Rodger Cuzner

[National Hockey League, May 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the air around the city of Hamilton is charged with excitement today in anticipation of the return of the great one. Relax, my Conservative friends, I do not mean Sheila Copps, rather the great one himself, Wayne Gretzky.

In a move that is driven by his great passion for hockey and his deep belief in the potential of southern Ontario, Jim Balsillie is once again trying to bring the NHL to its senses and a team to the region.

Now, being a lifelong Toronto Maple Leafs fan, I really understand the jokes that are coming, such as, if southern Ontario gets an NHL team, then Toronto will want one, too. I think the potential of regional rivalries in a battle of Ontario with a third combatant is great stuff.

I appreciate the league's valiant attempt to grow a fan base in the Arizona desert, but the experiment has been scorched. It is time the NHL recognized the huge potential that exists in southern Ontario and the opportunity to bring into its fold one of this country's most progressive and successful entrepreneurs in Jim Balsillie. I really hope that this transaction is allowed to go forward.

[Service Canada, May 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals will be voting in favour of this motion.

[Request for Emergency Debate, May 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I stand before you with a request to hold an emergency debate.

I am sure all members of the House are very much aware of the actions taken by the European parliament to ban all products that are generated from the Canadian seal hunt. I cannot state emphatically enough the devastating impact this is going to have on rural communities throughout eastern Quebec, Newfoundland, Cape Breton, in fact, throughout all of the Atlantic provinces.

This is an international affront to Canada. We cannot sit back as a Parliament and stand for this. We have to stand together as a Parliament and make sure that all persons in the European parliament understand what is being undertaken in that house.

The seal hunt for many is the only opportunity they have to generate any household revenue throughout the course of the winter months. It may seem meagre to some, but when someone is trying to feed a family and pay the bills of an average household in a remote or rural area, in an outport or in a coastal community, it is significant.

What the European parliament has undertaken puts a great number of Canadians at risk, a great number of Canadian households at risk.

I hope that all parliamentarians will show courage. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will see the merit and the wisdom in hosting this debate to make sure that this issue gets a fulsome debate to show how Canadians are going to be hurt. I ask that you entertain this important issue and this request.

[Standing Orders of the House of Commons, May 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, today the House will complete the last hour of debate on private member's Motion No. 277, sponsored by the member for Beauce.

The motion reads as follows:

That Standing Order 89 be amended by deleting the words “and of second reading of a private member's public bill originating in the Senate”; and Standing Order 86.2(2) be amended by deleting the words “a Senate public bill or”.

As my time is limited, I will concentrate my remarks on the purpose of the motion and what I believe to be the sponsor's motives in bringing this proposal forward.

However, before I get to the purpose of the motion, I would remind viewers that bills can be introduced by the government, known as the executive, or by private members, parliamentarians who are not in cabinet, through the legislative process. I had the opportunity in the last Parliament, as the member for Cape Breton--Canso, to introduce a private member's bill regarding a tax deduction for firefighters. Bills can also be introduced by the government or private members in either the House of Commons or the Senate.

The purpose of the motion is to amend the Standing Orders with respect to private members' bills originating in the Senate. If Motion No. 277 were to be adopted, the effect would be twofold: first, the House would not to give automatic or guaranteed consideration in the order of precedence to Senate public bills, as is the case now; and second, to force those wishing these bills to progress to the House to sponsor them by giving them their own item.

As an example, under the new rule, let us say that the Senate has passed a bill. The bill gets to the House but is not placed on the order of precedence automatically, as is the case now. Instead, a member must use up his or her spot in the priority list to sponsor the Senate bill. Therefore, a private member who is a member of the Senate will see his or her chances of getting a bill through the legislative process severely restricted, even though no restriction will be placed on the government's chances of seeing its bill evolve, even if introduced in the Senate.

The question I ask myself is why the member for Beauce and his party feel the need to restrict the chances of senators or private members to see their bills evolve through the legislative process. Does the member for Beauce feel that senators have abused the treatment that the Commons gives their private members' bills? The facts are contrary to that.

In the current session of this Parliament, the government has introduced 28 bills in the Commons and 6 bills in the Senate. Therefore, 18% of the government's legislative agenda has been introduced in the Senate. How many private members' bills originating from the Senate have found their way onto the order of precedence? The answer is zero.

Therefore, it is clear that the hon. senators have not been flooding this House with private members' bills. I must ask myself again why the member for Beauce feels it is necessary to amend the Standing Orders in this way.

I should also point out that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which is permanently mandated with reviewing the Standing Orders, is currently looking into the rules governing private members' business.

For that reason, I feel that this initiative is premature, as the member for Beauce could have waited for the committee to table its report.

I also agree with my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine when, on March 13, she said:

Now while some members may mistakenly believe that if fewer Senate bills were on the House order of precedence, more House bills would pass, but the effect is the exact opposite. In fact, we in the House give priority to the small number of Senate private members' bills that reach our House and, in exchange, our private members' bills receive priority in the other House. It does not mean that the House always gets its way but it does mean that the absence of this reciprocal agreement would be to the disadvantage of the House.

Maybe the Conservatives are afraid of the kind of legislation that may come from the Senate if not sponsored by the government. Maybe the government is worried that such legislation will not be conservative enough and respect strict right wing ideology.

Therefore, being faced with the possibility of having to deal with more moderate Liberal legislation, the Conservatives prefer to restrict democracy. For this reason, I will vote against Motion No. 277.

It will be an interesting vote. I do not believe the NDP will speak to this. I know that, of the about 170 pieces of private members' business, the NDP has sponsored about 100 of them.

My party believes in private member's business. We do not whip private members' business. We encourage our members to engage in a broad range of private members' issues and I know that many have come from the other place to the House and have been very vigorously debated by both sides.

In light of the fact that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is doing a study and that it will soon be completed and tabled, it would be prudent on the part of all parliamentarians to see it through. This motion is somewhat premature. We believe the current system is serving all parliamentarians very well now. There is a good relationship.

Obviously, from my remarks, everyone knows that if there is a perceived problem, that is all it is. In actuality, there is no problem. We are not being flooded from the upper chamber by private members' bills.

On this side of the House, we will, for the most part, not support this motion.

[Government Spending, April 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the Conservatives use the TV time to talk about the banking system. The hon. member will separate his shoulder patting himself on the back about the banking system, when Canadians know it was successive Liberal governments that stood up for banks.

Half of that frontbench fought tooth and nail to deregulate the banks in this country. If we had listened to them, if they had their way, we would be in the same mess as the Americans are in.

Why do they not quit playing politics and stand up for the people of this country?

[Human Pathogens and Toxins Act, April 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals will be voting in favour of this motion.

[Employment Insurance, April 2nd, 2009]

What is sad, Mr. Speaker, is the Conservatives continue to refer to the extension of the benefits for five weeks. That was a Liberal program that was established in 28 ridings. Those guys took it nationally and we support that, but that is not the question here. It is not about the last five weeks. It is about the first five days and the tens of thousands of Canadians who cannot get benefits. We need minimal national qualifying hours.

When will the government do something about the people who are hurting in this country?

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, that goes both ways. Border communities like Windsor have some of the best stations to help Canadian artists. We have a certain market for our artists in Canada, but to get into the American market, Canadian bands, such as the Tragically Hip, are given the opportunity to play at these—

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, as history shows, governments are not forever, so it is how much life is left in the current government.

There is no question that we are in the midst of some very difficult times, globally and certainly nationally. Canadians are feeling it in many sectors. We are seeing record job losses now. The government's revenues are down as are the ad revenues for CBC. We are approaching very difficult and challenging times.

We should be challenging the government to put forward the necessary bridge funding so these cuts would not have to be made. I know comments have been that job losses would occur anyway, but I would hope the bridge funding would be put in place.

Any government going forward, if it wants to be serious about some kind of national plan on this, has to make a commitment to a national broadcaster. I would hope that party would do it in an upcoming platform.

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we were in government then. Why did she stop with the cuts that were made to the CBC? Why did she not ask us about the cuts we made in National Defence? Why did she not ask us about the cuts we made in health, transportation, in all areas in 1995?

We sent 45,000 federal employees home, and I can stand beside that. They were tough decisions. Why? Because we had to clean up the mess that was left by the previous Mulroney government. That is a fact. I do not know what kind of mess will be left after those guys get finished.

I remind the minister as well as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs that they were in the opposition, saying that the cuts did not go deep enough. That is the truth.