House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was deal.

Last in Parliament September 2008, as Green MP for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country (B.C.)

Lost his last election, in 2008, with 14% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Softwood Lumber September 19th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, given the way the government has browbeaten and threatened the softwood industry into accepting the complete capitulation that is the softwood lumber deal, it comes as no surprise to hear that the minority Conservative government is now threatening to punish those companies that refuse to go along.

Will the Prime Minister spare us the schoolyard bully routine and admit to the House that his trade minister has gone too far with the imposition of a 19% tax on those companies that refuse to sign on to his birthday gift to George Bush?

Business of Supply June 15th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, going through the budget and seeing how the Conservative government has dealt with seniors, the one thing that strikes me right away is the fact that the economic condition that Canada and the Government of Canada finds itself in is one of after 10 years of prosperity, the new government has incredible financial flexibility going forward. We have had record levels of debt being paid off, we have balanced budgets and we have surpluses.

What do we have with respect to seniors in this new budget? I do not think we have anything that is substantial. What we do have is an increase in the tax rate. For many low income Canadians, most of whom are low income seniors, the tax rate goes from 15% to 15.5%. Would the member not acknowledge that due to the increase in the lowest tax rate and a decrease in the personal exemption, we will have more and more Canadians on the tax rolls of this country, many of whom will be seniors? While the GST has been cut by 1%, the Conservatives are giving with pennies and taking away with dollars.

Will the hon. member tell the House exactly how many seniors will be put back on the tax rolls due to the Conservative government's increase in taxes?

Government Policies June 14th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives say Canadians voted for change. Then why are so many of their initiatives based on successful Liberal ideas?

In this spirit, I would like to thank the Conservatives for endorsing the following Liberal achievements:

By re-announcing the $755 million package for grains and oilseeds producers.

By re-introducing Liberal amendments to the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act.

By supporting the Liberal municipal rural infrastructure fund.

By implementing the Liberal residential schools agreement and accepting the Liberal government's good faith agreement to fast track payments to elderly survivors.

By implementing the Liberal campaign pledge to increase the $1,000 refundable medical expense supplement.

And by implementing the Liberal campaign pledge to raise the child disability benefit to $2,300.

Seven Liberal policies adopted by the Conservatives and not one word of thanks.

Softwood Lumber June 13th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, after taxes and adjusting for the stronger dollar, it is estimated that cash-strapped Canfor will likely receive about half a billion dollars in returned illegal duties. That is a quarter of the total after tax return of all duties our industry has paid should this softwood sellout get rammed through.

Can the minister confirm he has had no direct dealings with Canfor as his own declaration to the Ethics Commissioner states, or does the minister expect Canadians to believe that $500 million does not represent a significant impact on Canfor's balance statement?

Softwood Lumber June 13th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, the minister of trade filed a letter of recusal with the Ethics Commissioner in which he undertook to abstain from any participation in discussion or decision making which would involve direct dealings with or a significant impact on Canfor Corporation. As the former CEO of Canfor, which now accounts for 25% of Canada's softwood lumber industry, the minister still retains his entitlement to an unregistered pension plan. Yet when it comes to this weak softwood deal, the minister has muddied the file with his own hands.

My question is straightforward. Has the minister recused himself from this file or has he not?

Income Tax Act June 1st, 2006

Mr. Speaker, I believe this bill's intentions are in the right place. As the sports critic for my party, I believe that we should do much more to help our young athletes succeed, but simply put, I do not understand what, if anything, this bill would do.

I understand that the idea behind it is to make allowances paid to young athletes by not for profit organizations tax free up to a sum of $350 per month, but these are athletes that do not make tremendous amounts of money in the first place. In fact, a typical junior A hockey player, of which I was one, will probably only receive $300 a month from his or her team. During an eight month season, that amounts to only $2,400.

The basic personal exemption rate in Canada is $8,639 per year. That is the amount of money one can earn in a year without having to pay any income tax. When all is said and done and the tax season rolls around, I would be very surprised to see that any of these athletes would have earned enough money from their small allowances to pay any taxes at all. Therefore, I ask what the benefit is here. I do not see one. I believe it is just smoke and mirrors.

Admittedly, the Conservative government has just lowered the basic personal exemption and forced Canadians to pay more taxes, but even with the Tory tax hike, I do not think young Canadian athletes would have extra money from this allowance that would exceed $9,000 a year. It is just not going to add up. If the hon. member is actually concerned about these athletes, he should ask his colleague, the Minister of Finance, not to lower the basic personal exemption by $200 this year.

The bill will also make allowances paid to people on behalf of the hockey player tax free up to $350. This also has a nice ring to it, but again it is very disingenuous and is very much smoke and mirrors.

Take, for instance, Canadians who open up their homes and hearts to billet young athletes who must move away from home to compete. These kind Canadians are the reason that so many young athletes get to follow their dreams. Surely they deserve a break on their taxes, but in fact, they already get one. The Canada Revenue Agency treats the monthly allowance that billeters receive from clubs as non-taxable. It is a good thing too because as a young athlete myself, I probably ate twice as much as the billeters received for an allowance, but admittedly, that may not always be the case.

The Canada Revenue Agency might consider the allowance as taxable income if the family hosts multiple athletes in a businesslike manner with the intent of making money from the venture, but the vast majority of times these allowances are not taxed. Once again I have to wonder what this bill is trying to achieve. Maybe it is just trying to deceive Canadian taxpayers. The bill is attempting to make an allowance that generally is not taxed not taxable. I am all for supporting Canadian athletes but there must be dozens of more tangible and practical ways to do this.

I have some other questions about this bill. What does the hon. member consider to be reasonable expenses? Does he think that the Canada Revenue Agency will share his view on these reasonable expenses? If, for example, an athlete plays hockey for six months of the year, will he get to claim $2,100 or will he get to claim the entire year at $4,800? Why is this aimed only at athletes? Just as with the government's lacklustre budget, there is no consideration here for artists, musicians, writers, performers, or actors.

I feel that the hon. member is trying to move in the right direction and we do need to support our young athletes much more. I am, however, at a great loss as to how this bill would actually help them at all.

This bill is just more smoke and mirrors where athletes, coaches and parents deserve much more. This bill falls far short of the mark. There is so much more the government could do, that this Parliament should do, directly for our young athletes, coaches and parents. I am sorry, but this bill falls far short of the mark.

Softwood Lumber June 1st, 2006

Mr. Speaker, Canada needs someone with the strength of a redwood on this file, not a twig. This duck and hide minister is intent on leaving our industry in turmoil.

The market conditions for this deal have drastically changed in just one month. The very future of our industry is under economic jeopardy.

Will the minister allow our industry to be fleeced by the American lumber bullies or does he not have the backbone to stand up to the Americans?

Softwood Lumber June 1st, 2006

Mr. Speaker, at least I can leave Ottawa and go back to Vancouver.

Softwood Lumber June 1st, 2006

Mr. Speaker, when the trade minister was a Liberal he used to brag about getting tough and taking numbers. Now that he is a Conservative all he does is take dictation for the American lumber industry.

The softwood lumber deal, negotiated by the head butler for the U.S. lumber lobbyists, permanently weakens Canada's right to free trade under NAFTA. It makes a sham of our legal victories and hands Canada's sovereignty over to the U.S. Even the U.S. trade lawyers think Canada was suckered.

Why is the Conservative government so focused on signing a deal that is only good for Americans?

Passports May 31st, 2006

Mr. Speaker, excuses like that might fly in Washington, but they sure will not work in British Columbia.

My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. In a recent November 2005 news article in the New Glasgow Evening News, the Minister of Foreign Affairs wrote, “Moving to a rigid 'passport-only' requirement will almost certainly harm cross-border travel, hurting tourism” and resulting in tourism losses on the Canadian side that “would amount to nearly $1 billion” a year.

Will the minister now eat his words or will he continue to con Canadians?