John Williams

[Privilege, November 14th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, my question was, if you give the government extra time are you going to give the opposition extra time too?

[Privilege, November 14th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, if you are going to give the government side extra time, are you going to give the opposition members extra time when their time runs out too?

[Energy Costs Assistance Measures Act, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to that very technical speech by my hon. colleague from the governing party about what people are doing with energy savings and so on.

Energy savings are great, but this is a place for debate. Members come here, the government makes a proposition, we debate whether it is good, bad or indifferent, whether it needs to be changed, and whether we like it or do not like it and so on, but far too often I get the impression that members on the government side are reading some bafflegab prepared by a government department.

They come in here and read these wonderfully crafted speeches with all kinds of technical data, telling us that light bulbs save so much energy and we should replace so many light bulbs and so on, but that is not debate. That is basically just being a mouthpiece for the department and the government. We would expect members standing in the House to enter into debate and give forth their own opinions.

The member had his own opinion in the last couple of minutes of his speech. He said he liked the idea because this is for people who need it.

What about the working poor? They are not going to see a dime. What about the childless couples who do not get the child benefit? They are not going to see a dime. How can he stand in the House and tell us how great this program is when a whole bunch of poor Canadians are not going to see a dime from this program? As for the government members who stand here and say this is a wonderful thing, I say that these people are deserving just like others and will need help just like others.

What is he going to do for them? That is what I want to hear.

[Sponsorship Program, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today, Mr. Justice Gomery confirmed what members of the Conservative Party have been saying for years. The sponsorship program was a money laundering scheme by the Liberal Party that is the most shameful scandal in our history.

What is very clear from Justice Gomery's report is that the Liberal Party of Canada is a corrupt organization, plain and simple, and that the culture of entitlement runs rampant in the Liberal Party.

The sponsorship program was directed at the highest levels by Liberal appointees of the government. It was designed not to save the country but to enrich friends of the Liberal Party and to pay the Liberal Party's election expenses courtesy of the Canadian taxpayer. Every law and every rule in the book were completely trashed by Liberal ministers and Liberal lobbyists.

Mr. Justice Gomery has indeed confirmed that the Liberal ethical deficit is like a bottomless pit. It is time to throw the bums out at the next election.

[Committees of the House, October 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 21st report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on the public accounts of Canada 2005. In accordance with Standing Order 109, your committee requests a government response within 120 days.

[Committees of the House, October 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 20th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts concerning Bill C-277, an act to amend the Auditor General's Act (audit of accounts). Mr. Speaker, your committee recommends that the House of Commons not proceed further with the bill as Bill C-43 achieves goals similar to those proposed in Bill C-277.

[Committees of the House, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts concerning chapter 5, “Management of Public Opinion Research”, of the November 2003 report of the Auditor General of Canada.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, your committee requests a comprehensive government response within 120 days.

[Extension of Sitting Period, June 23rd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am glad he did ask about how low can they go because I am not sure we have found out how low they actually can go. Let us talk about the EI surplus which is at $40 billion. That is theft out of the pockets of the working people. The auto workers who voted for the NDP and the Liberals have been squeezed to support the cash hungry Liberal Party that thinks it deserves to be in power by taking the $40 billion out of the pockets of working Canadians.

That is how low the Liberals and NDP go. Canadians will see the light and, when they do, they will be gone.

[Extension of Sitting Period, June 23rd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, of course the Liberals and the NDP will soak anybody for a tax dollar if they get the chance, including the auto workers who support the NDP.

It is interesting that our finance critic has been challenging the Minister of Finance these last few days about the tax on the tax on the gasoline that is now costing 90¢ a litre and our auto industry is in deep trouble because although people like to drive SUVs they cannot afford to keep them on the road anymore because of the tax on the GST, and the excise tax and the provincial Liberal taxes on the price of gasoline. Had these taxes not been there, gas would be affordable for Canadians and they could drive the car that they wanted. However this tax, tax, tax until people squeak is the way the government has survived so far.

It is interesting in Bill C-48 that any money the government has over and above a $2 billion surplus is to be spent. Let us just blow the wad. There is no concept that this is taxpayers' money in trust and if it is not needed it should be given back. No, no. Just blow the wad. The Liberals and the NDP are now cozying up to support each other at the expense of Canadians, not for Canadians.

[Extension of Sitting Period, June 23rd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, yes, we did support the budget. It did contain a tax cut, which the Liberals took away and threw away because they had to pay for the NDP votes that they bought.

I think back to October 2000 when we were presented with a mini budget the week before an election was called. It was presented at the time by the then minister of finance, who is now the Prime Minister, and it contained $100 billion in tax cuts. He was so proud of that and then they went off and won the election on the tax cuts that they promised because Canadians want tax cuts.

I have already explained why we cannot absorb $1.6 billion in the housing industry. It is because it is going flat out. The way he trashes the province of Alberta, he must not realize that the Deputy Prime Minister is on a knife edge. She is my neighbour in the city of Edmonton, in the province of Alberta, and if he keeps talking that way he can kiss her goodbye because she will be gone.