Andrew Saxton

[Business of Supply, March 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague suggests that we introduce a level of censorship in free speech in this country and I do not think that is worthwhile. It is up to Canadians to decide what they want to read and what they do not want to read. It is not up to us to tell them what they can and cannot read. I do not agree with the hon. member's suggestion that we introduce a level of censorship on ten percenters.

[Business of Supply, March 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, ten percenters play an important role in our democracy. It is a very important way for us to communicate with our constituents. It is a cost effective and cost efficient way as well. Ten percenters are sent out by the kilogram. They are not addressed to specific constituents. It is by far the most cost effective and efficient way for us to communicate with our constituents.

The hon. member may not like what he sees in some of the ten percenters but I can tell him that these are quotes from colleagues in his party. If they do not like the quotes, they should stop saying them. If they do not like the facts, they should change them. If they do not like the policies of their party, they should change them as well.

[Business of Supply, March 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise today to speak to the Liberal opposition motion moved by Malpeque's million-dollar man.

I found it ironic that it was the Liberal Party that moved this motion. After all, the Liberal Party was in charge for 13 long years in this country and it owned the podium when it came to wasting taxpayers' dollars. From the $2 billion spent on the long gun registry, to the billion-dollar boondoggle at Human Resources, to the millions of taxpayers' dollars stolen, the fake Groupaction contracts, and the brown envelopes left at Frank's Restaurant by senior members of the Liberal Party during the sponsorship scandal, the Liberal Party is the top dog when it comes to government waste. And, yes, it was Malpeque's million-dollar man, the same Liberal member who moved this motion today, who was part of that government that wasted and, yes, stole taxpayers' dollars. How can he get up in this House today and have the sheer chutzpah to move this motion? I do not know.

However, let me move specifically to address the issue of what we call ten percenters. As members are aware, a significant portion of today's motion deals with the issue of ten percenters.

As we know, part of being an effective member of Parliament is to communicate with Canadians from across the country on issues of the day. Whether it is the great action by our government, with Canada's economic action plan, where we are leading the way for Canadians on jobs and economic growth, or the leadership our government is showing on the world stage or, yes, informing Canadians about the past statements of the current leader of the Liberal Party, ten percenters are a valuable tool to communicate with our constituents and with Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

All of these mailouts are available to all parties in the House of Commons, and it is worth noting that all political parties, including Liberals, Bloc Québécois and New Democrats, employ this practice.

I would note that virtually every single piece the three opposition parties send out is negative, while we Conservatives send out many positive pieces, alerting Canadians to the great work our Conservative government and our MPs are doing for them.

In this weekend's Globe and Mail, and many times in the past, the Liberal Party has accused Conservatives of encouraging a culture of incivility on Parliament Hill.

When it comes to ten percenters, it is a little rich for the Liberals to be making accusations of incivility. First of all, virtually every single ten percenter they send out is a negative piece or an attack piece. Some of the material they have sent out has been totally shameful. Let me cite some examples.

There is the ten percenter sent out by the member for Ajax—Pickering, attempting to scare my constituents in North Vancouver. The only graphic on its cover is a handgun being aimed right at the face of the viewer. It is reminiscent of the scare campaign launched by his former colleague, Paul Martin, in the 2004 election campaign, which also featured a handgun being fired at the viewer.

Next, there are the scandalous ten percenters sent by the member for St. Paul's, trying to scare Canadians about the H1N1 virus and to politicize the issue.

Let me remind members that this is the same Liberal Party that tried to fundraise on the back of the H1N1 issue when its party president, Alfred Apps, said that the H1N1 virus could be just like Hurricane Katrina for the Prime Minister. We all know that this was just pure politicization of a very serious issue by the Liberals, and of course it never came to be.

Even worse, the member for St. Paul's sent this ten percenter into a number of first nation communities. These communities were busy at the time, ensuring that they dealt with H1N1 properly. They did not need to be needlessly alarmed by the member for St. Paul's and the Liberal Party.

Let me describe it to the House. The cover featured body bags and the title “Not the kind of H1N1 help they wanted”. On the inside there was a photo of a sick first nation child, with the phrase “no vaccines, just body bags”. That was shameful. Do not just quote me on this. Ron Evans, the Grand Chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, in the Toronto Star of October 28, 2009, said, “From the beginning I have said the crisis has been about people, not politics. (Our children were) used as props in political theatre”.

Evans held up a black and white photocopy of a pamphlet distributed by the Liberal Party of Canada with the headline, “No vaccines, just body bags”. Evans said that he was offended by the pamphlet, which included photos of the body bags and a crying child, because it was politicizing an issue he thought should be non-partisan.

That is the kind of politics that the Liberal Party engages in, but it gets worse. There is the infamous ten percenter sent into a riding in New Brunswick that has a high percentage of Canadian Forces members in it. It was sent by the member for Vancouver Centre who obviously had enough spare time on her hands after chasing down the burning crosses on the lawns of Prince George, British Columbia, to send this into other ridings. It is a picture of our flag on a military-style backpack that says, “We used to wear it abroad with pride”.

Can members just imagine a husband or wife of a Canadian soldier fighting in Afghanistan, someone who is proudly representing our country overseas with the flag on his or her shoulder or backpack, and how proud we are of our soldiers' service to our nation and to the cause of peace, and then we open our mailboxes and are slapped in the face by the callous remarks of the member for Vancouver Centre suggesting that a husband or wife serving overseas does not wear the flag with pride anymore? It is outrageous and the member for Vancouver Centre should apologize.

I could go on. There are dozens of examples of this type of behaviour by the Liberals. It is not just the Liberals though. The NDP and the Bloc Québécois also use the ten percenter program to attack Conservatives across the country. It is also important to note that the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois have consistently used their party logos on their ten percenters. Until recently, the Liberals even used a photo of a former Liberal prime minister as a bogus return stamp.

Let us compare that with ten percenters put out by our party. Members will be hard-pressed to find a Conservative Party logo on them and every one of them is factual. Members of the Liberal Party and the other opposition parties might not like those facts but they are facts and it is our duty as members of Parliament to point those facts out to Canadians.

By alerting and listening to Canadians on the important issues of the day, it is our party's belief that we can better understand and implement their concerns. We want to continue the dialogue with Canadians and ten percenters allow us to do that, both in our home constituencies and across this great country.

We must make no mistake. Ten percenters are a tool for dialogue. When we send out these flyers, we express our opinions on the issues of the day and ask Canadians to write back with theirs, and that they do. Canadians have opinions and they are pleased to be given the opportunity to express them. For example, many of my constituents have many unparliamentary things to say about the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

This exchange of ideas between elected representatives and the people they represent is the essence of democracy. To put this simply, we do not support this attempt by the Liberals to shut down this important tool to communicate directly with Canadians.

[Paralympic Winter Games, March 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, today the Paralympic Winter Games will begin in Vancouver and Whistler. Over 500 athletes from 43 countries have come to Canada to compete for Paralympic gold. Team Canada will be represented by 55 Canadians, who will make us all very proud in their pursuit of excellence.

I know our Paralympians are eager to show all Canadians that they are ready to win gold, much like Alexandre Bilodeau, who won Canada`s first gold medal in Canada, or Maëlle Ricker, the first Canadian woman to win gold on home soil.

Canada of course won 14 gold medals in total, setting a record for most gold medals won by a country. In every sport, there was a Canadian athlete to cheer for and to unite us all as Canadians. I would like to thank each and every one of them for their efforts.

On behalf of the good people of my riding and all Canadians, I wish our Paralympians the best of luck. Go, Canada, go.

[The Budget, March 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, last week's budget delivered good news for Canadians right across the country.

The big winners in Thursday's budget were taxpayers, as the government committed to balance the budget over the medium term through fiscal discipline, not higher taxes.

From coast to coast, our budgetary plan received accolades from observers and experts. The chamber of commerce in my wonderful riding of North Vancouver is pleased that the government is committed to balancing the nation's books and strongly believes that this is possible without tax hikes.

It also welcomes our strategy to promote a more competitive economy. Part of that strategy was unveiled yesterday as this government moved to enhance the competitiveness of Canadian industry by eliminating tariffs on manufacturing imports. Unilateral tariff relief is a truly exciting concept that will put manufacturers in my riding and across the country in a better position to grow exports and compete with the world.

Improved competitiveness creates jobs and economic growth, and that is good news for Canadians.

[Shaughnessy Cohen Prize for Political Writing, March 9th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the finalists of the Shaughnessy Cohen Prize for Political Writing. The five finalists are on Parliament Hill today. They are: John English, a former member of this place; Rudyard Griffiths; James Maskalyk; Daniel Poliquin; and Terry Gould, who is from my riding of North Vancouver.

Mr. Gould is an investigative journalist who is being honoured as a finalist for his work, Murder without Borders, which is a portrait of seven journalists who were murdered in the line of duty.

The Shaughnessy Cohen prize is a $25,000 award presented annually by the Writers' Trust of Canada to the best non-fiction book on Canadian political and social issues. The winner will be announced on Wednesday.

I congratulate all finalists and thank them for their contribution to the understanding of political issues among Canadians.

[The Economy, March 4th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, if my hon. colleague will come back at 4 o'clock this afternoon, he will hear the budget in its entirety and will get the answer to his question.

[The Economy, March 4th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague asked a question about the HST, which is not within federal government jurisdiction, but provincial government jurisdiction. I recommend he ask the same question of the Province of British Columbia, since it was its decision to go that route.

[The Economy, March 4th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, through Canada's economic action plan, we have created 12,000 infrastructure projects across this country, many of which are in the riding of my hon. colleague. Those jobs are being created as a result of the investments of the government in jobs and job creation.

We intend to continue that. We are one year into a two-year program, and we continue to stay the course for the second year of that two-year program.

[The Economy, March 4th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, since coming into government four years ago, we have lowered taxes by over $220 billion for Canadians. We have lowered taxes for seniors by over $1 billion by allowing income splitting and other measures. We brought in the new horizons program and income supplements.

We believe that lower taxes are the way the government should be going and that is where we intend to go.