Garth Turner

[Address in Reply, October 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member opposite is in the light that Canadians must be shaking their heads at one of the most tepid and vacuous speeches from the throne they have ever heard. It makes us wonder why in fact there was a Speech from the Throne when nothing but a regurgitated agenda has been put forward.

Both the member who seconded the motion and the member who put forward the motion said that the government does not want an election and if the opposition does not support the throne speech, there will be an election.

Could the member explain to the people of Canada why we cannot do our jobs as members of Parliament, as members of the opposition? Why can we not look at these pieces of legislation and make amendments where necessary, improve the legislation if necessary and oppose the legislation where necessary? It does not mean that Canadians have to go to an election. Are you trying to bully the House? Are you trying to bully Canadians?

[Income Trusts, June 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, taxpayers showed up in Waterloo, Ontario last Monday, as they did in Burlington last week, and as they will in Whitby next week and in scores of other cities.

Income trust investors are asking for one thing above all, proof that the government was justified in decimating their savings with a new tax and a broken promise.

Canadians deserve answers, not blacked out pages, not moody arrogance from the Minister of Finance. It is time he told us the truth, so let us have it.

[Conservative Party of Canada, June 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley was thrown out of the Conservative caucus for doing what an MP should do and that is to represent his constituents.

The member for Wellington—Halton Hills left the Conservative cabinet because he is a man of principle and he could no longer follow the Prime Minister.

The member for South Shore—St. Margaret's is struggling to stand up for his voters against relentless pressure from the PMO.

My question for the Prime Minister is this: what does he have against honest MPs doing their jobs?

[Income Trusts, June 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is a profound sign of disrespect, not to me, I do not care, but to Canadians that the Minister of Finance will not even rise to answer this question.

He talks about pension splitting, but 70% of Canadians have no pension. He is taking $25 billion from Canadians with income trusts.

I ask him one more time. What is the purpose of the government taking $25 billion from seniors? Why should we be taxing the life out of them? Minister, withdraw.

[Income Trusts, June 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, tonight we vote on legislation which will destroy the hopes and savings of millions of Canadians. When the Conservatives and their NDP buddies support the taxing of income trusts, they will betray more than two million Canadians, many of them seniors, with a broken promise.

These victims have been asking the Minister of Finance for two things: proof that his crushing tax was necessary and some compassion. So far he has given none.

I ask him for the last time. With just a few hours left, will he release the data justifying this tax?

[Privilege, May 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is important for the chief government whip to remember that the standing committees of the House were put together not simply to be a reflection and extension of the partisan nature of the debate that takes place in this chamber.

Committees were always designed to be all-party working groups, where members of Parliament from all parties could get together, discuss and modify legislation, hear expert testimony, and come to conclusions. They can bring forward to committees topics of interest that their constituents want them to raise that may not necessarily make it into the chamber due to the overly formal structure that has evolved over the past number of years. Committees have always been extremely important elements where individual members can express the representations of their own constituencies.

I well remember when I was here last time. The chief government whip was not here and perhaps has not acquired the same perspective over a longer period of time that some of us have. However, committees in the past have certainly represented members' aspirations and allowed individual members to bring to that forum issues important to their constituents. It also allowed a very important thing to happen and that is compromise. That is the nature of all party politics: to find compromise and move issues ahead in the interests of all Canadians.

When the government party requires its members to caucus before committee meetings, it certainly is an extension of the block voting mentality we see in the chamber. I would certainly support a motion if it were on the table. That would be very valid because we need to be reminded constantly of the nature and importance of committees.

[Privilege, May 28th, 2007]

Why don't you table it?

[Privilege, May 28th, 2007]

Table it. Let's see it.

[Income Trusts, May 16th, 2007]

I thank the member for Peterborough for eating up some time uselessly.

As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, my fifth point here is that we have an unfairness this week that is overwhelming.

This past Monday, the Minister of Finance went to Bay Street and at the modest urging of corporate Canada did a flip-flop and all of a sudden eliminated a $1 billion tax loophole from his budget. Yet, he does not have the decency to stand in this House and even apologize to investors from whom he stole twenty-five--

[Income Trusts, May 16th, 2007]

No, Mr. Speaker, I am on debate.