Riding Mentions in News, Blogs, Facebook & Hansard

• MPndp Joe Comartin 25 post BUSINESS OF SUPPLY

  The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.

  Tue 8:10 pm |
• MPndp Joe Comartin 28 post Business of Supply

  The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry has 40 seconds left.

  Apr 25, 2013 7:40 am |
• MPndp Megan Leslie 1654 post Business of Supply

  moved:

  That this House: (a) agree with many Canadians and the International Energy Agency that there is grave concern with the impacts of a 2 degree rise in global average temperatures; (b) condemn the lack of effective action by successive federal governments since 1998 to address emissions and meet our Kyoto commitments; and (c) call on the government to immediately table its federal climate change adaptation plan.

  Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for reading out our motion, because I think the wording is very important. That is why we are here.

  We are here to reaffirm our commitment to the struggle against climate change, as well as reaffirm our commitment and belief in support of the science that supports that struggle.

  Members may ask, why today? Why should we debate this issue today? The answer is that we are here today on the issue of climate change because the Minister of Natural Resources commented publicly last week in La Presse that he does not believe that people are worried about these changes to the planet. When challenged on this statement, the minister doubled down on his claims, despite zero evidence to the contrary.

  It is so bad that the U.S. newspaper headlines today are actually calling this minister “the minister of oil for Canada”. This minister has been defended, remarkably, by the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Environment. He has been applauded by the climate change deniers in his caucus, who think nothing of the risk to our planet and the burden that their wilful blindness will leave to future generations.

  According to the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, a round table that the Conservatives have axed, the world has seen an increase in surface temperature of 0.78° since the mid-19th century, and in the last 60 years Canada has already seen a massive 1.3° change.

  What does this mean? The 2° threshold is a dangerous tipping point for irreversible, catastrophic climate change. That is what happens if we see 2° of warming.

  The Minister of Natural Resources keeps quoting the International Energy Agency. When he quotes the IEA and quotes the scenario, he is actually quoting 6° of warming.

  What does that mean? The 6° scenario, as set out by the International Energy Agency, takes the planet beyond any reasonable expectation of survival. That is the scenario this minister is quoting. In addition, he does not actually think there is anything to worry about. I disagree with him.

  My colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry also disagrees. I would love to be able to share my time with her so that she could point out the fallacy in the minister's logic.

  During this debate, we should prepare ourselves for an onslaught of greenwashing from the government side today. They are going to take credit for the success of provincial emissions reductions. They are going to celebrate the fact that they are on track to miss their climate change targets by 50%. They are going to miss them, and these targets are actually woefully inadequate.

  The Conservatives are going to claim that they are responsible for stabilizing emissions in Canada, but they are contradicted by the most recent annual greenhouse gas emissions inventory, which was released earlier this month.

  They are going to ignore the fact that they foolishly cancelled the wildly successful ecoEnergy home retrofit program, despite the incredible promise that this program held for long-term job creation, for reductions in emissions and for making life more affordable for all Canadians. I guess that program was just a little too successful for them.

  The Conservatives will also allege that they understand and prioritize sustainable development, even though they have gutted environmental assessments in this country so that 99% of assessments will no longer happen. It is almost impossible to wrap our heads around.

  They have decimated the protection of our fisheries. We no longer protect fish habitat in Canada. This is fish habitat, and our fisheries are worth multiple billions of dollars a year.

  The Conservatives have eradicated protections for our lakes and our rivers, jeopardizing the livelihoods and recreation and first nations traditions of Canadians across the country.

  The Conservatives' record on climate change is abysmal. They have repeatedly embarrassed Canada on the international stage by causing confusion during climate change negotiations, pulling out of the Kyoto protocol—Canada was the only country to do so—and pulling out of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, another international first. They slashed renowned programs on ozone and fresh water that were being used around the world. We have become the pariahs of international climate negotiations. The Conservatives have lowered Canadian emission reduction targets by 90% since they came to power in 2006.

  To say they do not have the will to tackle climate change would be a huge understatement. They ignore the fact that climate change does not recognize borders, that it is a global problem and that it affects the health of all human beings, as well as the food security and national security of all countries.

  The Conservatives are being irresponsible by allowing Canada to fall behind on the diplomatic scene and in terms of commercial and economic development. The delay in transitioning to a greener economy is making Canada less globally competitive. We are not taking advantage of the opportunities afforded by green solutions and technologies, whether in the area of manufacturing, research, innovation or trade.

  Instead, the government has taken the inefficient and ineffective sector-by-sector regulatory approach to emissions regulations, although it is grossly delayed at the same time in actually regulating sectors like the oil and gas sector. This sector is the fastest-growing source of emissions in Canada. Keep in mind that the Conservatives promised those regulations on oil and gas. They said they would actually be in place in December 2009. It is 2013.

  The Conservatives claim that their approach to emissions reductions is not costing Canadians. We all know that is ridiculous because the cost of regulations is always carried on to the consumer. The issue is that the Conservatives refuse to be upfront about the costs of their sector-by-sector approach on Canadians as well as the cost of their delay to regulate and the cost of their unambitious emissions targets.

  It is cheaper to tackle climate change than it is to just allow it to happen. The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy predicted that the cost of climate change in Canada alone would be $5 billion per year by 2020; 2020 is the same year that we are missing those inadequate targets by 50%. It also predicted that this would cost us as much as $43 billion a year by 2050. We have to act.

  Today, we are calling on the government to table its climate change plan. That is all we want. We want to see what its plan is. I do not have a high expectation that it will, despite the fact that the government committed in 2007 to develop this kind of a policy framework and despite the fact that it actually agreed with the 2010 recommendations of the Environment Commissioner's fall report. It has failed. For good reason in chapter 3 of his report with respect to the need for adaptation measures in Canada, the Environment Commissioner wrote:

  Government reports have demonstrated that climate change affects all regions of the country and a wide range of economic sectors. These impacts and the need to adapt to them touch on virtually all federal government portfolios, with significant implications for policies and programs related to Canadians’ health and the country’s industry, infrastructure, and ecosystems....The health of Canadians and Canada’s natural environment, communities, and economy are vulnerable to the impacts of a changing climate. Some of these impacts are already occurring from coast to coast. They are most evident in Canada’s North where, for example, the thawing of permafrost as a result of temperature increases is affecting the stability of roads, buildings, pipelines, and other infrastructure.

  Yet, the Minister of Natural Resources thinks that we are radicals for wanting to talk about climate change and the costs of environmental degradation. I think we are radically practical. Throughout the day we will hear the NDP plan to address climate change because we do have a plan that includes a price on carbon, includes adopting our climate change accountability act. We will hear from members of my caucus talk about these measures that the NDP supports. It is only the NDP that can be trusted to tackle climate change because it is at the core of who we are as social democrats. I am proud to stand here today with my colleagues to reaffirm that commitment.

  Apr 25, 2013 7:10 am |
• MPcon bruce_stanton 81 post Business of Supply

  Before we return to debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, The Environment.

  Apr 24, 2013 1:15 pm |
• MPndp JohnRaffertyMP 1450 post The Criminal Code

  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-55 today. I am thankful to my friend, the very hard-working member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, for her kind attention to it also.

  The bill is really about striking a balance between personal freedom and public safety that was not achieved with the previous bill, Bill C-30. In the five years or so that I have been here, I cannot recall a topic or bill that has caused so much reaction from constituents. There may be one or two other bills that the constituents in my riding have been very concerned about, but reaction to this one in particular was certainly inflamed by the comments made by the Minister of Public Safety when Bill C-30 was introduced. I am pleased that something is now being done.

  I am not sure whether the government is doing this now for political reasons or because the Supreme Court has said that it has until next month to have these amendments ready. In any case, Bill C-55 is certainly a welcome change and welcome difference from the previous bill, Bill C-30.

  For those folks who might be watching at home, I want to talk about the bill for a second and give a bit of background.

  This enactment amends the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Tse in order to provide safeguards relating to authorization to intercept private communications without prior judicial authorization under section 184.4. Notably, the enactment requires the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Attorney General of each province to report on the interceptions of private communications made under that section. It also provides that a person who has been the subject of such interception must be notified of the interception within a specified period. As well, it narrows the class of individuals who can make such an interception and limits those interceptions to offences listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code. On one hand it has been narrowed, but it is also now putting in the safeguards that Bill C-30 did not have to ensure that the personal freedom of Canadians is not infringed upon unduly while public safety is served.

  This does strike a nice balance. That is why the NDP and I will certainly be supporting the bill at third reading.

  In its simplest terms, this new legislation is simply an updated version of the wiretapping provisions that the Supreme Court has ruled to be unconstitutional. The court has established new parameters for the protection of privacy. We in the NDP believe that this legislation complies with those standards.

  Canadians have good reason to be concerned about Conservatives' privacy legislation. It seems to not be front and centre or at least top of mind when legislation is put together, so the ruling of the Supreme Court was certainly welcome, and Bill C-55, which is a result of that ruling, is also certainly welcome.

  The proposed amendments appear in direct response to the Supreme Court decision. They add safeguards that constitute notification and reporting under section 184.4 of the Criminal Code. Specifically, the legislation would require giving a person 90 days' notice—although there could be an extension made by a judge—after his or her private communications have been intercepted in situations of “imminent harm”, which are two very important words.

  The bill also requires the preparation of annual reports on the use of wiretaps. These amendments appear to be in direct response to the court's instruction in this matter.

  As a result, we support the bill. It is essential that such investigative measures include oversight and accountability.

  We have certainly heard, and my constituents have heard, over and over again from this government those terms “oversight”, “accountability” and “transparency”. Certainly Bill C-30, the original incarnation of this bill, did not include any of those things. This new bill, Bill C-55, does, and as I said before, it is welcome.

  When New Democrats look at the bill, we look at the public interest of the bill and respect for the rule of law. That is why Bill C-30 was a bill that we simply could not support: it failed on both of those counts. Bill C-55, after we have studied it, certainly would appear to do that, and we will be supporting it at third reading. Most importantly, it would meet the rule of law, the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We do not expect that there would be a further Supreme Court case on Bill C-55.

  I will talk about section 184.4 of the Criminal Code. The Supreme Court decision stated:

  Section 184.4 recognizes that on occasion the privacy interests of some may have to yield temporarily for the greater good of society — here, the protection of lives and property from harm that is both serious and imminent.

  With regard to Bill C-30, the court also stated:

  In its present form however, s. 184.4 contains no accountability measures to permit oversight of the police use of the power.

  I quote that because that is essentially what Bill C-55 would do. It would ensure that there would be safeguards for the public good, while at the same time protecting public safety.

  A number of experts have indicated that they are pleased with Bill C-55 and the changes that have been made, and it comes just under the wire of when the Supreme Court said the changes needed to be made. I take it on faith that the government is presenting Bill C-55 in good faith, that it is not for political reasons, that it has listened to the Supreme Court decision and has made the changes accordingly. I do not yet know how the Liberals feel about this particular bill and I certainly look forward to hearing what they have to say on it.

  I look forward to any questions members may have for me.

  Mar 19, 2013 12:20 pm |
• MPcon bruce_stanton 64 post Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act

  Before we resume debate, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, Environment; the hon. member for Alfred-Pellan, Correctional Service of Canada.

  Resuming debate, the hon. member for Drummond.

  Feb 28, 2013 1:15 pm |
• MPndp Peter Julian 1666 post Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012

  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to follow the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, who gave a wonderful, detailed speech.

  We have just begun to really delve into this bill that is more than 1,000 pages long. Bill C-48 is absolutely enormous.

  As my colleague just said, we are talking about measures that should have been taken 10 or more years ago. Some of them go back as far as 1998. We have to wonder why the government took so long to introduce this huge bill in the House. Why did it take so long to address the 200 various sectors affected by previous budgets? Why did the government drag its feet on introducing these technical amendments in the House?

  When we look at the size and scope of this massive bill, we are talking about areas touched throughout the tax system: changing how labour-sponsored venture capital corporations are treated and the transitional issues that arise from that; amending corporate taxable income allocation formulas; looking at the tax treatment of shares dealing with offshore investment fund property and non-resident trusts; dealing with taxation of foreign affiliates of Canadian multinational corporations, affecting legislation that touches both common law and civil law; avoiding anti-avoidance measures for specific leasing properties; clarifying rules on taxable Canadian properties; looking at housekeeping changes to the Excise Tax Act; clarifying the minister's authority; allowing for tax administration agreements; and putting in place coordinating amendments.

  Many of these measures date from more than a decade ago. As my colleagues from Beauharnois—Salaberry and Edmonton—Strathcona mentioned earlier, the former Auditor General of Canada called the government on its complete absence of bringing forward all of the 1,000 pages of technical amendments that should have been brought forward years ago.

  Commitments were made at one point. I am not going to criticize just the Conservatives. I am going to criticize the Liberals, as well.

  Indications were made in the past that these types of technical amendments should be brought in on an annual basis. What the Parliament of Canada would be called upon to look through would be, basically, one-twelfth of what we are looking at today. On an annual basis, technical treatment would then be updated. That is a necessary part of our tax system. That would mean, as well, that we would avoid the kinds of loopholes that exist when the House of Commons passes budgets or measures are put into place and the technical amendments are never brought forward.

  That is not what happened under the Liberals. We know now that the Liberals were simply unable to put in place an effective administrative structure for technical amendments. It has not happened under the Conservatives, either. This is something New Democrats deplore. Of course, we support these technical amendments, but instead of dealing with a yearly review that would allow those technical amendments to be brought in in a systematic way and on a timely basis, we are dealing with another massive Conservative bill of 1,000 pages that Parliament is being asked to scrutinize, because for over a decade, the work was not done.

  This is symptomatic of why many Canadians consider the idea of Conservative administrative competence to be an oxymoron. We have seen this time and time again, whether we are talking about technical amendments that have not been brought in or massive budget bills that are thrown on the floor of the House of Commons without the government having any understanding of what the impacts are.

  We saw last spring massive changes to environmental assessments and the National Energy Board. Charitable people would say that the government was simply unaware of what it was trying to do when it gutted 99% of environmental assessments in this country. That is what a charitable person would say. The government was simply incompetent. Many others believe that it was mean-spirited and deliberate. Even though the government pretended that it had no idea that it was gutting 99% of environmental assessments in this country, the government actually did understand that it was doing that when it threw those amendments forward. Either way, what we are seeing is administrative incompetence and mean-spiritedness of the highest order.

  I am privileged to come from the political party that over the last 20 years, when it has been in power, according to the federal Ministry of Finance, has been the most effective at managing the nation's finances and paying down debt in various provinces. For the last 20 years, the fiscal period returns, year after year, have indicated that NDP governments are much better at balancing budgets and paying down debt. They are much better than their Conservative counterparts and much better than their Liberal counterparts, who seem to be even worse than the Conservatives, if people can believe that, in terms of balancing budgets and paying down debt. Fiscal period returns show that. We certainly have no lessons to learn from anybody.

  I would say to the Canadian public that we always have to endeavour to be better and more transparent. We had the Leader of the Opposition stand in the House today and put forward an NDP bill to put in place a Parliamentary Budget Officer. What we believe in is a system of checks and balances, in terms of finance, to ensure that the public is aware that the figures we are putting forward are tested by an impartial third party. We believe in supporting our Auditor General's department and in actually enhancing the ability of the Auditor General to look at the nation's finances as well.

  What have the Conservatives done? It is quite the opposite. By death from a thousand cuts, they have cut back on the Auditor General's ability to actually look at the nation's finances. They are seriously, in the most vicious, underhanded way, attacking the Parliamentary Budget Officer. They are systematically removing, and this is the only government in the western world doing this, the checks and balances the Canadian public depends on.

  On our side of the House, not only are we better financial administrators, we also believe in the impartiality of a third party to ensure and verify that the financial figures put forward by a government are tested and are subject to those rigorous tests of checks and balances the Canadian public expects.

  In my riding of Burnaby—New Westminster, what I hear most often from people who voted Conservative last time, because I still had about a third of the public in Burnaby—New Westminster vote Conservative last time, is that they voted for administrative competence, and they have gotten incompetence. They say that they voted for some kind of honesty on fiscal matters and have gotten exactly the opposite.

  People who voted Conservative are now saying that what they got is the F-35 scandal, the continuous shame of Conservative senators trying to bilk the public and milk the public of every last dollar, pretending they live in provinces where they do not and trying to break the law in a couple of jurisdictions.

  What former Conservative voters, because they are not going to vote that way in 2015, are telling us is that it is not what they voted for, but that is what they have gotten.

  When we look back to Bill C-48, we can see that this is symptomatic of a much greater malaise. We have a Conservative government that is administratively incompetent, that is mean-spirited and that is unable to control the natural inclination of the Prime Minister to go after shiny baubles and pay whatever it takes, whether we are talking about the Muskoka spending of $1 billion or the $40 billion or more that would go into the F-35s or the ongoing scandal of Senate-gate, with 15 Conservative senators now trying to hide where they live to cover up their past indiscretions.

  When we look at all of those things, what we see is symptomatic of why so many Canadians are saying that what they want to see, whether we are talking about a bill like this or any other government decision, is competence. They want to see a government that actually understands the impacts of what it is doing. They want to see a government that is not bringing forward 14 years of technical amendments, because it has been dropping the ball, systemically, for the last seven years.

  In 2015, what Canadians will get is a government that is competent, an NDP government that will be submitting technical amendments on an annual basis, because that is what is right and proper for this House of Commons to consider.

  Feb 27, 2013 1:10 pm |
• MPndp Peter Julian 187 post Business of Supply

  Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry on her great speech. She is very gracious and works very hard in the House. The voters of Beauharnois—Salaberry are well represented.

  She talked about the many blunders made by this Conservative government. As we know, at the end of every year, the Department of Finance releases a report on financial results. For the past 20 years, it has compared NDP, Conservative and Liberal governments. For the past 20 years, the NDP has always come out on top thanks to our wise financial governance and our ability to balance budgets and reduce debt.

  So, the NDP are better than the Conservatives when it comes to fiscal management. Does the member think that that is a valid reason for the Conservatives to shut down the office that acted independently to keep an eye on the nation's finances? After all, the Conservatives are not very good at managing finances.

  Feb 07, 2013 7:35 am |
• MPndp Peggy Nash 1534 post Business of Supply

  moved:

  That this House: (a) reaffirm the essential role of the Parliamentary Budget Officer in providing independent analysis to Parliamentarians on the state of the nation's finances, trends in the Canadian economy, and the estimates process; and (b) call on the government to: (i) extend the mandate of current Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page until his replacement is named; and (ii) support legislation to make the Parliamentary Budget Officer a full, independent officer of Parliament.

  Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.

  I am pleased to rise in the House today to move this opposition motion in support of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

  The position of Parliamentary Budget Officer was created in 2006 in the wake of the sponsorship scandal. Despite their promise to create an independent parliamentary budget office, the Conservatives refused to grant the PBO the same independence and the same authority as other officers of Parliament, such as the Auditor General.

  Our current PBO, Kevin Page, has himself asked why create a budget office and ask for independent analysis right in the legislation if we do not even want it. Why indeed?

  In an unfortunate and frustrating pattern, the government has responded to the PBO's efforts for fiscal transparency by refusing to release costing estimates on a wide range of its key policy areas, including the F-35 procurement deal, G8 and G20 security costs, the contentious omnibus crime bill and the OAS cuts. Meanwhile, following its mandate, the PBO has continued to produce its own independent costing analysis in the face of limited co-operation from federal departments and harsh backlash from the Conservatives.

  Last spring, Mr. Page told The Hill Times, “We've always tried to be fearless in terms of tackling difficult issues”. While I certainly appreciate his tenacity and commitment to providing Canadians with the real costs of government policy, his job should not require so much courage. Instead, our government should be committed to ensuring that fiscal transparency and accountability are standard operating procedure here in Ottawa.

  In our parliamentary system, the power of the purse is ultimately meant to rest with the House of Commons. In order for parliamentarians to be able to act responsibly on behalf of our constituents and all Canadians, we must have access to the financial costs and implications of legislation before we vote, and the current government is certainly not in the habit of providing answers.

  In fact, last year, the Treasury Board directed government departments not to include details about upcoming spending cuts in their annual plans and priorities reports. Of course, having this information unavailable to MPs necessarily means that it is also unavailable to the public, a fact that raises important questions about the democratic process in our country.

  How can Canadians engage with the parliamentary process that has so many real impacts on their lives if they are not given the information to do so? Would we ask a family to buy a home without knowing the cost of a mortgage? Of course not. Why should it be any different with the laws and programs that govern our lives? The bottom line is that Canadians and their MPs need more information about government spending than they are currently getting. When they are not getting the information they need from the government, an office like the PBO becomes the go-to source for financial analysis.

  The Parliamentary Budget Officer plays an invaluable role in our federal government, and Canadians are facing a PBO cliff. We have heard about the fiscal cliff in the U.S. We are facing a PBO cliff here in Canada when Kevin Page's term ends on March 24.

  The official opposition is deeply concerned by the lack of progress that has been made in finding our new PBO. Last week I met with the Parliamentary Librarian, who confirmed that a selection committee has yet to be formed. The firm that will be doing the head hunting for this essential position has only just been hired. Selection processes for these kinds of positions often take between six and twelve months. In fact, the selection process for our first PBO lasted eight months. It is clear that it is highly unlikely we will have a new PBO in place by the end of Mr. Page's term. It is equally clear that the Conservatives are in no rush to ensure that the work of the PBO continues unabated during the selection process.

  Unfortunately, the legislation governing the Parliamentary Budget Officer does not extend the mandate of the PBO to his employees. The legislation also fails to provide for an automatic interim process to take effect when a new PBO is sought. Instead, Canadians and their MPs must wait for an order in council appointment for even an interim PBO to be put in place.

  Our government should be committed to fiscal transparency, and the legislation governing the Parliamentary Budget Officer should effectively support its mandate. However, the necessary political commitment to the PBO is not fully met in the existing legislation. For instance, under the current law, the Parliamentary Budget Officer serves at the pleasure of the Prime Minister, a constraint by which no other officer of Parliament is bound and one that could promise serious consequences for a PBO whose independent fiscal analysis displeased the PM.

  We have seen the Conservatives engage in a consistent campaign of attacks on the credibility of Kevin Page, despite the fact that his analysis has consistently proved to be on target. The official opposition is deeply concerned that the government will attempt to appoint a new PBO who is more lapdog than watchdog. That is not what Canadians need. We need a strong, independent Parliamentary Budget Officer, not another person who talks government talking points.

  The Parliamentary Budget Officer is also currently an officer of the Library of Parliament, not of Parliament itself. There have been real issues with this arrangement, including a lack of congruence between the roles of the two bodies. The official opposition has significant concerns that this issue will come to the fore should there not be an interim PBO, especially considering the fact that since the mandate of the PBO does not extend past the individual who is in that position today, the rest of his staff are considered employees of the Library of Parliament. Will these library employees be allowed to make public reports on costing and economic estimates on behalf of the PBO? Who will come before the committee, especially the finance committee, or answer questions from MPs and the media about the work of the office?

  The Conservatives have made a habit of attacking the PBO when he is actually acting fully within his mandate as outlined in the legislation. How will they react to public servants making public reports on the PBO's behalf, when there is no legislated mandate that extends to them? How can we address these issues and ensure that there is no gap in the crucial information for MPs and the Canadian public? The answer is simple. Extend Kevin Page's term until a replacement is found. We need a thorough and transparent process.

  Over the last couple of weeks, when asked about the PBO, the Conservatives have repeatedly said that they support the ongoing existence of the office. That is hardly the same as expressing a commitment to support the office's independence or to work to improve fiscal transparency. It is very troubling.

  Budget transparency should be paramount in our parliamentary system. Canadians and their MPs deserve to know the real costs of policy and legislation, and the PBO must have sufficient power and independence to meet this goal. It is critically important that there be no gaps in the vital work done by this office. It is especially crucial that the PBO be strengthened and supported in future. I am pleased to move the following motion:

  That this House: (a) reaffirm the essential role of the Parliamentary Budget Officer in providing independent analysis to Parliamentarians on the state of the nation's finances, trends in the Canadian economy, and the estimates process; and (b) call on the government to: (i) extend the mandate of current Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page until his replacement is named; and (ii) support legislation to make the Parliamentary Budget Officer a full, independent officer of Parliament.

  Feb 07, 2013 7:10 am |
• MPcon bruce_stanton 84 post Business of Supply

  Before we resume debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, the Environment.

  Resuming debate. The hon. member for St. Paul's.

  Jan 31, 2013 1:15 pm |
• MPcon bruce_stanton 107 post Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

  It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are: the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, The Environment; the hon. member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, Fisheries and Oceans.

  Resuming debate, the hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville.

  Nov 29, 2012 1:30 pm |
• MPcon bruce_stanton 57 post Protecting Canada's Seniors Act

  Before resuming debate it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, The Environment.

  Nov 05, 2012 1:35 pm |
• MPcon andrewscheer 11 post Terrorism

  The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.

  Oct 24, 2012 11:15 am |
• MPcon BarryDevolin_MP 32 post Business of Supply

  Order, please. I was calling for a resumption of debate rather than further questions.

  Resuming debate, the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.

  Oct 18, 2012 10:30 am |
• MPndp
  François PilonPOUR DIFFUSION IMMÉDIATE 8 AOÛT 2012 LES CONSERVATEURS PRÔNENT TOUJOURS L’IMMOBILISME EN MATIÈRE D’ENVIRONNEMENT Selon le NPD, le manque de leadership fédéral coûte cher à l’environnement et à l’économie canadienne OTTAWA – Un rapport d’Environnement Canada publié aujourd’hui confirme que les conservateurs ne prennent aucune mesure afin d’atteindre leurs objectifs en matière de réduction d’émissions des gaz à effet de serre. Le rapport indique que le gouvernement fédéral n’a pratiquement rien fait afin de rapprocher le pays de ses objectifs fixés pour 2020. « Il n’y a rien dans ce rapport dont peuvent se vanter les conservateurs, a déclaré la porte-parole néo-démocrate en matière d’environnement, Megan Leslie (Halifax). Plus du tiers de la réduction est imputable aux changements dans la manière d’effectuer les calculs. Et la majorité des progrès actuels résultent du leadership des provinces et des territoires, ainsi que de la récession que nous avons subie. Les conservateurs ne peuvent s’attribuer aucun mérite, sauf peut-être celui d’avoir mal géré l’économie. » « Ce rapport n’est pas de bon augure pour l’économie canadienne non plus, a ajouté la porte-parole adjointe en matière d’environnement, Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry). Le reste du monde prend note de l’inaction des conservateurs en matière d’environnement. D’importants partenaires économiques comme l’Europe et les États-Unis ont déjà fermé leurs portes à des pays qui, comme le Canada, ne s’attaquent pas aux émissions des gaz à effet de serre. » -30- Pour de plus amples renseignements, veuillez communiquer avec : George Soule, attaché de presse du chef, 613-850-3448 ou George.Soule@parl.gc.ca
  Aug 13, 2012 6:43 am |
• MPcon Royal Galipeau 817 post Children's Health

  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again today to speak to my motion, Motion No. 319 regarding childhood nutrition. This motion is important to me, and I realize it is important to members from all corners of the House.

  I want to thank the members who have participated in this debate, including the hon. members for Mississauga South, Don Valley East, Okanagan—Shuswap, Beauharnois—Salaberry, Halifax West, Beaches—East York, Etobicoke North.

  The member for Berthier—Maskinongé made a particularly eloquent speech. I also thank the members for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert and Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

  The member for Vancouver Centre had a bit of an angry tinge in her speech and blamed the government for doing nothing. I thought that was pretty rich coming from a member who has been here for nearly 20 years. She had good statistics on the increase in childhood obesity. Unfortunately, she did not mention that the increase in childhood obesity happened mostly on her watch, especially as she is a physician.

  Canada is facing this problem, which, over time, has become an epidemic. We can no longer turn a blind eye to it, but instead we must begin an open discussion on childhood obesity.

  Over the past 25 years, rates of obesity and overweight have nearly tripled.

  The reality is startling. Today, over one in four children in Canada is overweight or obese.

  Children who are obese are at increased risk of being overweight or obese as adults.

  Childhood obesity is now a challenge to the health of Canadians and the Canadian economy.

  We know that childhood obesity increases the risk of chronic conditions, such as hypertension, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, stroke and certain types of cancer, including breast and colon cancer. We are seeing more and more of these chronic conditions in Canada and worldwide. Chronic disease has a devastating impact on individuals and families.

  In addition, it is estimated that health care costs directly related to obesity are as high as $6 billion per year.

  Reversing the trend is a complex challenge.

  Several factors are at play and may be contributing to the increasing rate of overweight and obesity. For example, biological, behavioural, social, psychological, technical, environmental, economic and cultural factors may tip the balance toward obesity.

  That is why many sectors of society have a role to play in promoting healthy weight.

  As members can see, Motion No. 319 is about encouraging the promotion and maintenance of healthy weights for children and youth, building on Curbing Childhood Obesity, the federal-provincial-territorial framework for action to promote healthy weights. It encourages dialogue across sectors and also among individuals and organizations to address the factors that lead to obesity.

  Engagement and collaboration are essential to mobilizing action to promote healthy weight, so they are fundamental to this motion.

  It encourages the federal government to continue to promote healthy eating and active lifestyles as well as engagement and collaboration in the promotion of healthy weights. Our children need to live, learn and play in health-promoting and supportive environments where healthy choices are the easy choice. The federal government is on the right path. It has undertaken a number of significant initiatives in collaboration with others to promote and maintain healthy weights among children and youth.

  I encourage all members to support this motion so that our children can live in a world where good health and good lifestyle habits are a priority.

  I thank the hon. members on both sides of the House for supporting this motion.

  Jun 20, 2012 4:45 pm |
• ndp New Democratic Party of Canada political_party post Anne Minh-Thu Quach will attend UN Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio + 20
  OTTAWA – MP and Deputy Environment Critic, Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry) will represent the NDP at the UN Conference on Sustainable... read more
  Jun 19, 2012 7:08 am> |
• MPcon andrewscheer 17 post Veterans Affairs

  The hon. Minister of National Defence. The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.

  May 28, 2012 12:00 pm |
• MPndp
  MyleneFreemanLe NPD tiendra deux audiences publiques sur le budget demain à Ottawa au 362 édifice de l'Est (Colline du Parlement) sur l'environnement (à 10h) et sur la sécurité de la vieillesse, AE, et la santé (à 12h). Détails: 1e séance: Environnement 10 h – 12 h, salle 362, édifice de l’Est, Colline du Parlement Députés néo-démocrates -Nathan Cullen, député de Seena-Bulkley Valley, leader parlementaire -Megan Leslie, députée d’Halifax, porte-parole en matière d’environnement -Peter Julian, député Burnaby--New Westminster, porte-parole énergie et ressources naturelles -Anne-Minh-Thu Quach, députée Beauharnois—Salaberry, porte-parole adjoint en matière d’environnement Témoins -Dr James Bruce, auteur du GIEC et lauréat du prix Nobel, membre du conseil d’administration de l’IIDD, ancien Secrétaire général adjoint intérimaire, Organisation météorologique mondiale, Genève -Patrick Bonin, directeur climat-énergie, AQLPA -Tony Maas, directeur du programme « Climate Change and water » à la WWF -Dr Peter Usher, expert en évaluation d’impact social, en utilisation des ressources renouvelables et en gestion -Will Amos M.A., LL.B, directeur, clinique de droit environnemental Ecojustice de l’Université d’Ottawa -Jamie Kneen, MiningWatch Canada, a pris une part active dans la décision rendue au sujet du projet minier Red Chris qui a confirmé les règles de la LLEE sur la portée d’un projet 2e séance: Sécurité de la vielliesse, AE et la santé 12 h – 13 h 30, salle 362, édifice de l’Est, Colline du Parlement Députés néo-démocrates -Présidente - Chris Charlton, députée Hamilton Mountain, porte-parole en matière de ressources humaines et développement des compétences -Anne-Marie Day, députée Charlesbourg--Haute-Saint-Charles, porte-parole en matière d’assurance-emploi -Irene Mathyssen, députée London-Fanshawe, porte-parole en matière de pensions -Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, députée Pierrefonds--Dollard, porte-parole en matière d’aînés -Niki Ashton, députée Churchill, porte-parole en matière de condition féminine Témoins -Pat Kerwin, président, Association des syndicalistes retraités du Canada -Barry Thorsteinson, président, Fédération nationale des retraités et des citoyens âgés -Bernard Dusseault, ancien actuaire en chef du Régime de pensions du Canada et du Programme de la sécurité de la vieillesse -Angella MacEwen, économiste principale, Congrès du travail du Canada -Pierre Céré, président, Conseil national des chômeurs -Erin Weir, économiste, Syndicat des Métallos -Roberto Bomba, trésorier, Fédération des infirmières du Québec -John Haggie, président, Association médicale canadienne
  May 16, 2012 8:15 pm |
• MP news NDP road show giving Canadians a voice on budget - Canada.com (blog)
  One way or another we are going to ensure that Canadians know what this ... Anne-Minh-Thu Quach, MP Beauharnois—Salaberry, Deputy Environment Critic ...and more » read more
  May 16, 2012 3:01 pm> |

Riding Twitter (MP & Candidates)

MP & Candidates News, Blogs, Facebook & Hansard

• MPcon
  Rick DykstraGovernment of Canada launches call for proposals for projects led and inspired by seniors http://www.rickdykstra.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2837&Itemid=51
  28 minutes ago |
• MPcon
  StellaAmblerCongratulations to the St. Mary Star of the Sea CWL (pictured here, Barbara and Mary) on another successful plant/bake sale.
  St. Mary's of the Sea CWL fundraiser

  
  30 minutes ago |
• MPndp
  Glenn ThibeaultAt 2pm today I will be joined by NDP Agriculture Critic Malcolm Allen, M.P. and NDP Deputy Agriculture Critic Ruth Ellen Brosseau at Eat Local Sudbury for a roundtable with local food producers and food movement community organizers to discuss a range of issues such as supply chains and GMO crops.
  30 minutes ago |
• lib
  Liberal Party ManitobaFrancophones slam NDP plan to abolish Senate #cdnpoli
  Francophones slam NDP plan to abolish Senate

  
  37 minutes ago |
• oth
  CanadaPoliticsTaylor Swift is NOT on "Team Bieber". In fact, the rift is bigger than thought. See why she has Gomez's back. http://video.jam.canoe.ca/video/featured/celebrity-gossip/1896809945/taylor-swifts-hints-at-more-beef-with-bieber/2405254784001
  
  40 minutes ago |
• oth
  CanadaPoliticsA classic water bowl prank completely backfires. Watch the victim turn the tables with a novel solution. Why hasn't anyone ever thought of that before? http://en.video.canoe.tv/video/comedy/pranks/88720353001/water-bowl-prank-backfires/2399506737001
  
  45 minutes ago |
• MPlib
  Geoff ReganConservative government must keep its promise to members of the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation
  http://www.geoffregan.ca/geoff-on-the-hill/government-break-promise-mikmaq-communities/

  
  49 minutes ago |
• caq
  coalitionavenirSuite à une motion de la Coalition Avenir Québec, le DG du CHUM est convoqué par l'Assemblée nationale afin de discuter de la gestion de cet établissement de santé. http://goo.gl/E3vAZ
  May 24, 2013 6:00am

  
  50 minutes ago |
• ont
  Rocco RossiFinal reminder that all donations of $50 or more to my Pilgrimage for Progress on Prostate Cancer give you a chance to win 2 amazing tickets to tomorrow night’s Rolling Stones’ concert. (they are worth $1300 retail and much more from scalpers!) Draw will take place at 11:30 today so don’t miss out! Only 22 donors to date so you will never get better odds. http://my.e2rm.com/personalPage.aspx?registrationID=1879635&langPref=en-CA&Referrer=http%3a%2f%2fwww.prostatecancer.ca%2fGet-Involved%2fEvents%2fPilgrimage
  Pilgrimage for Prostate

  
  53 minutes ago |
• MPcon
  Patrick BrownCo hosting 1st annual "Working Together Small Business Breakfast" with @RodneyJackson & @barriechamber. We have capacity crowd at HolidayInn
  1 hour ago |