the roads and transportation, career and development training, universities, health care and all these things that we try desperately to hold on to as Canadians. As these companies shift into income trusts, according to Mr. Mintz, the $500 million in taxes that has been lost to the government has now doubled and ballooned up to $1 billion a year in lost tax revenue.
How can the government pretend that it is making correct choices for Canadians while it is cutting programs and not allowing EI dollars to flow? It is cutting essential needs like the small figure of $12 million for the pine beetle epidemic but it is still finding the political will to put $1.5 billion into the oil and gas sector, one of the few sectors in this economy that absolutely does not need the help.
Criminal Code October 24th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Winnipeg for all the work he has done over the years on this issue.
As banks continue to show record profits, and good for them for being able to do that, there also seems to be a breaking of their responsibility and the contract--a compact, in fact--with the people of Canada, which the governments that occupy this place are meant to represent and uphold. Banking institutions are given a certain oligopoly and in bearing that responsibility they bring banking services to Canadians.
Earlier in the debate, I pointed out a small community in my riding, Stewart, B.C., which over the years has contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to the Canadian coffers, both provincially and federally, and yet cannot maintain a branch service, because the banks can make money in the community but not enough.
What responsibility do banks actually have to Canadians? Do they need to be reminded of that responsibility to bring those services to communities by the people elected by Canadians, not by the banks?