Dan McTeague

[Income Tax Act, May 4th, 2006]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-253, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deductibility of RESP contributions).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill which would amend the Income Tax Act to make contributions to an RESP deductible from the contributor's taxable income.

Students are facing some difficult concerns with rising tuitions, as well as the importance this spells for the future prosperity of our country in terms of a skilled and educated workforce. We certainly do not want post-secondary education to become the purview of only the wealthy.

The bill would provide a regulatory regime similar to the one governing registered retirement savings plans. It is hoped that the passage of this bill will assist more Canadian families to save for their children's post-secondary education. I look forward to the support of all members of the House.

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

[Points of Order, April 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my thanks to the hon. member.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on four occasions, indeed a fifth time, the hon. member made a statement again impugning and alleging that something has been said by the member of Parliament that is untruthful. I am here to defend my integrity as well as to ensure that that member understands it is not a matter of debate.

If one member of the House is decidedly allowed to be put in a situation where we admonish or impugn the member's reputation, Mr. Speaker, you have an obligation as the arbiter of this place and in that chair to ensure that that member of Parliament understands that there are limits. It is in the rules.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you therefore to look at the standing rules of this House and to in turn put those in the way that I believe is consistent. It has been in the past that the comments made by the member of Parliament were not just a matter of debate; they were in fact based on previous rulings. Those decisions in the past would demonstrate that the member is clearly out of line and ought to retract his remarks and apologize.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I think you, along with members of the House, will have heard that the hon. parliamentary secretary again referred to the word “untruthful”. He just made it in his last comment, Mr. Speaker. I think the blues will show that. I believe that you have now for the fourth time an opportunity to admonish that member of Parliament.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I think you have just heard the honourable member--and I use the word “honourable” advisedly and reservedly--you have just heard him again, notwithstanding your admonishment on the comments that he has made with respect to my reputation and therefore the reputation of every member of Parliament, bringing into question my integrity.

The record will show in reference to what I have raised with respect to his cabinet minister, he was indeed a lobbyist in 1993. He was indeed a minister--

[Federal Accountability Act, April 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the wisdom of the Chair, who asked the member to withdraw his remarks. You have made it abundantly clear in your statement that he ought to withdraw them. This will be the third occasion. By the rules of the House, if the member refuses to respect the authority of the Chair he should be booted out of the House.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hopefully will receive an apology from that member of Parliament before he says what he is going to say, if what he has to say is indeed correct. I will accept his apology before that because what he has just said now diminishes, not only the reputation of this member of Parliament but every member of Parliament sitting in the House today.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member's comments and was reminded again about what I had asked the previous speaker with respect to the author of this particular legislation, admittedly drafted quite quickly. I understand the hon. member's comments with respect to finding problems with this Parliament in terms of the conduct of certain individuals but I believe the hon. member has an obligation to look at all aspects of previous wrongdoings and indeed the ones that were acted upon by the very minister who is proposing the legislation.

We heard from the auditor general for the Province of Ontario on three occasions, 1998, 1999 and again in 2000, where the auditor general of the province cited that there were irregularities with allowing a company to in fact go after welfare recipients and charge taxpayers up to $258 million, for which that minister was never held accountable.

The hon. member talked about balance of probabilities and the civil test. I am very interested in that because his party opposed this very thing in the Competition Act. It is easier to apprehend people using a civil model than a criminal model. If the member is looking to get people quickly is it possible that in this circumstance he could create injury where injury is of course not found?

[Federal Accountability Act, April 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the question that was put forward to my distinguished colleague from Don Valley East concerning the sponsorship scandal and the questions as to whether this legislation would be enough to cover lobbyists. I know the minister who was proposing the bill was himself a lobbyist in Ottawa, so I suspect he has a bit of experience in this.

However, without going further, it is interesting that while the sponsorship issue was brought forth for an inquiry, which the then prime minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, had the intestinal fortitude to bring forward, the same is not true of the performance of the minister who is now proposing this legislation, Bill C-2, when he was minister of social services.

We all remember the Accenture scandal in which a quarter billion dollars of taxpayer money went missing. It went down basically a funnel into some company that came out of Bermuda. Here we have an example from the parliamentary secretary and others suggesting that scandal only goes one way.

It is important for us to recognize that when it comes to transparency and openness, the minister who is proposing this legislation is in no position to do so. I would like to get a comment from the hon. member on this. Knowing the reputation of the member of Parliament, the Treasury Board minister, does she not find it ironic that the individual, who himself was cited several times by the auditor general of the province of Ontario, is now going to teach this Parliament, this House of Commons, a lesson on ethics?

[Gasoline Prices, April 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there is not a member in the House who knows this issue better than many on this side. I can tell the hon. member that what he is proposing is less than 1%, it is only one cent on tax.

The Prime Minister promised to eliminate the GST portion on gas if prices went above 85¢ per litre to prevent the government from reaping windfall profits on top of high gas prices. He did not just say that; the Canadian Taxpayers Federation knew about that as well.

Does the Prime Minister still support this pledge, or should Canadians get used to just another pair in his growing wardrobe of flip-flops?