Rob Oliphant

[November 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon I received a very heartfelt email from a constituent living in Leaside, who asked very clearly that I not try to score political points in this debate tonight but instead try to reach a constructive conclusion to this.

The question I have comes directly from this email. It is from a father of a one-year-old and a three-year-old, two daughters, both diagnosed this past weekend with H1N1, and both now on Tamiflu. The concern that he has, however, is the difficulty he had in getting the medicine, Tamiflu, the rationing that is going on with that, and the availability of it in a form that a one-year-old can take. It was not available.

I am wondering if the hon. member, as a member of the health committee, heard from the government about access to Tamiflu, not the vaccine but Tamiflu, as a treatment. As the member for Toronto Centre said, as this pandemic progresses and we are not able to actually stop it, maybe we are going to have to try to cure it as it comes.

[October 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments very much. I want to make it clear, however, I did not give an accounting. I believe that is the government's job. Its job is to report back to us and I will be looking forward to an accounting.

I would also like to take him on a tour of Toronto one day. We would probably have a very good tour. I would take him to some of those places. He did his best with some of the pronunciations of the names, but I can help him a bit with those because I know that Toronto is not known to the government. It is not sure exactly where Spadina is or where Agincourt is or where Strachan is. I would be delighted to host a small gathering of Conservative members to help them understand what it means to actually live in Canada's largest city with the crumbling infrastructure we deal with.

Of course the mayor is pleased with some largesse coming from the government, of course the Premier of Ontario is pleased with some largesse, but I am talking about an attitude of partnership that is escaping the government. It is an attitude that I think was exhibited by the minister's language and is still exhibited in its ongoing efforts.

[October 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will remember my question on June 9 to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, a question regarding federal government support for infrastructure renewal in Toronto, and the minister's use of vulgar language when referring to Toronto and Torontonians.

I am happy to have the opportunity tonight to delve into this question a bit more thoroughly. Let me preface my remarks with a comment about the city that I love and that some Canadians, including this Conservative government, seem to love to hate. The minister's off-colour language was indicative of an attitude that I fear is deep-set in the psyche of the government. I know the minister apologized, and I thank him for that, but this is my opportunity to remind him and the government about Toronto and the role that Toronto plays in the Canadian economy.

Toronto is Canada's first city. It is the city in Canada that connects. It connects buyers to sellers, people to business, business to banks, banks to foreign markets and the economic engines of Canada to the international trade markets of the world.

While much of this is done virtually, even in 2009 people still need to move physically from place to place, from home to business, from business to business. The City of Toronto and the Province of Ontario have developed a long-term plan for infrastructure renewal of our transit system that requires a financial partnership with our federal government. This plan is also a significant environmental initiative which will significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions.

I of course appreciate the government's help with the renewal of Union Station, improvements to GO Transit, the extension of the Spadina subway, and hopefully the Sheppard light rail line, but the complete disregard of the City of Toronto's priority, a fleet of renewed streetcars, still concerns me. Fortunately the minister, when responding with this litany of spending announcements, indicated that the best is yet to come.

I am hoping that the best that was yet to come on June 9 does not mean the $46,000 used to turn two GO train cars into rolling advertisements for the Conservative agenda, or the $34 million of Canadian taxpayers' money, at a minimum, that has been used to promote the government itself politically. Rather I hope that the best that is yet to come includes funds for the Eglinton LRT, which goes through my riding of Don Valley West and is badly needed to move people from the east side of Toronto to the Yonge Street subway line.

I hope that the best that is yet to come is not more favouritism shown to Conservative ridings, which on average are promised $2.1 million in funding, while opposition ridings have been allocated only $1.6 million on average. Rather, I hope that the best that is yet to come shows a non-partisan recognition that Toronto has 21% of the population of Ontario and both needs and deserves that proportion of funding.

I hope that the best that is yet to come includes actually getting real dollars flowing to cities, real money flowing to municipalities, as with the gas transfer tax, and I hope that the best that is yet to come means real, significant, shovel-ready projects like streetcars for Toronto, rather than screwdriver-ready projects that are just routine measures of maintenance dressed up as economic action.

The government has a real opportunity to improve the lives of all Canadians through government intervention in the economy and through the support of public transit in Toronto and elsewhere. Can the minister elaborate on what he means when he says, “The best is yet to come”?

[Petitions, October 21st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to present, along with other members of the House, a petition from hundreds of Canadians concerned with the Conservative government's response to the announced sale of Nortel.

As members are surely aware, thousands of Nortel employees and supporters joined us in Ottawa today for a demonstration on Parliament Hill to present this important issue to all of us.

This petition calls for necessary changes to the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Investment Canada Act. These changes will require us to protect the rights of all Canadians, especially those who are facing employment difficulties as companies go through restructuring. They will ensure that during bankruptcy, employees who are receiving pensions or long-term disability benefits obtain preferred-creditor status.

Furthermore, the petitioners ask that any employee-related claims be paid from the proceeds of Canadian asset sales before those funds are permitted to leave the country.

It is a privilege to present this petition today and to honour those members of Nortel who are in the gallery today.

[Pension Benefits Standards Act, September 17th, 2009]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-441, An Act to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 (disclosure of environmental, social and governance investment factors).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this morning to introduce a bill to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act.

This bill will require public and private pension plan administrators to disclose considerations given to environmental, social and governance factors in the selection, retention and liquidation of investments in their pension funds.

Millions of Canadians have growing concerns about the long-term sustainability of their pension plans. The current financial crisis has led them to a new understanding of risk in pension fund investing. Today risk assessment needs to take into account broader ethical considerations regarding long-term sustainability.

Pension plan members want to know whether their fund managers have asked questions about the companies they invest in, such as how a company treat its employees, where it buys its supplies and from whom, how a company contributes to the community in which it does business, whether its business practices are fair and, most importantly, can the environment, the earth, sustain its business activities.

I would like to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood, for seconding this bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 14th, 2009]

Concerning the Akwesasne Mohawk border dispute: (a) on what dates did Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) or other government officials meet with the Akwesasne, who was present at these meetings, and what was discussed; (b) on what dates did CBSA or other government officials communicate with the Akwesasne, either by phone or via correspondence, who participated, and what was discussed; (c) has the Minister or anyone representing the Minister ever spoken or met with the Akwesasne and, if so, when, where, and what was discussed; (d) when was the government made aware that the Akwesasne would protest the arming of border guards, and that this protest could result in the shutdown of the Cornwall Island border crossing post, and how did that occur; (e) what is the rationale for the government’s decision to proceed with the arming of the border guards at the Cornwall Island border crossing on June 1, 2009, given the likelihood of protest by the Akwesasne, and given that the policy is being rolled out at border crossings until 2016; (f) did the government receive any advice to delay the implementation of the arming policy at this specific border crossing and, if so, when, by whom, and what was the basis for the advice; (g) were any actions taken by the government to try and prevent the closing of the border post on Cornwall Island and, if so, what were they and when did they occur; (h) when was the government informed that CBSA workers would be walking off the job at midnight June 1, 2009, and by whom; (i) what did the government do to prepare for the abandonment of the Cornwall Island border post by the CBSA; (j) what did the government do to safeguard highly sensitive material held at the border post, such as computer files, paperwork, etc., that could compromise national security if it were purloined; (k) has anyone been into the Cornwall Island border crossing post since the CBSA evacuated the premises at midnight on June 1, 2009 and, if so, who, when and for what purpose were they there; (l) who is in charge of ensuring that the security of the border crossing post itself is maintained while it is non-operational, and how often are they surveying the post; (m) what actions has the government taken since the shutdown of the Cornwall Island border post to divert commercial and tourist traffic to other border posts, when did those actions take place, and what were they; (n) has the government received an assessment of how much money the closure of the Cornwall Island border post is costing the government and the economy and, if so, what did the assessments say; (o) since the closure of the Cornwall Island border post, has the government taken any actions to increase resources at surrounding border crossings to help deal with the increased traffic; (p) were any stakeholders consulted about the arming of border guards on Cornwall Island and, if so, when did the consultations take place, who was present, and what was the content of these consultations; and (q) was the Customs Excise Union consulted about the closure of the Cornwall Island border post and, if so, when, and what was their position on the closure of the border post?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 14th, 2009]

What is the total amount of government funding since fiscal year 2006-2007 up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of Don Valley West, listing each department or agency, initiative, and amount?

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 14th, 2009]

With respect to the Algoma Tankers Limited application to the Department of Finance regarding a remission order for the recently paid import duty on the new petroleum product tankers, Algonova and AlgoCanada: (a) when will a decision be rendered on this application; (b) what are the qualifications necessary for a successful application; (c) have there been any consultations with any of the following organizations regarding this application, including, the Shipbuilders Association of Canada, the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation, the Canadian Shipowners Association, the Chamber of Marine Commerce and the Ontario Marine Transportation Forums and, if so, what has been the result of those consultations?

[National Aboriginal Day, June 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to recognize National Aboriginal Day this Sunday, June 21, as we kick off 11 days to celebrate Canada.

Appropriately, we begin this celebration with an acknowledgement of Canada's first nations, Inuit and Métis people, recognizing their primacy in this great land.

The 11-day celebration will continue with Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day on June 24, Canadian Multiculturalism Day on June 27 and Canada Day on July 1.

Sunday is an opportunity to express our great pride in the rich and diverse cultures that thrive among aboriginal peoples, as they gather to celebrate their past, present and future through stories, song, dance, theatre and sacred ceremonies.

National Aboriginal Day also gives all Canadians the chance to pause and to reflect on work still undone, the opportunity to commit again to justice and dignity for first nations, Métis and Inuit people and to their full participation in the economic, social and cultural prosperity of this great country.

[Privilege, June 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chair of the committee and the hon. member for raising that point and to stress that those of us on this side of the House have that concern too. We wanted to ensure that if there was a problem somewhere in the system, that it was fixed.

However, we wanted to also express that we were concerned about any possibility of a breach of the confidence of that report.