Ralph Goodale

[Research and Development, February 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the government has claimed that it supports the green economy but its every action belies that claim. For example, $20 million in federal funding for polygeneration and carbon sequestration in Saskatchewan was cancelled by the government. Other funding for Saskatchewan remains in limbo. Some of the best science in the world on clean energy and environmental engineering is now being done at the University of Regina. The Leader of the Opposition has visited that facility.

Will the Minister of Natural Resources confirm that the government will support those projects at the University of Regina and not allow them to be poached elsewhere?

[Justice, February 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary just confirmed our point.

I have a second question for the government House leader.

Earlier in question period, the government House leader said that police made the best judges. No one doubts the law enforcement expertise of Canadian police officers, but there is a reason why investigative and adjudicative functions are separate in our country.

If it is true that policing and judging should be comingled, is the government House leader calling for an end to the notion of an independent Canadian judiciary?

[The Environment, February 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment claims that he has not misconstrued the words of former U.S. vice-president Al Gore on the urgency of climate change action. About a week ago, the minister insinuated that Mr. Gore supported the minority Conservative government. In fact, the former vice-president has called on the government to reverse itself, to do the right thing, and follow the Kyoto protocol.

Since the minister now clearly wants to be on the same team as Al Gore, will he accept the challenge, embrace Kyoto and stop his fearmongering?

[Business of the House, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, for the sake of clarity, could I ask the House leader, concerning the motion on the anti-terrorism provisions in the Criminal Code, did he say that he would be calling that on Monday or that the date when he would call it depends on further discussions with House leaders?

[Business of the House, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, would the government House leader tell us what his plans are for the rest of this week and for next week, and for next week, specifically which days he would propose to designate as supply days?

[Business of Supply, February 15th, 2007]

Thank you for confirming that.

[Business of Supply, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions that I would like to ask the hon. member, but I know time is limited so I will ask two of them together and ask him to reply to both of them at the same time.

He finished his comments by talking about the respect the government shows for democracy. That may be a debatable topic, but I will not get into that now.

I would ask the hon. member how he interprets the results of the Canadian Wheat Board producer-director elections in his own constituency, where the producer-director elected in that area of southwestern Saskatchewan and southeastern Alberta has been elected and re-elected several times. In fact, he holds the position in complete opposition to the position taken by that member of Parliament. It would appear that farmers in that area have expressed their view specifically on Canadian Wheat Board issues by repeatedly electing and re-electing the director in that area who supports the single desk. I wonder if the hon. gentleman could explain that contradiction.

My second question is this. On the barley plebiscite and the middle option, option (b), that he described earlier in his remarks and that purports to put forward the dual marketing proposition, can he assure producers that when that option (b) refers to the Canadian Wheat Board it is the Canadian Wheat Board that farmers know today with a single desk? Or is it some other concoction that is not properly named the Canadian Wheat Board in that middle option? I think that point of clarity is extremely important, because what that middle option purports to say is that we can have the open market and we can have the single desk together at the same time. I would be grateful if the hon. gentleman could clarify the point of whether or not under option (b) there will be any single desk.

[Business of Supply, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place in the usual manner between all the parties and I believe you would find consent for the following motion. I move:

That at the conclusion of today's debate on the opposition motion in the name of the member from Etobicoke—Lakeshore, all questions necessary to dispose of this motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 20.

[Points of Order, February 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there may well be a number of members on this side, including the member for Honoré-Mercier, the sponsor of Bill C-288, who may wish to add to the discussion, but I will make one or two brief points.

The first one is fairly obvious, Mr. Speaker, and you referred to it yourself a few moments ago. You have already had the occasion to consider this matter with great care, at least twice, and you have made your ruling on this matter already. You have clearly said that there is nothing in Bill C-288 that impinges on the prerogative or the initiatives that have just been referred to by the government House leader. In fact, the bill falls within the rules because it does not impose the obligation to spend.

In meeting the objectives laid out in the legislation and providing for the measures for which the legislation calls, spending is one alternative that the government may at some future date decide to avail itself of and, in those circumstances, it would no doubt provide the royal recommendation at that time. However, as has been made clear in the committee and in the debate previously in the House, spending is not the only way by which the objectives of this legislation can be met.

The other day in the House, in debate on this point, the member for Honoré-Mercier pointed out that there were regulatory measures, reduction incentive measures, domestic trading measures, international trading measures and measures provided under the protocol itself having to do with the clean development mechanism and joint implementation initiatives. There are a wide range of means by which the objectives of this legislation can be met, including but not limited to and not necessarily requiring new spending. I think that is the essence of some of your previous rulings, Mr. Speaker, on this matter.

With the greatest of respect, I would submit that the argument presented by the House leader for the government just now does not amplify, either in terms of factual information or legal argumentation, the point that he and his parliamentary secretary have attempted to make in the House on at least three prior occasions and upon which you have already ruled in the clearest of terms, the latest being just a day or two ago. There is nothing in the legislation that necessarily requires a royal recommendation and, therefore, it is fully within the rules and fully in order and the vote can be taken at the appointed time tomorrow.

It is instructive though, while cloaked in an argument of parliamentary procedure, what the government has revealed is its absolute determination to try to scuttle anything that bears any relationship to Kyoto. That is the clear message. It is a political message; it is not a parliamentary message or a financial message. You have already ruled on that, Mr. Speaker. What it is seeking to do now is amplify a political message and it will find out in due course from Canadians that this message is rejected as well.

[Agriculture, February 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and it concerns the barley vote that is just beginning.

Could the minister explain to barley producers why he has put a proposition before farmers, which is in fact a nullity and an impossibility to achieve? In fact, his own task force told him that the middle option, purporting to have one's cake and eat it too, is a physical impossibility. Why has he tainted the whole vote by including that nullity in his question?