David Tilson

[Interparliamentary Delegations, February 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation to the parliamentary mission to the country that will next hold the presidency of the Council of the European Union and the fourth part of the 2008 Ordinary Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe held in Prague, Czech Republic and Strasbourg, France, September 25 to October 3.

[Donald Jasper Sproule, February 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I stand in the House today to remember a dear friend of our community, Mr. Donald Jasper Sproule, who I am sad to say passed away on December 20, 2008.

Don, who was born and raised in Dufferin County, was an outstanding pharmacist, an involved and dedicated citizen and a tremendous father, husband and grandfather.

In his over 30 years as a pharmacist and as owner of Sproule's Drug Store in Orangeville, Don compassionately provided countless residents of our community with sound advice and guidance, and always did so with a smile.

His dedication to our community carried over to his work with the Orangeville Optimist Club. He was a member for 35 years and was known for his infectious enthusiasm. He also served as an energetic board member and volunteer for Hospice Dufferin for several years. His proudest achievement was his family.

Don will be greatly missed, but will always be fondly remembered for his remarkable community service, his dedication to his family and his incredible spirit.

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 3rd, 2008]

Madam Speaker, the member has given an interesting speech. He indicated that he feels this separatist coalition should present a budget now. The Prime Minister and the finance minister have said it will be in January. The member says that is not good enough, we want it now. If the coalition is approved and it is formed, how long would it take for such a group to have a budget? How long would it take them to come back to the House? I expect it will take them a month to read their briefing books. It will be May.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, December 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation in the parliamentary mission to the country that will hold the next presidency of the Council of the European Union; the meeting of the committee on economic affairs and development of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD; and the third part of the 2008 ordinary session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Paris, Normandy and Strasbourg, France from June 17 to 27, 2008.

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 2nd, 2008]

The member says “weeks”, and it was weeks.

This lady wondered how the opposition can just say all of a sudden that they are going to be in charge, when the public of Canada voted Conservatives an increased number of members in this House and gave us a vote percentage in the 30s, a clear mandate,.

I do not have an answer for that. I wonder if the member could help me with that question.

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore. All this business going on today is a result, apparently, of the financial statement made by the Minister of Finance.

My question is on how to answer a question from a constituent in my riding. It is typical of questions that are asked. The person said, “We just had an election. It was fairly recently that this election took place--”

[Election of Speaker, November 18th, 2008]

I withdraw my name from the list.

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have tried to go through this motion and show the defects all the way through it. I am going to go back to the issue of the latter part, regarding sending the report back to the Ethics Commissioner.

The Ethics Commissioner has found the member for West Nova guilty on three counts of violating the ethics code. That is what she said. This motion essentially says that we should change the rules and send the issue back to the commissioner to hear it again.

I stand to be corrected but I believe this place, if it wanted to, could exonerate the member for West Nova, end of story, but instead those members are going to have the Ethics Commissioner do the dirty work. They are going to change the rules and make her say whether he is innocent or guilty. Is this an appropriate process of the House of Commons?

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for Toronto Centre talk about this issue. After listening to the debate all day long, really what this motion is all about is the Ethics Commissioner made a decision which the Liberal caucus does not like.

Under the system we have with a minority government, the majority of opposition members rule the day. Not only are we going to change the rules, but they are going to make everything retroactive. They are going make the Ethics Commissioner hear this thing again under the new rules, even though she heard it under the old rules, so the member for West Nova will be exonerated.

I hope the member for Toronto Centre would admit that. Quite frankly, the allegations that members in this place are losing their freedom of speech is absolutely a lot of bunk. The member knows that is not true. He knows what this is all about. It is to free the member for West Nova.

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have to hand it to the member for West Nova. He is obviously a very popular fellow because he has persuaded his colleagues in the Liberal Party to bring this motion forward. He was found guilty of three counts of violating the ethics code by the Ethics Commissioner of Canada.

I would like to ask the member a question about a portion of the motion brought forward by the member for Scarborough—Rouge River. Part of it says that he wants to refer the inquiry report concerning the member for West Nova back to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner for reconsideration in light of the amendment to the code. In other words, he wants us to change it so it will make everything that he did legal and then we will send it back to the commissioner and ask her to hear it again. Is that appropriate?