Dean Del Mastro

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, February 4th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing when we talk about establishing bilateral trade agreements that are so important for a trading nation like Canada that we have to descend into a discussion that once again impugns the good name of Canadian mining companies, companies like SGS operating in Lakefield in my riding, which work with mines around the world.

The member continues to talk about Bill C-300 which specifically targeted jobs not in other countries, but jobs in this country. He impugns the good name of Canadian mining companies and would limit their ability to compete around the world. Mining is one of the most important sectors in this entire country.

It is terrible that we cannot talk about a bilateral agreement, something important to Canada, without having a member stand up and impugn the good name of Canadian mining companies. I am disappointed.

[Taxation, December 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government opposes the coalition's proposed iPod tax. During this fragile economic recovery, our government knows that the last thing Canadian families and consumers need is a massive new tax on iPods and other digital storage devices.

The Liberal-NDP-Bloc Québécois coalition has voted in this House to impose a massive new tax that would cost Canadian families and consumers up to $75 per iPod. The new tax would also apply to personal computers, BlackBerrys, cellphones and any device that plays music.

Canadian families and consumers pay too much tax already. They do not need a massive new iPod tax.

Our Conservative government will protect families and consumers from higher taxes by fighting the Liberal-led coalition's iPod tax each and every step of the way.

[Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act, December 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the member has asked that I perhaps apologize for former Prime Minister Joe Clark. I in fact recognize that Joe Clark was not the prime minister in 1976. It was Pierre Trudeau at that time. However, for what it is worth, if such a change was made by Joe Clark, I disagree with it.

[Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act, December 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of the title of the bill has been mentioned a couple of times by members of the opposition. I was actually encouraged to hear that the provincial Government in Manitoba is taking a similar position to this government.

We actually think that titling bills, consequential amendments to the Criminal Code, does not actually help Canadians understand what Parliament is actually doing on their behalf. When a bill is titled subject to the intent of the bill, it works to ensure Canadians understand what we do here each and every day. We want this place to be relevant. We want people to know that Parliament is working on their behalf and that the government is working on their behalf.

I am encouraged to hear that Manitoba is taking a similar track. I would encourage the Manitoba member to support us in reinserting the title of this bill so that Canadians know what we are doing.

[Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act, December 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member ended this exactly where I wanted to go with his speech, which I consider to be most unfortunate. The message that the Liberal Party and the coalition members are sending to people in our communities and the message they are sending to victims, the message that they are sending to people who are advocating for justice measures that will protect society, is “too bad”. They are going to be irresponsible when it comes to justice. They would rather play politics with the issues than actually stand up for safe streets and communities.

The message from the member for Toronto Centre is quite simple to the people in my community and the people in communities right across this country who want real justice measures in place, his message is “too bad, we are irresponsible”.

How does the member respond to that?

[Points of Order, December 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, when I asked the member to retract the statement the other day, it was clearly heard by a number of members on our side and I found the comments regrettable. That is why I gave the member the opportunity to withdraw them. It seems to me the former deputy prime minister has in fact taken a very high level, non-partisan position on Bill C-32, one that I think is important. He is joining a long list of leaders in this country who are calling for an update to Canada's Copyright Act to enable employers, to enable investment, to create jobs in this country. I thought the statements he made were outstanding. I found that the comments made by the current member for Ottawa South should be retracted.

[Copyright, December 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Kitchener—Waterloo for all his hard work on this file, and he is right.

The former Liberal deputy prime minister and member for Ottawa South, John Manley, appeared at our committee and his message was clear when he said, “I strongly endorse Bill C-32. It brings Canada's copyright rules into the 21st century”. He said, “It gives creators a tool to control how their works are made available. The bill is needed to ensure that Canada does not become a haven for piracy”.

I hope the current member for Ottawa South realizes how much the former member knows about copyright and how much this bill could help creators in Canada.

[Criminal Code, December 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. The member mentioned an omnibus bill. I seem to remember one that we had, protecting victims from violent crime. I remember the shrill of the NDP that we brought an omnibus bill on crime and how they opposed that.

The other thing the member spoke about was the provinces. I do not know if the member understands that people were gaming the provinces, for example, on pretrial custody. The provinces supported us putting an end to two-for-one and three-for-one credits in the provinces.

How many mandatory minimums can the member point out to this House whereby it would not put incarcerated offenders into the federal system as opposed to the provincial system? I would love to hear his list.

[POINTS OF ORDER, December 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, maybe I can provide some assistance to the conversation by way of additional background.

It seems that a number of the things the member is asking for were actually offered up on the first day of the special legislative committee on Bill C-32. He talked about consultations, wanted to know who was met with and said that he would like to see some of the information. I told him that there were consultations from one side of this country to the other. In fact, one was held in Peterborough where the media was actually in attendance and records were kept from that meeting. We would be happy to furnish all of that to the member. I offered that to him on the first day the committee met if he was interested in seeing it.

In addition to that, I told him that we had received 8,000 written submissions on Bill C-32 and that they would also be available if he wanted to read them.

[Business of Supply, December 9th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on a question that I asked the hon. member for Toronto Centre a little while ago.

I talked about priorities and asked why we were discussing 1982 here today when I think people at home want us to be looking forward to the future. The member from Newfoundland indicated that we spend 75% of the time in here debating justice bills. That is right, because we have a vision for a safer Canada, one where victims are protected from violence. I wish we did not have to spend 75% of the time in this House to fight for that. We could pass those justice bills today, except the opposition parties stand in the way of them.

At a time when, globally, people are concerned about the economy, why are we having this debate today? People at home must be saying that Parliament is not even relevant to them today. We need to wonder what is going on with the Liberal Party. Where is its vision for the future? Where is its vision for Canadians?