Jeff Watson

[Finance, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this weekend Liberal leadership wannabe, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, said that he would cancel all the tax credits the government introduced. That means getting rid of the transit pass tax credit in favour of higher emissions, getting rid of the sports tax credit for families enrolling their kids in sports and physical activities, and the former professor will end tax credits for students. I guess that is the Harvard way. It is certainly not the Canadian way.

Could the finance minister tell us why taking away these tax credits is simply the wrong way to go?

[The Environment, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals promised to cut greenhouse gases to 6% below 1990 emissions. Their policy according to Liberal Tom Axworthy “wasn't real anyway” and emissions under the liberals rose by 35%. Now he may have gotten it wrong on emissions, but the former Prime Minister understands what it is to cut. He successfully cut the budget for the environment by 40%.

His family shipping empire did its environmental part too by sweeping iron ore pellets from cargo holds to the bottom of the Great Lakes when no one was looking.

The Liberals failed to clean up the Sydney Tar Ponds too, preferring instead study after study on the issue. There has been more than a decade of inaction by Liberals on cleaning up toxic sites in Canada.

Now back in Essex, where smog advisories filled 13 summer calendars under the Liberals, we look forward to the easier breathing days of winter. Not so in the last election where the former PMs top belching jet paid us three lung-clogging visits in his desperate “cling to government tour”.

Canadians were not fooled though. They chose a Conservative government for real, positive environmental change.

[Veterans Affairs, May 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, our military men and women fought for our freedom and many lost their lives doing so. This year veterans of the Essex and Kent Scottish Regiment are planning to replace a memorial at Dieppe, France.

Could the Minister of Veterans Affairs tell us what the government is doing to ensure our veterans complete this project?

[Afghanistan, May 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is not just Liberal members who backtracked on their commitment to our troops in Afghanistan. The member for Sackville—Eastern Shore originally said:

The answer is yes, I support the mission and the troops in Afghanistan and so does my party....

Then, in an odd twist of logic, he said that he would abstain from the vote because he supported our troops. Finally, he showed up and voted against our troops.

The member for Halifax said:

It's not a question of should we be in Afghanistan. Yes, we should, we need to be, we need to be in for the long haul.

She too voted against our troops.

The member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie said:

Well, I think supporting the troops... I do agree with that... we think we should have a debate... So we still like to have a vote, and we'll vote in favour.'

Yet the member turned around and voted against our troops.

I find it sad that opposition members would play politics with this mission.

Not long ago many opposition members pledged full support for our troops. On Wednesday they flip-flopped and chose to vote against the government instead. Our military men and women deserve better.

[Canada Pension Plan, May 17th, 2006]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-306, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (early pension entitlement for police officers and firefighters).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill on behalf of our hard-working police and firefighters. Firefighting and policing are physically and emotionally demanding and, as we learned with the recent death of Senior Constable John Atkinson of the Windsor Police Service, it is very dangerous as well.

Early retirement has long been accepted as being in the best interests of officers, their families and the public they serve. Our Income Tax Act permits police and firefighters to retire early at age 55. The officers and firefighters who retire early do not currently have the ability to make CPP contributions from 55 to 60 years of age. This bill is intended to address that concern.

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

[Income Tax Act, May 17th, 2006]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-305, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (exemption from taxation of 50% of United States social security payments to Canadian residents).

Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed to restore tax fairness to Canadians, especially Canadian seniors who worked in the U.S. but lived and invested in our communities across Canada. Ten years ago they received a 70% tax hike. This bill seeks to reverse that. This bill received broad support from members in the last Parliament and was sent to committee. I look forward to their support again to ensure our seniors receive their deserved tax fairness.

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

[Federal-Provincial Relations, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, first it was ethics amnesia, and now the Liberals forget how badly they beat up Dalton McGuinty. The premier has not forgotten. Neither have we.

The Liberal from Scarborough--Agincourt accused Mr. McGuinty of scapegoating the previous federal Liberal government to get re-elected, never mind that Mr. McGuinty was in year one of a four year term. It sounds more like what the former Liberal government was doing on the brink of collapse under the weight of its own corruption.

Members do not have take my word: let us take the words of the Liberal from Markham--Unionville, who accused Mr. McGuinty of not standing up for Canada. How could Mr. McGuinty, when he, according to the member, was horizontal, in bed with the separatist Bloc to defeat the Liberals in Ottawa? He called Mr. McGuinty “nationally dangerous” too.

The Liberal from Toronto Centre called Mr. McGuinty “unwise”. The Liberal from Don Valley West said he was like a rich man complaining, or passing strange, as the Liberal from Scarborough--Guildwood said. The Liberal from Pickering--Scarborough East admitted to no decent working relationship.

No wonder more Ontarians chose this Conservative government to improve relations between Ottawa and Queen's Park.

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member for Malpeque produced a report last year that recommended direct financial support to farm families for child care, not a nine to five bureaucratic day care plan. The Conservative child care plan, a universal benefit to all families, includes farm families. It is what this report called for.

I know hon. Liberal members like to say that we are wrong, but is the hon. member saying that his Liberal colleague from Malpeque is wrong?

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, last year in the House when the former minister of social development was before a committee of the whole, he said, “The central developmental relationship is a parent to its child”. That is not a child to a child care worker or a child to an ECE teacher. That is a child to his or her parent or parents. Yet the member opposite promotes a system of child care that encourages the separation of parents from their children, from that central developmental relationship.

Is the true best start for children not with their parents, or does the member believe the best start for children is to replace parents with government day care?

[Liberal Party of Canada, May 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, spring is in the air and Liberal leadership candidates have sprung up across Canada wondering where all the Liberal ad scam cash has gone.

The member for Kings—Hants said that the dirty money never went to the Liberal Party. We knew his pants were on fire, but it took Justice Gomery to catch the Liberal Party red-handed. Then the member said that the dirty money was paid back. Not so say his Liberal colleagues from Etobicoke—Lakeshore and York Centre.

It is hard to follow the ad scam dirty money trail, but let us try. Start with the Liberal Party of Canada, add a few Samsonites stuffed with thousands in small, probably unmarked taxpayer dollars, throw in a great Italian restaurant, a few brown envelopes and 18 Liberal Party candidates in need of serious cash donations and what do we get? Every rule in the book broken, $40 million still missing after a forensic audit, and a Liberal Party badly in need of being sued.

With Liberal leadership hopefuls finally admitting the dirty money has not been paid back, when can Canadians expect the Liberal Party cheque for $40 million, and could that cheque be certified?