House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2004, with 67% of the vote.
Petitions February 11th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to present three petitions, all on the same subject.
The petitioners from across my riding, from one end to the other, urge the government to move to protect and preserve the definition of marriage as that between one man and one woman.
Income Tax Act February 11th, 2004
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-475, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (tuition credit and education credit).
Mr. Speaker, it is a honour for me to rise today to introduce my bill after a lot of consultations across Canada and to give first reading to my private member's bill which seeks to amend the Income Tax Act by extending the tuition credit and education credit to individuals who follow a formal course of instruction provided by a qualified music instructor.
At the present time, music instructors who do not teach in a recognized institution of higher learning are ineligible to provide their students with this benefit, despite the fact that their training could be the same or more advanced than an instructor in an institution. Certainly the great benefit to the student is no less, whether or not they are enrolled in a recognized institution.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Petitions November 7th, 2003
Madam Speaker, I have three petitions to present today.
The first petition is from the community of High Prairie in my riding of Athabasca and two from the community of Fort McMurray. All three petitions concern the same subject.
The petitioners are urging Parliament to take action to protect the charter right of religious freedom for Canadians in the issue of Bill C-250.
The petitioners are pleading with Parliament to take some action, not only to protect gays and lesbians under the bill, but to also protect the religious freedom of Canadians.
Aboriginal Affairs November 7th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, we were assured by the government that the Mackenzie Valley pipeline would proceed as normal despite the allegations of the Deh Cho first nation about a conflict of interest with a senior bureaucrat from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
We now know that the actions of the aboriginal affairs minister have put the project timeline at risk. A lawsuit is being prepared which could tie up the pipeline for years. All of this is because the minister has refused to meet with this group.
Why has the Prime Minister allowed the childish actions of this minister to put the pipeline project at risk?
Liberal Government Policies November 7th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's attempts to deceive Canadians have no limits. At every opportunity the Liberals pay lip service to Canadians by saying one thing but doing something quite the opposite.
In 1999 the government voted to support the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. Within the past few months we have seen it not only reverse this position but to actively campaign against it.
Last week the Liberal government supported our motion unanimously to protect children against child pornography. Bill C-20 is the government's answer to protect children. The bill takes out the outrageous defence of “artistic merit” and replaces it with “the public good” which, given recent court rulings, could mean anything.
The government promised Canadians a sex offender registry but continues to avoid giving us an effective registry.
Is it any wonder that Canadians are losing confidence in government. Canadians deserve better.
Natural Resources November 5th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, despite any legal definition, Canadians believe that members of Parliament are government officials. As of noon today, the application form on the government website had not been changed. When will the application form be amended to ensure that there is no confusion in this regard?
Natural Resources November 5th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources now has had 24 hours to review the invitation to proponents for the ethanol expansion program.
Could the minister confirm to the House that constituents can consult with their member of Parliament without fear that their application will be disqualified from the ethanol expansion program?
Privilege November 4th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege on a matter arising out of question period.
In answer to a question, the Minister of Natural Resources failed to provide any assurance that constituents consulting with their members of Parliament could disqualify their application under the government's ethanol expansion program.
The only assurances the minister gave was that he would not hold any information about the program from a member of Parliament. That was not the issue. The issue was the communication between a constituent and a member of Parliament.
The minister's failure to clearly answer the question casts doubt on the privilege to have constituents communicate to members of Parliament in their respective capacity without fear of consequence.
Chapter 6 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada addresses the issue of protection afforded members and their constituents. It concludes, on page 112 and 113, that:
A constituent may in good faith communicate to a member of the House of Commons in his representative capacity upon any subject matter in which the constituent has an interest or in reference to which he has a duty.
“The interest may be in respect of very varied and different matters...
Chapter 6 discusses a number of reasons why this right exists. This information could be used in various proceedings of Parliament, such as written questions, oral questions and production of papers.
On page 112 of Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , he goes further in reference to Whitaker and C.U.P.W. v. Huntington, 1980. He states:
Where [a member]...receives in his capacity and function of Member of Parliament in regard to which he would have, as M.P., a common interest, he may pass that on to the proper authority, whether or not he uses the information in a proceeding or debate of Parliament, provided he does so in good faith.
The invitation to proponents application for the ethanol expansion program violates this privilege. It states:
To ensure the integrity of the selection process, all enquiries and other communications about this ITP, from the issue date of the ITP to the closing date and time, are to be directed only to the following individual: Christopher Johnstone, Chief, Ethanol Expansion Office of Energy Efficiency, Natural Resources Canada.
Enquiries and other communications are not to be directed to any other government official(s). Failure to comply with this paragraph 1 can (for that reason alone) result in the disqualification of the Proponent. Information obtained from any other source is not official and should not be relied upon.
If a constituent feels recourse for providing me with information, I am indirectly impeded in the performance of my duties in almost every capacity.
If I receive such information, I would be reluctant to use it out of fear of grave consequences to my constituent. The simple act of passing that information on to the proper authority would bring to my constituent an unwanted outcome.
This is unacceptable. I ask that the Speaker rule on this question of privilege.
Natural Resources November 4th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, as the minister's colleague said a few minutes ago, if he needs help to understand the website, I can provide him with that information.
However, applicants have been told that they cannot talk to their member of Parliament. To ban communications with MPs on any government program could constitute a breach of a member's privileges.
Why are applicants being forbidden from speaking to their members of Parliament about this program?
Natural Resources November 4th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, within the invitation to applicants for the new ethanol expansion program, applicants are instructed to communicate to only one bureaucrat. It is quite clear if they talk to anyone else about their application, it could disqualify them from the program.
Canadians have a right to talk to their member of Parliament about their dealings with government. To disqualify someone for simply doing so is offensive.
Are members of Parliament included in this prohibition?