Blair Wilson

[Petitions, June 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand and present this income trust broken promise petition on behalf of Howard Stevenson who remembers the Prime Minister reflecting on his apparent commitment to accountability when he said, “The greatest fraud is a promise not kept”.

The petitioners remind the Prime Minister that he promised never to tax income trusts, but he recklessly broke that promise by imposing a 31.5% punitive tax which permanently wiped out $25 billion of hard-earned retirement savings of over two million Canadians, particularly Canadian seniors.

The petitioners therefore call upon the Conservative minority government to admit that the decision to tax income trusts was based on flawed methodology and incorrect assumptions, to apologize to those who were unfairly harmed by this broken promise, and to repeal the punitive 31.5% tax on income trusts.

[Business of the House, June 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the three issues here that deal specifically with the motion that was put before the House.

The first issue I want to deal with is the very substantive nature and the facts behind Standing Order 53.(1).

The second point that I would like to talk a bit about is the heavy-handedness that this Conservative government is using to squash debate here.

The third point, and I have (a), (b) and (c) on my point of order, is dealing with the urgency.

All of them deal with the validity of putting this motion forward.

Mr. Speaker, if I could draw your attention to Standing Order 53.(1), it says:

In relation to any matter that the government considers to be of an urgent nature, a Minister of the Crown may, at any time when the Speaker is in the Chair, propose a motion to suspend any Standing or other Order of this House relating to the need for notice and to the hours and days of sitting.

In order for him to propose this motion, he must suspend any Standing Order or other order of this House. At the time the motion was put forward, we were dealing with private members' business. I would question the validity of putting that motion forward during a time that we were dealing with private members' business.

The second part of my dispute with respect to this motion has to deal, obviously, with the heavy-handed nature that this Conservative government is dealing with debate in the House.

It says here specifically, and I am quoting from the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, that “the Speaker may permit debate thereon for a period not exceeding one hour”. It is up to the Speaker's discretion whether or not he or she is going to allow a debate. Mr. Speaker, you obviously already ruled from the chair that you would allow one hour's debate.

I know it is a Friday afternoon, but I will tell members that I will stay here as long as it takes to debate any motion the government puts before this House. So I would ask the Speaker to extend that.

The third issue that I have dealing specifically with this motion deals with the urgency of this matter. How can the chief government whip stand here and say there is an urgent matter he has to deal with when the federal government now has a $9.2 billion surplus? I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, with a $9.2 billion surplus, there are a lot of things that I think are very urgent: the Kelowna accord being--

[Business of the House, June 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to draw the House's attention to Standing Order 53.(3), where it says:

Proceedings on any such motion shall be subject to the following conditions:

(a) the Speaker may permit debate thereon for a period not exceeding one hour;

b) the motion shall not be subject to amendment except by a Minister of the Crown;

(c) no Member may speak more than once nor longer than ten minutes; and

(d) proceedings on any such motion shall not be interrupted or adjourned by any other proceeding or by the operation of any other Order of this House.

Therefore, I would agree with the Speaker's first ruling that there is one hour of debate required before this gets brought any further.

[Criminal Code, June 4th, 2007]

We are. The number of firearms we have per capita--

[Business of Supply, May 17th, 2007]

Mr. Chair, is the minister telling us that he has not been briefed by VANOC, he has not been briefed by the province of British Columbia, and he has no idea what is going on for the security of the 2010 Olympics? Is that what he is saying?

[Business of Supply, May 17th, 2007]

Mr. Chair, as the minister knows, the federal government is responsible for providing security for the 2010 Olympics and Paralympic Games in Whistler and Vancouver. What steps has the minister taken to meet these security requirements for the 2010 Olympics?

[Business of Supply, May 17th, 2007]

Mr. Chair, in order to get this equipment rapidly to the Canadian Forces, how much did the U.S. navy charge Canada for handling these purchases?

[Business of Supply, May 17th, 2007]

Mr. Chair, then why were these purchases handled by the U.S. navy and not by the Government of Canada?

[Business of Supply, May 17th, 2007]

Mr. Chair, I look forward to the minister's response.

Will the minister's former client, BAE Systems, profit from the purchase, as it did from the Nyala purchase last year?

[Business of Supply, May 17th, 2007]

Mr. Chair, could the minister tell us what the delivery date of these vehicles will be?