David Christopherson

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 18th, 2006]

With regard to the 1% reduction in the Goods and Services Tax (GST): (a) what measures have the government put in place to ensure that the vendors of products with GST included in the price pass the GST cut along to consumers; and (b) how will the government ensure that vendors do not take advantage of the GST decrease to implement a price increase and pocket the savings that were intended for consumers?

[Petitions, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by what I believe to be thousands of Canadians regarding the client service counters at the Canada Revenue Agency. What is interesting is that the bulk of the work was done by the union representing the workers there. This is not a job issue and it is not about the union. It is the about public service, so the petition is signed both by constituents of mine and by petitioners in ridings across Canada, as well as and most important, by the employees who work there and who understand that this plan is wrong. It was devised by the Liberals and now is being implemented by the Conservatives and it means that Canadians will have less service at these public counter desks. The petitioners wish to call the government to account and ask it to halt this Liberal plan that the Conservatives are implementing to cut down on services that Canadians expect and are entitled to.

[Seniors, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, during the last election I spoke with thousands of seniors in my riding of Hamilton Centre. They told me they are concerned that seniors issues are being neglected, and they are right. In fact the Conservative budget actually raised taxes for many seniors while offering them fewer government services.

I am proud that today the NDP, led by my esteemed colleague from Hamilton Mountain, is offering parliamentarians an opportunity to help Canada's elder citizens.

The NDP seniors charter provides a fundamental recognition that older Canadians have a right to a fulfilling life complete with dignity and respect. We believe that seniors deserve income security, housing and lifelong access to affordable recreation, education and training, and that excellent health care, including dental and pharmacare, must be provided.

Most important, we are calling for the creation of a seniors advocate to speak out on behalf of older citizens' rights. With more than 70,000 seniors in the Hamilton area, the NDP seniors charter responds to a critical need. I call on all members of the House to join with the NDP--

[Extension of Sitting Hours, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member for Wascana, who talked about the willingness of the official opposition to stay and work to get important things done, but I have to say that I would like to hear a little more reassurance. I was at the defence committee yesterday and the Liberals were not interested in working that day, because they were not in their seats when the government moved to shut down hearing from CARE Canada, the Polaris Institute and the Canadian Council for International Co-operation.

So while I appreciate hearing from the official opposition that those members want to work hard, my experience yesterday at the defence committee was exactly the opposite. I would like to hear a little more emphatically that the official opposition in this place is indeed actually interested in working.

[National Defence, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am not at all surprised that the hon. member wants to talk about something different, because it was the most disgraceful thing I have seen in 20 years of public life. These were Canadians and Canadian groups invited by this Parliament through a House of Commons standing committee and it was the government members who voted to shut them down, to silence them.

The Liberals have nothing to say here. If they had been in their seats at that committee, we could have overruled the government.

When is the government going to do the honourable thing and offer an apology to these respected Canadian groups?

[National Defence, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday at defence committee, Conservative members pulled the chairs out from under an expert panel on Afghanistan. The Polaris Institute, CARE Canada and the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, all internationally respected for the important work they do, were silenced as Conservative members voted to shut down the committee, clearly a policy of cut and run.

What information was the government trying to hide from? Is it this government's policy to just silence people it does not agree with?

[The Environment, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, how would one like to be told that one's children cannot go out for nine days to play or that one's elderly parents have to stay inside and cannot leave their home.

That was the situation in Hamilton last year where we had nine days of severe smog. This year we have already had three smog days and summer has barely begun. Hamilton is not alone. Cities like Halifax, Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver are all suffering smog days too.

Studies show that more 5,000 premature deaths across Canada can be attributed to air pollution each year, but the Conservatives are ignoring this environmental crisis, refuting Canada's Kyoto obligations and pretending that global warming is not a global threat.

We need to encourage use of public transit and establish a clean car strategy. We need to find better energy sources so we can close operations like the Nanticoke coal burning plant that is responsible for so much of Hamilton's smog. We need to reinstate the popular and effective EnerGuide program that the Conservative government killed.

The people of Hamilton call upon the government to act now so that once again it is safe for our kids to go out and play.

[Income Tax Act, June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to join in the debate. Unlike the previous speaker, I will not be nearly as critical about the bill. I have a criticism obviously, because I cannot get on my feet without doing that. It is part of my job as a member of the loyal opposition. My criticism will be on the macro picture and not on the specifics.

I am actually substituting for the NDP critic for amateur sport, the hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. He had an urgent matter to tend to in his riding and asked me to speak in his stead. I will do the best I can, but it will not be as good as he would have done, obviously.

In general, the NDP is very supportive of this bill. It goes in the right direction. I really do not believe there is any kind of hidden agenda or that it tries to pull a fast one, although I respect the hon. member's right to express that point of view. If I have a criticism, and I will touch on it at the end, it is that tax cuts are the answer to everything as far as the Conservatives are concerned. I hear some of them cheering. The reality is that is not the case and I hope to at least leave that thought on the table. I realize it is heresy for the Conservatives to even hear somebody say that tax cuts are not the answer to everything, but nonetheless it is coming. Get ready. They should take praise while they can because it is coming.

There is the whole notion of ensuring that the good people who billet our young athletes, if they are not getting a benefit from it, at the very least ought not be penalized. I would agree with those who suggest that the amount of $350 a month is not an awful lot of money for a teenager at this level of activity and commitment.

I like that the bill focused on this area because the people who offer to billet athletes in their homes are not just offering a cold bed for room and board. When they are in those homes, in the overwhelming majority of cases they are getting so much more. People see themselves as surrogate parents, so to speak. Everything that happens to the young people in their homes matters to them. They take care of them. Their hearts go out to them and they pour everything they have into the job as if those athletes were their own children.

In many cases people do it because they hope, and in an overwhelming number of cases it is the truth, that somewhere else another family at another time will provide the same opportunity for their kids. They provide support to the young person in their home in the way they would want their own children supported in someone else's home. Certainly encouraging billeting and providing some relief is a good thing.

Further, the fact that there is at least some incentive may make it easier for more families to get involved. The intent is to thank those who are already doing it, to offer some assistance and to encourage them to stay involved but also to offer some incentive for other parents to become involved. The intent is to recognize that those people care and that money is tight, but the federal government and Parliament are doing what they can to ensure there is not any kind of penalty involved. That may be just enough. That may be the tipping point that allows yet one more family to open up its home and open up its heart. That can only be a good thing.

While I am on a roll with positives, I was very impressed that the hon. member took the time with this very small bill, and it is not exactly asking to change the world, to make sure that the dollars we are providing to these young people and parents are inflation protected. We should be doing this more often. It ensures that we do not have to go through the usual cycle where we do nothing for years and years and the dollar amounts remain those that are prescribed in the law. It takes getting the attention and the time of Parliament to change those amounts and we all know how difficult it is to get a bill through the House. It is not an easy process.

Assuming this bill carries and is implemented, the improvements it makes guarantee that the amount that people receive will not be eaten up by inflation. Otherwise, it could be another 10 years before the matter finally came back to the House. It says a lot about the mover of the bill that he thought ahead to ensure that regardless of what happens to the broader economy vis-à-vis inflation, the intent of the bill would still be respected and achieved regardless of whether or not we hit a period of inflation.

We have all been lucky enough to enjoy a sustained period of very low inflation, but history tells us it is not going to be that way forever. While this may seem rather innocuous now, it could prove to be an important part in providing support on an ongoing basis, so that in later years it does not become irrelevant. It is not that this is a huge amount of money, but it is enough to help.

I sincerely believe that is the intent of the mover. I know the history of this bill. Previous members have attempted to get this initiative through. I think it originated with another member in Saskatchewan, a province I am close to. My dad is from Saskatchewan, so I consider Saskatchewan to be important in my heart, almost as important as my home province of Ontario.

It says a lot about the determination of the Conservatives in Saskatchewan who wanted to do something. It was the Saskatchewan example that brought this issue to a head, in that the auditors said that there was all kinds of money that should have been taxed. That is what led us to this point.

Kudos to the mover. The bill is a good thing. It is not everything but rarely are private members' bills everything. I compliment the member.

I have to take a moment to put on the record that the tax cut method is a nice way and there are times when it is exactly the prescription that is needed, no question, but it is not the answer for everything. What the bill will not do is speak to other important elements which affect young people's lives that are not dealt with by tax cuts.

One example is the state of our public health care system. If anybody needs that system, it is certainly young people involved in vigorous sports. We want to know that no matter where they are in our country, if they need immediate medical help, it is there.

There is schooling as well. For most of those young people their career is not necessarily going to be sports. For many it will be and I wish them well, but it will not be for all. We also need to think about post-secondary education and what will be the future careers for those who do not pursue sports. We cannot educate a young person in Canada all the way through the system up to the end of post-secondary schooling through tax cuts. It is not enough. There has to be investment.

I do not in any way mean to detract from the bill or the mover of the bill, but it is important to understand that there need to be other investments. It is fine to make great speeches about our young people, but it does not begin and end with a tax cut. The majority of things that will affect a young person's life vis-à-vis the federal government are more about investing in the young person, and not just tax cuts.

We must remember that someone has to have a taxable income before a tax cut will do anything. There are bigger priorities. It takes more than tax cuts to solve some problems.

In the case of this bill, our critic, our caucus and I believe that this is an appropriate way to go. We think it is a good thing. It is not going to solve all the problems but it is a good step in the right direction in an area of our family lives and our community which is important to Canadians.

We are proud of the achievements of our young people in international sports when they compete on behalf of Canada. We only have champions when we support them and are with them all the way through.

This is a good bill and we are happy to support it.

[Business of Supply, May 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan for doing an excellent job of outlining why the time has come. We may not yet have the absolute 100% scientific information we would like have, but clearly we are at the point now where it is time for us to act in the interests of Canadians, particularly children when we think of them playing in the yard and walking down the street passing lawns, et cetera.

Like myself, the member has served on her local city council. I can remember struggling with this back in the 1980s on Hamilton city council at a time when those who wanted the manicured lawns as the priority said we did not have near enough scientific evidence to step in and do this. They were going to stay with their lawns because they did not want to deal with upset constituents.

We are now almost 20 years down the road looking at it on a national level. I wonder if the member would expand a little on why she is so comfortable that we can do this on a national level, removing it from the municipal level, and why it is appropriate at this time, given her sensitivity having been a councillor and knowing the need for autonomy, but also recognizing when it is time for senior orders of government to step in.

[David Dingwall, May 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, that sounds an awful lot like the same answers we received from the other side for all those years.

Mr. Dingwall says he is entitled to his entitlements. Apparently the government thinks it is entitled to black out massive portions of an important document that it promised to release in full.

Will the minister admit that, first, the Liberals were right to hide information on the Dingwall affair from the Canadian people or, second, that his government has done a major flip-flop on the issue of secrecy?