Dean Del Mastro

[The Budget, June 13th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's comments.

It strikes me as a bit odd that the member would talk about not being open with Canadians about the tough decisions that need to be made when a government is running a deficit. I remember when the member's party was in government. I do not remember members of that party going before Canadians in that election and telling them that they would have to make the very difficult decision of cutting provincial transfers for things like health care, or when they made the difficult decision to cut education transfers, driving up the cost of education for every Canadian student. They cut science and technology. I do not remember them saying that they would cut a great many things that really were not in their jurisdiction. They were responsibilities to be transferred to the provinces.

Maybe the member would like to talk about the lack of transparency of that Liberal government and why he now believes he is seated where he is.

[The Budget, June 13th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's comments. The member brought up a lot of issues that are under provincial jurisdiction, issues like tuition rates and so forth. Perhaps she might want to take them up with her provincial representatives. These are set by provincial jurisdictions.

I heard something about the delivery of health care in British Columbia, again a provincial matter. She well knows that our government has increased the health transfers year over year, 6% per year compounded since 2006. We have also introduced new spending for things like Health Infoway and so forth. We have also provided additional funds to reduce wait times. All of these are critical things.

The NDP constantly comes out against businesses that seem to be successful in Canada. I really do not understand the attacks on Canadian industries, whether they are in the energy sector or financial sector, two particularly strong sectors in Canada that drive a much larger economy. We hear a lot about breaks being given to these corporations.

Could the hon. member indicate whether she is aware of how many billions of dollars in taxes that these companies contribute to Canada's tax system and how many jobs that these sectors provide for Canadians? Is she aware of how much in taxes that generates for the country and the contributions they make toward employment insurance and CPP? I am sure the member, having come out against these two important sectors, would be aware of those numbers.

[Business of Supply, March 25th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech with great interest, although it seems it could have been a speech he could have just as easily read in 1993 or 1997. Who knows at what point over the years he could have read that speech, because it is so old and tired.

The bottom line is this is the government that has delivered record equalization payments to Quebec. This is the government that solved the fiscal imbalance. This is the government that is providing record health transfers to Quebec. This is the government that is providing record transfers to Quebec for education, and to each and every province in this great Confederation. This is the government that provided a seat at UNESCO for Quebec. This is the government that said that the Québécois represent a nation within a united Canada from coast to coast to coast.

The leader of the Bloc Québécois sounds like an angry guy today, and he is angry because after 20 years he cannot list a single thing he has ever done for the people of Quebec.

[The Budget, March 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday our government presented the next phase of our economic action plan, a low tax plan for jobs and growth.

Shockingly, the opposition coalition of the Liberals, the NDP, and the Bloc Québécois did not even bother to read it before rejecting it. No wonder those guys cannot get a number straight.

In rejecting the next phase of our economic action plan, the opposition parties are rejecting the needs of families, seniors, and all Canadians, including the hard-working people of Peterborough.

Let us be clear: this is their election. Their reckless coalition is threatening our economic recovery with their unnecessary election. They will do it all by hiding their true intentions. Shame on every one of them.

It has been said there are two doors in this election, but even you know, Mr. Speaker, that lurking behind that red door are socialists and separatists plotting for cabinet seats.

[The Budget, March 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech and it seems his memory is not very good, so I will remind him of a couple of things.

It was $2 million that then justice minister Allan Rock claimed the gun registry would cost and $2 billion is what the Liberals spent on it, but they never told Canadians and hid it. That is 1,000 times, not 1,000%, over budget. The amount was $1 billion that disappeared in the HRSDC boondoggle when Liberals were in government. There was $363 million stolen through the ad scam. That is what the Liberal government did.

The member stood and defended ad scam in the House. I do not think he was really fulsome in his answers because he never said which ridings got the money. If he wants to stand on ethics, he can stand in the House right now, come clean with Canadians and tell them which ridings got the stolen money.

Where is the more than $40 million that is still missing? If the Liberals want to run on the bandwagon of being as clean and pure as the white driven snow, then they can start today with a little bit of honesty in the House.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, March 24th, 2011]

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 at the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the first part of the 2011 ordinary session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe held in London and Strasbourg from January 20 to 28, 2011.

[March 23rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, of course the member picks and chooses between the numbers.

We have increased funding for arts and culture by 18%. We have also found some administrative savings, things that Canadians will be proud of.

I encourage the member to stand up in Montreal and go to the entertainment software industry, go to the film industry and to the radio stations that are advertising that she is attacking local radio with her stance on ephemeral rights in the copyright bill.

I encourage you to go to them and preach your position to them, because you are contrary to Montreal, you are contrary to Quebec and contrary to artists.

[March 23rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the member is clearly confused, so perhaps I can clear up her confusion. She is often confused on the heritage file but I will do my best to clear it up in the four minutes I have been given.

The government has in fact increased funding to the Department of Canadian Heritage by 18% across the board since it became government. Canada is the only country in the G7 that actually increased funding to arts and culture through the recession. Every other country cut it, except this Conservative government: we increased it.

Where did we increase it? We increased it for the Canada media fund, which I am sure the member is well apprised of, and for the Canada Council and things like cultural spaces. We put money behind all of those things. The member knows this well.

She also knows that she voted against those increases. When Canada and the entire world was combatting the deep recession, rather than voting to support artists, the Bloc voted against the budget. Its members stood side by side and voted against the budget. However, we should not be surprised.

A special legislative committee right now is studying the copyright bill. Witnesses have come in. Folks came from the feature film industry, some of them from the city of Montreal, I believe. They indicated that almost $1 billion, or $971 million, is evaporating and 12,000 jobs.

The member claims to be proud of feature films like Barney's Version, made in Montreal. There may not be another Barney's Version if we do not fix the Copyright Act. However, that member and her party have stood wilfully in the way of updating Canada's copyright law and securing those jobs and the investment in the entertainment software industry, which is huge in Montreal and Quebec. That member stood against updating that act. It is not as if she just votes against increased funding for the arts, but she also votes against the private sector investment that would come into the arts. She is allowing things to be stolen because we cannot update the Copyright Act.

Canada has five of the top ten piracy sites in the world operating within its borders. We want to put an end to that on this side of the House, because we believe that creators deserve to be paid for the work they do. That member does not and neither does her party: they are not supporting it.

It really troubles me when I hear people stand up and say they support the arts, they support creators, they support artists, that they want to help them. Their deeds show exactly the opposite. That member has had a lot of opportunities to stand up and support artists and she has turned a blind eye every single time. Shame on her.

[Political Financing, March 11th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, we are all now well aware of the infamous ethics breach by the member for Charlottetown when he advertised that he was selling Liberal Party memberships out of his taxpayer funded office.

The hypocrisy of this ran high when just this past weekend the same member told the Charlottetown Guardian that, “Parliamentary materials are never allowed to be used for political gain, especially to drum up donations for political parties”.

Of course, this was right before he said that constituency offices are all political anyway. Perhaps his more than most is, since a local reporter called to see about buying a membership there and the response from the staffer was, “No, we are not doing that”--and here is the operative word--“anymore”.

Today in an interview with the CBC the same member claimed he did not even know about the ad. He said, “This ad was not prepared by me or my office. It certainly was not paid for by us”.

Now we must wonder, who paid for the logo? Who paid for the ad that prominently features the Liberal logo? Can the Liberal leader tell us that neither he nor his staff have their fingerprints all over this messy situation? I would like to know the answer to that question.

[Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act, March 11th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out a number of things that have been accomplished under this government and under the leadership of the veterans affairs minister . Obviously, we have accomplished a number of significant things for veterans.

The member spoke about veterans quite a bit. We reintroduced the benefits for allied veterans, for example, under VIP, which had been terribly and shamefully stripped away under the previous Liberal government. We also extended VIP benefits to thousands and thousands of veterans who did not qualify under the Liberal government. We have done that.

The member seeks to impugn the government for our actions and our support for veterans, but in the death throes of the 38th Parliament, under the Liberal government, a bill was brought forward for the veterans charter. It was passed in the days just preceding the election with the unanimous approval of the House. Many of the things that member is complaining about and saying are unjust, her party voted unanimously in support of. I think all parties have come back and said that we should fix this, and there is goodwill on this.

Did the member support that veterans charter when it was brought in as the balance of her party did? I do not know if she was here in the 38th Parliament, but that was something that was enacted by a unanimous vote in Parliament.