House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 42% of the vote.
Committees of the House February 2nd, 2005
Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and I believe you will find unanimous consent in the House for the following motion:
That the membership on the Standing Committee of Procedure and House Affairs be amended by replacing the name of John Reynolds with the name of Jay Hill.
Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2004 December 14th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I too want to congratulate the member for Medicine Hat on his comments to the House on this particular bill. I was interested in some comments he made toward the end that reiterated a point he made earlier, which was that he would have been pleased to have seen something come forward from the government that would result in tax cuts, and that while it is supportable that we are moving ahead to avoid double taxation, I think he quite correctly points out that most Canadians would be very pleased to get some sort of tax break. Certainly they have not seen it from the government.
The parliamentary secretary said, and I think I am quoting him, that he agrees with just about everything that the member for Medicine Hat said. Since the member for Medicine Hat made a point on two occasions in his speech of mentioning that he would like to see tax cuts, I suppose one could take some comfort from that, but this brings me to the question I want to ask the member for Medicine Hat.
He said in his concluding remarks that he looks forward to the day when he sees the government come forward with a bill that will cut taxes for Canadians. It is on this point that I want to ask him a question.
After seeing the performance of the government, does he think that is a realistic option? Is that just something that he hopes to see from the government? Or is it more realistic to say that Canadians will have to wait until the member for Medicine Hat is part of a government and he brings in those tax cuts? I would ask him to comment on that.
Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2004 December 14th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments of the parliamentary secretary. I would guess that a bill like this works into the overall context of coming up with fair taxation policies between all the countries of the world, and this is just the latest instalment. It brings Canada into agreement with a number of countries to ensure that people are treated fairly. This is presumably a step forward for Canadians who live in Gabon or those from Gabon who live in Canada as well as the other countries mentioned.
I was interested in what the parliamentary secretary had to say on the bill. The contents of the bill are perfectly reasonable and of course are a step in the right direction. I hope the parliamentary secretary would agree with me that more has to be done between Canada and other countries of the world.
I would like to bring to his attention one of the unfairnesses that exists between Canada and, my example, that of the United Kingdom.
There is a treaty between Canada and Great Britain that protects individuals against double taxation. Of course that would be a very important one. As important as the countries are, as listed by the parliamentary secretary, hundreds of thousands of people who originally lived or were citizens of the United Kingdom now reside in Canada and vice versa. It is a very important relationship.
Therefore, I would like to bring to his attention a matter that has been brought to my attention. That is the treatment of pensions of individuals who live in one or the other countries. Specifically, I have individuals in my riding, and of course individuals throughout Canada, who have obtained a pension from the United Kingdom for whatever reason, but those pensions are not indexed. We have the situation where people may have emigrated from Britain say in 1970, they become entitled to a British pension, but their pensions are not indexed. Once one makes inquiries as to why they are not indexed, they say that there is no reciprocal treaty between Canada and the United Kingdom.
For instance, if a Canadian goes to the United Kingdom, there is no arrangements to have these pensions indexed. It seems to me that might be an area for the parliamentary secretary and the department to look into. We want to ensure that Canadians who live in Great Britain and British citizens who live in Canada get every benefit.
I know if one is entitled to American social security, that is indexed even though one is a resident of Canada and likewise if one is a Canadian citizen living in the United States. There is no problem with the indexing of Canadian pensions.
My understanding is that all this would take is an agreement that both countries would do it for the residents of each other's country. It seems in line with what the parliamentary secretary said about increasing the fairness to citizens who live abroad. This is something else I hope he would add to the list of things I am sure he is looking into.
Mirabel Airport December 1st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the minister has been hiding behind a technical argument, that he cannot do anything about a corporation that he controls. He knows that is a bunch of nonsense. We have been telling the minister, and I think he knows this, that a terrible mistake has been made at Mirabel. It is a mistake that touches the lives of people, some of whom can trace their family history back 300 years on that place.
I think the minister knows in his heart that a terrible mistake has been made. I am asking him to do the right thing. Give those 11,000 acres back to the rightful owners. Do the right thing. It is not that bad.
Mirabel Airport December 1st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Yesterday, the House of Commons passed a Conservative motion to give the land in Mirabel back to its rightful owners. When will the minister dare to give back the confiscated land? When?
Child Pornography November 29th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, sentencing is not the only thing wrong with that legislation. The minister knows that the artistic merit defence has a loophole that lawyers could drive a truck through.
Now that the minister is beginning to admit he was wrong on sentencing, will he do the right thing and drop the undue risk of harm defence and really start protecting Canadian children?
Child Pornography November 29th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
For years we have been telling the Liberals that Canadians want minimum sentences for people who deal in child pornography. Up until now the minister and his party have been attacking us and thwarting the will of Canadians. Now we see in today's paper that the minister is willing to consider minimum sentences.
What brought about this conversion? What minimum sentence is the minister proposing?
Supply November 25th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member on his comments. His very last comment was that he hoped that the House would support the motion. I can tell the hon. member that the transport committee, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Transport Minister I am sure is aware, has just passed a motion similar to this which calls upon the government to finally admit the mistakes it has made over these last 30 years and begin the process of returning that land to the people who owned it.
I do not know whether the parliamentary secretary mentioned this because I just came into the chamber, but that was supported by all the opposition parties which represent a majority in the 38th Parliament. All the way around the Liberals are the only hold outs and they have been holding out for 30 years. They have refused to say they are sorry to the people whose lives they disrupted. I know many of the people in the Liberal Party and deep down they are sorry, but they are restrained, whether it is the frontbench or they cannot admit that they made this mistake.
I did not hear all of the comments by the parliamentary secretary. I will ask the hon. member, did he hear anything in the comments from the members of the Liberal side acknowledging this terrible mistake that they made 30 years ago and that they have done everything possible to perpetuate this ever since that time?
Supply November 25th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the member touches on a very important topic and this cavalier attitude toward people who own property is much too pervasive. It is not just at the federal level, it is also at the provincial level.
In my area of Niagara, and indeed southern Ontario, the Ontario government comes out with a green plan, a very laudable plan, to protect agricultural land. Who is going to disagree with that? As a municipal councillor, I said that I was having trouble finding in the proposal where it said that cheques would be sent to the people whose land would be affected. I asked whether the Ontario government would be sending cheques to those farmers who all of a sudden are told that they are now part of a green plan and will not be able to use their land for anything other than agriculture.
That was not in there because of this cavalier attitude toward people who own property. It is wrong. The members of our party will challenge that wherever we find it and on every occasion.
Supply November 25th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, this is an old ploy by the Liberal Party. It sets up a wholly publicly owned crown corporation and then says that it cannot deal with it. The Liberals turned over land to the St. Lawrence Seaway. They do not know what they are supposed to do since Aéroports de Montréal has the land. Good heavens above, if they cannot govern then they should resign and get out of the business of government.
If there is a problem within federal jurisdiction, which this clearly is, they should come back to Parliament and change the law. That would be start to addressing the problem. They cannot address the problem by throwing up their hands and saying that they cannot do anything. They have only been in government for 80 of the last 100 years. If they cannot handle the business they should turn it over to a group of individuals who can get some of these things done.
I do not want to be partisan about this but I must say to all the members that they do not have to apologize for the mistakes that Liberal governments of the past made. What they need to do is get on board with this thing and do the right thing by Canadians.