Rick Norlock

[Carbon Tax Proposal, June 20th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, after finally getting the details of the Liberals' carbon tax grab, my constituents are very concerned.

Regardless of the Liberal leader's claims that his plan is revenue neutral, it is plain to see that this is impossible. The reason for this tax shaft is that the Liberal leader needed to find a way to pay for all his unbudgeted spending promises and he is doing it on the backs of the Canadian taxpayer. He plans to spend all the money it brings in on programs, on special interests, on endless priorities.

Canadians would feel the effects of this tax grab directly and indirectly. We cannot drive up the cost of transporting gas, groceries and everything else without hurting consumers. We cannot prevent manufacturers, once taxed, from passing their losses on to their customers.

The only green shift that would occur is the shifting of money out of Canadians' wallets.

[Committees of the House, June 17th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in regard to the amendment to the motion.

I submit that the amendment to the motion is in order. The motion that is before the House is a motion to concur in a committee report. It is clearly established that a motion to concur in a committee report is procedurally acceptable.

For example, on May 5, 2005, the Speaker recognized:

--an amendment to refer a report back to a committee with an instruction is in order.

The Speaker also stated that:

--our practice has been to allow the House to give a permissive or mandatory instruction to a committee to amend the text of a report.

This concurrence motion is being considered under Standing Order 97.1. The language used in this Standing Order suggests that amendments too are possible. For example, Standing Order 97.1(2)(c)(ii) states that at the conclusion of the debate:

--the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of the motion;

By putting every question successively and without further amendment, the Standing Order implies that amendments to the motion are permissible.

It might be argued that proceeding this way would be inconsistent with the spirit behind the Standing Orders for private members' business, which are designed to ensure a conclusion on a private member's item.

However, while there are provisions to give some assurances that a private member's bill would come to a conclusion, private members' business is not totally immune from procedures that would cause a bill to fall outside of those provisions.

For example, at third reading, the House can refer a bill back to a committee for further study. This is what happened to Bill C-423 at third reading on May 16. An amendment at third reading to refer a bill back to committee does not require the consent of the sponsor, even though Standing Order 93 requires the consent of the sponsor for amendments to the second reading motion.

Although there are strict time limits for debate on private members' bills at second reading and at third reading, there are no limits on debate on Senate amendments to private members' bills. Therefore, the Standing Orders do allow for exemptions to the general manner by which private members' business is managed.

I would also argue that it is permissible for a committee to present a report requesting the authority of the House to have further time to consider a bill beyond what is contemplated in Standing Orders. Ultimately, it is up to the House to decide such matters and the House can choose to give a committee authorities that go beyond what is found in the Standing Orders.

For these reasons, I submit the amendment to the motion is in order.

[Liberal Party of Canada, June 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have been hearing rumours that the Liberal leader will finally unveil the details of his massive national carbon tax next week, the tax trick that will raise the cost of everything for all Canadians.

However, Liberal MPs are deeply divided and there is infighting over the Liberal leader's plan to sell a tax on everything to Canadians this summer. Liberals who support higher gas prices, higher electricity costs and higher food costs will have a lot of explaining to do.

Canadians will not be tricked into swallowing a new, permanent Liberal carbon tax.

My constituents are worried about this permanent new regressive tax that will destroy jobs and drive up the cost of gas, electricity and everything else.

The Liberal leader must finally be honest with Canadians and tell them why he is planning on attacking seniors and Canadians living on fixed incomes. Why?

[The Environment, June 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, once again the Liberal leader is in today's National Post calling for a job-killing national tax on the Canadian economy.

Oh sure, he likes to hide his tax in terms such as “revenue neutral” and “green shift”, but if it walks like a tax and it talks like a tax, well, members know the rest.

The fact is that if we are going to reduce greenhouse gases, we have to take action against big polluters, like this government is doing, and not hike taxes on middle class and fixed income families, but then again, the Liberals never met a tax they did not like.

This government believes that Canadians, especially low income and middle income Canadians, pay enough tax. The real question is this: why does the Liberal Party of Canada insist upon forcing them to choose between filling their cars, filling their cupboards or filling their prescriptions?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, June 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member rant and rave about advertising dollars but his party, the Liberal Party, is absolutely the last party in the House that should be talking about advertising budgets.

The Liberals can make accusations and put forward innuendo but they need to remember that there was a commission and documented proof about where the advertising dollars went. Millions of dollars went to some people's best friends in various parts of Canada.

He also mentioned doctors. This government is the first government to work with our international partners and through our higher learning institutions to recognize foreign credentials so we can see who is qualified to work in Canada.

The member talked about doctors, et cetera. When the Liberals were in power they cut $25 billion many years ago from transfer payments to the provinces. The member immortalizes that now. He is talking probably $100 million. The Liberals are the absolute last people in the House who should be talking about this.

I would ask the member to talk more about what his party did with the advertising dollars.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, May 30th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member as she spoke about what she claimed was propaganda. I have not heard as much propaganda in as short an amount of time as I have heard from her.

Let me tell members about propaganda. She says the government, by stealth, is bringing in Bill C-50. But just before that she said that we were advertising in newspapers some of the changes we want to bring in. How could we be acting by stealth and advertising in newspapers? I guess that is NDP propaganda.

Also, this member and her party voted against every single budget this government has brought in: budgets that have helped seniors; budgets that have helped homeless people; and budgets that are helping veterans today. She and her party voted against low income Canadians. More than 600,000 low income Canadians have been taken off the federal government tax rolls. Yet, she and her party claim to be for the working class.

Yesterday, we were discussing her leader's bill. I believe it is Bill C-377. People working in the auto industry and people trying to earn a livelihood who work in the auto parts industry in my riding, including the CAW, are fearful of that bill.

We heard from witnesses from that industry at the environment committee who said that bill that her leader is trying to bring in is going to kill their industry, an industry that is already in trouble in our province. It is one of the hugest income generators in our province.

How can she say some of the things she is saying when in some parts of her statements she is arguing against herself? There are words for that, but they are unparliamentary. I would like her to respond.

[Climate Change Accountability Act, May 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add to the debate on Bill C-377 at report stage .

The Conservative Party members on the environment committee, which studied the bill, have some serious concerns about the legality and constitutional status of this bill. I know that the Conservative members were, and are, extremely concerned regarding the lack of any economic analysis or costing of the bill, its constitutional validity and the manner in which the bill was reported back to the House. Bill C-377 is an irresponsible piece of legislation.

What the NDP is proposing would require a 40% reduction in greenhouse emissions from where we are today. Much like the Liberals' hidden carbon tax plan, this simply is not possible without causing massive job losses and huge price increases in electricity, heat and gasoline. The costs that this bill would impose on Canadian families and businesses could be quite considerable. Yet, when he testified at the committee about the bill, the leader of the NDP actually admitted that he had not bothered to find out how much the bill would cost Canadian families in increased gas and energy prices.

One would think for a member who stands in this House almost every day and rails on and on about gas prices, he would have taken the time to step back and get a fair costing of what he was proposing.

Costs alone should not be the only reason to defeat this bill. Earlier, I believe that one of my colleagues addressed comments made by the respected constitutional scholar Peter Hogg at the environment committee in early February. I know he made reference to his comments that this bill would likely be struck down by the Supreme Court. What he did not mention was another comment made by Mr. Hogg. He said, “the constitutional issues are all that I am concerned with, and they are, in my view, enough to defeat the legislation”. Wise words from a wise man. I believe that Mr. Hogg's comments should be heeded by all members of this House.

Unfortunately, all the NDP members care about is passing feel good pieces of legislation that will not accomplish what they want them to accomplish.

It is not just the cost and the constitutionality of the bill that are in question, but it is also the issue of regulatory targets. I think we all agree in this House that regulatory targets like those being proposed in Bill C-377 should be evaluated carefully and logically. For example, we all know that the previous Liberal government set arbitrary targets on greenhouse gas emissions at Kyoto under pressure from former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and then stood back and did nothing for 10 long years.

That brings me to a comment made by a witness at the environment committee earlier this spring.

Andre Turmel from the Canadian Bar Association appeared as a witness. One of the things that he said which I found most interesting is that targets “should be linked to and coherent with targets set out in existing international law.... The targets in Bill C-377 are not”. That is a very interesting comment. The targets in Bill C-377 are incoherent with those set out in international law.

Either the NDP research bureau did not bother doing any homework or the NDP leader is more interested in scoring political points than fighting climate change. In either case, this is not responsible behaviour.

In conclusion, the question that this House is facing today with this bill is: Should we set climate change objectives that we know from the very beginning make little or no sense; objectives that would be impossible to meet without considerably disrupting the Canadian economy? Or should we set realistic and achievable targets that would strengthen Canada's long term competitiveness; targets that would still represent significant and positive progress in the fight to reduce harmful air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions?

I know that the Conservative members agree with the latter position. That is why we cannot support this bill. Quite frankly, this bill is comparable to a foot on the throat of the automotive industry. Thousands of jobs in my area, in the area surrounding the Durham region, Northumberland and Peterborough, are reliant upon a healthy and vibrant automotive industry, yet we have seen some job losses. We have seen two shifts laid off at the General Motors truck plant.

This legislation will just add to the problems of the automotive industry, an automotive industry that the NDP claims to support and yet at that committee, I am told that the automotive industry said that this will be tantamount to almost obliterating automotive plants and parts assembly plants across the province and the country. That is unacceptable. That is why we will not support the bill.

[FedNor, May 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, FedNor is the federal program tasked with supporting economic development in northern Ontario. Over the course of the past two years, the so-called official opposition has not asked a single question about FedNor and the work our government is doing in northern Ontario. One has to ask oneself if it is because the Liberals are completely out of touch with northern Ontario or, worse yet, if northern Ontario is just not a priority for the Liberal Party of Canada.

FedNor is a priority for this government. To that end, would the minister responsible for FedNor update the House on how this Conservative government is delivering for northern Ontario?

[Petitions, May 16th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from many students from St. Mary's Secondary School in Cobourg and other interested citizens of Northumberland—Quinte West asking the government to consider the plight of Omar Khadr, who is in prison in Cuba.

[Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, May 16th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the government is providing responsible leadership over our economy and the building of a stronger Canada.

On nuclear energy, the Minister of Natural Resources has been restoring the prudent management this important file deserves, after years of neglect by the previous government. The minister has been acting to address the issues our government inherited by funding legacy liabilities, launching a review of AECL, managing spent fuel and modernizing legislation.

As has been previously raised, the government has accepted the termination of the MAPLE project. Could the minister clarify again for the members the reasons behind this decision?