Borys Wrzesnewskyj

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite referred to the Ontario Supreme Court judges as being arrogant because they made a decision with which he personally disagreed.

Does the member believe that the judges of the Supreme Court of British Columbia are also arrogant since they reached a similar decision? Does he believe that the judges of the Supreme Court of Saskatchewan are arrogant because they reached the same decision? Does he believe that the judges of the Supreme Court of Manitoba are arrogant because they reached the same decision? Does he believe that the judges of the Supreme Court of Quebec are arrogant because they reached the same decision? Does he believe that the judges of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick are arrogant because they reached the same decision?

Does he believe that the judges of Nova Scotia are arrogant because they reached the same decision? Does he believe that the judges of Prince Edward Island are arrogant because they reached the same decision? Does he believe that the judges of Newfoundland and Labrador are arrogant because they reached the same decision? Does he believe that the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada are arrogant because they reached the same decision?

Does he believe that the premiers of all those provinces are arrogant because they did not use the notwithstanding clause? In that case, does he believe, since the politicians would not do it, that perhaps our religious institutions should have the right of veto over the decisions of judges because perhaps they would not be arrogant in such decision making?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Edmonton--St. Albert for highlighting various aspects of the budget. We are proud of the fact that we have kept our promises on a number of social files. Yes, the budget is a great budget in the fact that it talks about a green economy, about housing and about the doubling of foreign aid to Africa. It also addresses issues of concern when it comes to post-secondary education.

However what is fascinating is that members opposite have only recently converted to the importance of these social files. In fact, when the budget was first presented the Leader of the Opposition rushed out, gushing to reporters about corporate tax cuts.

What the opposition was gushing about was the corporate cuts for its Conservative corporate clients. What is fascinating is that as soon as there was a bump-up in the polls, the Conservatives went back on their word. They pulled their support for this budget that this member opposite is now gushing about and talking about the importance of these social files.

If they are so concerned about these social files and not their corporate clients, why would they not be concerned about the 900 million additional dollars going into the budget? There is the Alberta energy lobby.

Why are they not concerned about an additional $1.6 billion for housing? Their corporate clients are not very concerned about people out on the streets.

Why are they not concerned about $500 million for foreign aid? There are not a lot of Conservative voters in developing countries.

I would just like to find out why the recent conversion. Is it not a matter of hypocrisy and is there real concern that there is $4.6 billion that, instead of going to their corporate clients, is going to students, to foreign aid to housing and into taking care of the environment?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was correct. I just arrived here. However, I am responding to what the previous member was talking about and the repetition of the phrase, “Where were we as a government?”

My question to him is, where were they? This is Conservative revisionism. Obviously, the concern has just arisen. As a consequence to a blip in the polls, they changed their position and abandoned their corporate bedfellows.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I listen to the member opposite, what I hear is Conservative revisionism.

When he questions where we were. Where were the Conservatives when they originally agreed to the budget? Where were they when the Leader of the Opposition left this room, met the press and was extremely optimistic? He liked the budget.

What he really liked about the budget and what he continuously talked about was the corporate tax cut. Where were the Conservatives? They were cutting their deals with corporate Canada. What has really upset them is that this $4.5 billion corporate--

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to question the member opposite on some of the statements he made during his speech. The member used the phrase that the NDP wanted to be players in Parliament. In the last election I thought the Canadian public made it clear that they wanted the minority government to work and that there would have to be cooperation.

What I recollect to have happened and transpired here was the Conservatives were not happy with the role of the leader of the opposition as the leader of the opposition. There were a couple of polls that showed their party ahead and that is when they yanked their support.

What the Conservatives were looking for was a new role. They were willing to sell out their corporate friends. How would he explain the role they played in selling out their friends just for the sake of having their leader become the prime minister?

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 20th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I found it quite interesting that the member opposite brought up the track records of past governments. I am glad he did. In fact, the track record in B.C. was kind of scary.

If we take a look at the federal track record of the last Mulroney Conservative government, never mind scary. It was a complete nightmare for Canada. We should look at what it did to small business. One of the other members talked about his small business background. My background prior to entering the House was also in small business.

There is an anniversary that I mark. It is 1993, the anniversary of the Mulroney Conservative government leaving office. What that government led to, with its fiscal mismanagement, was the devastation of the small business sector in Canada. I lived through that. For a decade that sort of fiscal mismanagement led to record numbers of small businesses going bankrupt.

I found it quite interesting that the members would mention small business. What this bill does not do is talk about removing tax cuts for small or medium size businesses. It addresses corporate Canada. When the members say there is no substance to this bill, they are narrowly focusing strictly on tax cuts for corporate Canada, large corporate Canada Bay Street.

If we take a look at small business, it disproportionately pays a larger amount of taxes than corporate Canada. Corporate Canada does not pay its fair share. I can understand why they would not want to see the substance of $900 million for the environment, for public transit. We know the Alberta gas and energy lobby has contributed substantially to that party.

I understand that the $1.6 billion for housing is not a grave concern for that party. From Bay Street boardrooms, they do not see the homelessness on the streets. The amount of $500 million in foreign aid is not a concern because there are not a lot of Conservative voters in the Sudan or in other parts of the world.

Would the member opposite please compare the track record of the B.C. NDP government to the nightmare track record of the Conservative Brian Mulroney government?

[Poland, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this past Friday, I attended a photo exhibit dedicated to educating the public about a terrible human tragedy in Polish history.

Sixty-five years ago the Soviet army took 21,000 Polish army reserve officers prisoner after occupying eastern Poland under terms of a secret deal between Hitler and Stalin.

After rounding up these reservists, lawyers, doctors, businessmen, teachers and other professionals, the intellectual elite of Poland, the Soviets took them to various locations where they were gagged, bound, executed and buried in mass graves. The largest known mass grave of these execution sites was the Katyn forest near Smolensk, Russia.

For decades the Soviets denied they had committed this atrocity. Finally, in 1992 the Russian government handed over documents to the Polish president, Lech Walesa, showing that Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin did indeed order the massacres. Notwithstanding this evidence, Russian President Putin refuses to acknowledge the Katyn massacre.

I hope that some day all Canadians will be afforded the opportunity to learn more about this terrible crime through displays and interactive media at a prominent national museum in Canada.

[Young Canadians Challenge, June 9th, 2005]

On Sunday, June 5, five Etobicoke students were among 105 young people nationally to receive the Duke of Edinburgh Award for their participation in the Young Canadians Challenge achievement program.

The overriding goal of the Young Canadians Challenge, which was first launched in 1963, has been to encourage the involvement of young people in their communities. I would like to extend my congratulations to Sonya Bikhit, Melinda Maggisano, Michael Stasyna, David Wiley and Mary Kathleen Wiley for their commitment to community service.

These five Etobicoke students are further proof that “kids these days” are good kids, and these Etobicoke five are a perfect example.

[Education Benefits Act, May 19th, 2005]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-398, an act respecting education benefits for spouses and children of certain deceased federal enforcement officers.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to introduce a private member's bill entitled an act respecting education benefits for spouses and children of certain deceased federal enforcement officers.

This initiative was originally the vision of a former member of the House, Janko Peric of Cambridge, Ontario. Mr. Peric introduced this bill during the last Parliament and I hope we will see him back in the House to continue his fight for public safety initiatives.

The bill would provide for educational benefits of a financial nature to the surviving spouse and children of federal enforcement officers who die from injuries received or illnesses contracted in the discharge of their duties.

The bill mirrors legislation that currently exists in the province of Ontario. In light of the tragic deaths of four RCMP officers in Mayerthorpe, Alberta earlier this year, I would hope that colleagues from all sides of the House will lend their support to this worthy initiative. We owe the families of those who risk their lives for the safety of all Canadians.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Supply, May 18th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I would like to echo the minister's sentiments that everyone should have an equal opportunity. Unfortunately, the point system, in the way it is structured, does not provide for that because certain categories of people are given preference, namely those who are highly educated.

I would like to move on to another category I am concerned about. It is the category that allows people to invest in our economy amounts of $250,000 plus. This provides a fast track method to citizenship in our country.

Are we contemplating looking at the countries from which we encourage this sort of economic migration to our country and people who have the ability to pay their way. A number of third world countries have very corrupt regimes. There is an index that lists countries according to corruption levels. Is there any thought as to whether or not we should be looking for that type of immigrant from those particular countries to be fast tracked to Canada?