Stephen Woodworth

[Petitions, December 9th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like present two petitions. The first calls for an extractive sector ombudsman to be legislated, totalling 138 signatures.

[Burma, December 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, another atrocity is unfolding, while the world stands by and watches the persecution of Rohingyas in Burma. Violence against Rohingyas has resulted in thousands of men, women and children living in squalid conditions.

With a lack of sanitation and no medical supplies, the rainy season and disease are claiming lives. Aid has been blocked. Refugees are attacked if they try to leave. Local police have a record of discrimination and violence toward Rohingyas. They have failed to provide any adequate protection. The Rohingyas escaping to Bangladesh are denied even the right to register as refugees in that country.

Canada has called on Burma to take effective action against ethnic violence and religious discrimination. The world must take notice. The world must act now to compel Burma to assist UN access and to end the violence against Rohingyas.

[Northwest Territories Devolution Act, December 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend's comments across the way and I respect her legal ability, so I would like to suggest that it would not be too difficult for her to read the act. If she looks in the first 30 clauses, she will see the main issues. We all know that if Moses had been a lawyer, the Ten Commandments would have taken 50 tablets instead of two, but the essence of it is there.

I also want to reassure my colleague across the way that Bill C-15 was developed only after consultation with aboriginal groups, northerners, territorial governments, and industry. In fact, aboriginal groups have been active participants in the devolution negotiations with Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories. Since 2010, when the government announced its action plan to improve the northern regulatory regimes, there have been extensive discussions on the land and water board restructuring proposal. Over 50 meetings were held with aboriginal governments and organizations.

Does my friend not think it is time that this place found the political will to finally move on and complete this devolution?

[Northwest Territories Devolution Act, December 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have some concern about whether there may have been a translation issue. I want to make it very clear for the record that the first nations I was referring to would be appointed members of the board under this legislation. I was not referring to first nations being called to committee.

[Northwest Territories Devolution Act, December 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her comments and thoughts.

In particular, I want to thank her for her desire to support this bill at second reading and for her very kind comments about the fact that the government is moving to redress a request for devolution that the previous government left unanswered and that the government is on the right track.

I want to respond to some of the comments made earlier to make sure the record is clear for anyone listening at home. People need to look at clause 136 of this bill to understand that the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board in fact will continue, with one member appointed on the nomination of the Gwich'in first nation, one member appointed on the nomination of the Sahtu first nation, one member appointed by the Tlicho first nation, and members appointed by other first nations in the Mackenzie Valley region outside the settlement areas in Wek'èezhii and so on.

I want to reassure the member opposite as well that the same degree of consultation with first nations is going to continue in the smaller subcommittees regarding land, water, and waste decisions. I would like to ask the member opposite if in fact she is pleased that the government is continuing to work with these first nations in Canada.

[Northwest Territories Devolution Act, December 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by making sure that the record is clear about something, and that is that the restructured board would not have permanent panels. Rather, the amendments would allow the chair to establish smaller committees to deal with applications before the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. Further, in response to consultations, the proposed legislation would require the chair to appoint regionally nominated representatives to these smaller committees when they were considering an application that was entirely within that region.

The proposed amendments demonstrate the government's commitment to ensuring that regional knowledge is not lost. These improvements to the regulatory environment would increase proponent and investor confidence in resource development in the Mackenzie Valley.

I would like to know what the member opposite thinks about our government's support for legislated regional representation on panels. Surely she supports that.

[Business of Supply, November 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I really am compelled to comment on what I regard as disgraceful comments from the member opposite. When he takes a statement and says “the Conservatives are known to be tough on crimes, so what about Mr. Woodcock?” or when he refers to Mr. Perrin as part of a “fraud squad”, he is slurring the reputations of innocent people, against whom there has been no allegation of criminality.

Through slimy innuendo, half truths and gossip, he is in effect saying things under the privilege of the House, this august and sacred chamber, which allows us to speak freely. He is abusing that privilege to slur the reputations of others.

The fact is that the RCMP has not even suggested any criminal conduct against anyone other than Mr. Duffy and Mr. Wright. The RCMP has said in black and white that there is no evidence that the Prime Minister was in any way aware of what Mr. Duffy and Mr. Wright did. It has not suggested any criminal conduct against anyone else.

Quite frankly, this is a new low that I did not expect from that member in particular, who I thought had higher standards. It should be stopped.

[Business of Supply, November 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding people are concerned about jobs and economic growth. They are concerned about providing for their families. They are concerned about safety in their communities.

Just yesterday the opposition focused on one issue for 23 questions straight. It turns out the Leader of the Opposition has a confirmed history for libel, so perhaps it should not be a surprise that we are talking about innuendo and out-of-context statements and half-truths.

I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary a question. Why does the opposition not want to talk about Canada's economic performance? Why does it not want to talk about the Speech from the Throne? Why does it not want to talk about the Canadian-European trade agreement? Why does the opposition avoid all of the issues that concern my constituents?

[Offshore Health and Safety Act, October 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding the top issues that concern us are jobs and the economy. That is why I have always been proud that our government is focused like a laser on jobs and the economy.

This particular bill is about a robust regulatory regime to contribute to our offshore resources. I understand that it will contribute to economic growth in Canada. Therefore, I would ask the minister to elaborate for the House if and how he thinks these amendments would contribute to a sustainable oil and gas industry.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, October 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to say, considering the question came from a member of the Liberal Party, that there is nothing that can compare to the $1 billion the Ontario Liberal Party wasted on moving gas plants. That member and his party have nothing to complain about when it comes to the question of government expenditures.

On the question of changing the age of retirement, it may have escaped the member's notice, but when the original OAS scheme was introduced in the 1960s, the average life expectancy was around 72 or 73 years. Consequently retiring at age 65 meant something entirely different than it means today when the average life expectancy is more like 83 or 85 years.

The costs of supporting someone through a longer retirement are just an economic reality. As much as the third party and the NDP might wish to ignore economic realities, a responsible government cannot. Also, the demographics have changed. People living longer and healthier lives means that there are more seniors who need to be supported by fewer people still participating in the working economy.