Brian Pallister

[Committees of the House, November 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007.

[Committees of the House, November 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Finance respecting Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Income Tax Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2, October 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, up until the tail end of that presentation I kind of enjoyed it. It was largely factual until that little partisan diatribe at the end. I thank the member and congratulate him for his comments and his participation on the House of Commons finance committee in the pre-budget consultation process. It has been engaging in a very inclusive and educational way. The member for Markham—Unionville who spoke earlier, has also been part of that process.

I would like to respond though because I am sure the members would not want any kind of misperception to be on the record concerning the polling to which the member for Markham—Unionville alluded in terms of polling people who came to the committee and asking them a question concerning the GST.

It is important to put on the record that the question and the way in which it was worded was essentially this: “Would you support raising the GST to 7% again if it meant that we could then fund your specific project?”. The member directed that question to each of the witnesses, as he did at numerous meetings across the country.

Naturally, as we all understand very well, the fundamental principle of concentrated benefits versus disbursed costs, it would be very logical that the people to whom he would direct the question, who would be there on behalf of specific interest groups and lobbying on behalf of their chief issue of concern, would naturally answer yes, that they would like to see the GST higher to support their specific project because they would like to see, obviously, benefits concentrated in the hands of those they are there to represent.

That is quite defensible, However what is not defensible is putting on the record that it is somehow an indication of a broad based concern that the GST was lowered. It certainly is not evidence of that and I am sure the member knows that.

As far as the comments concerning mean-spiritedness, the member did not address a number of issues which I guess is understandable because they certainly supply strong and compelling evidence of something more than a compassionate nature, certainly more compassionate than would be the case under the previous government, the transit pass program, the tools programs, the textbook programs, the kids sports programs and numerous others which the member chose note to address.

No member here has yet addressed those issues. Those seem to be very well received and I think acknowledged by most in the House as positive and progressive initiatives that would be well received by Canadians, most of which were issues that we raised as a party in the last election campaign which saw considerable support brought to our party as a consequence.

The member is essentially saying to the witnesses who asked for more money from the taxpayer that they should trust us with the money. What the members are saying, in contradiction to their previous position on the GST reduction which they supported the abolition of in the past, is that we should keep it higher. The Liberals are asking us to trust them with the money but that they will not trust Canadians with 1% less on the GST. I would like the member to explain why that is.

[Committees of the House, October 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Finance.

This is requesting an extension of 30 sitting days from the hard-working committee to consider Bill C-294, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (sports and recreation programs).

[Petitions, October 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask leave of the House to revert to presenting reports from committees.

[Committees of the House, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to Bill C-13, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on May 2, 2006. The committee reports the bill without amendment.

[Hockeyville, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, next week Canadians will begin the process of selecting Hockeyville, the community that epitomizes the Canadian hockey spirit. This competition, co-sponsored by Kraft Canada and the CBC, has narrowed down, from over 400 entries to a final 25, with voting beginning next week on June 6.

I want to urge my colleagues to support Pilot Mound, Manitoba. This community of 700 people has such a dedication to our national game that they banded together and purchased a surplus rink 1,200 kilometres away. Through volunteer efforts they dismantled, transported and reconstructed that facility, which is nearing completion and which houses not only a hockey rink but also a curling rink, a day care and a theatre.

Over the last seven years the people of Pilot Mound and the surrounding area have dedicated themselves to this wonderful $2.6 million project. Through dozens of fundraising efforts they have already raised about half that amount.

Check out the website at www.pilotmound.com/hockeyville. Next week let us make Pilot Mound Canada's Hockeyville.

[Committees of the House, May 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Finance concerning the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007.

[Indian Act, May 17th, 2006]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-289, An Act to amend the Indian Act (matrimonial real property and immovables).

Mr. Speaker, this bill proposes to establish a matrimonial real property regime on those Indian reserves across Canada where such rules do not currently apply. This proposal states that on reserve residents would be protected by the matrimonial property rules of the province in which the majority of reserve lands are located.

I would emphasize that this bill is interim legislation only and would only apply until first nations assert their own law-making authority. Both the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development have called for immediate action on this issue.

When the matrimonial property rights of aboriginal Canadians, most frequently women and children, are denied, their fundamental human rights are also denied. This bill would end that injustice. I ask for members' support.

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

[Transport, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, last year there were 270 railway crossing accidents in this country in which 97 Canadians were killed or seriously injured. The fact is that many of these accidents could have been prevented with the installation of side reflectors on train cars. Sadly, the previous government did nothing despite repeated calls from the Transportation Safety Board, from safety advocates from coast to coast, and from victims' families.

Will the transport minister today take the long overdue initiative of requiring Canadian railway companies to install reflectors on train cars?