House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2021, with 48% of the vote.
Business of Supply October 25th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for the hon. member. She has attacked the throne speech and said nothing positive about it. Her colleague from Yukon listed, I believe, at least six things that he approved of in the throne speech. He was honest.
Since the hon. member criticized everything in the throne speech, why did she sit on her duff and not vote against it when she had the chance yesterday?
Business of Supply October 25th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I did notice that my colleague referred to the whole issue of Canada supporting its children. I think she encouraged Canadians to have more children. I do not know if I misunderstood her, but I think I am correct that she was encouraging Canadians to have more children. Children are good.
However, she also focused on what she alleged to be a shortcoming in our government's approach to serving children. She decried the fact that we do not have a national day care program, institutionalized day care funded by the state.
My concern is this. The hon. member well knows that the large majority of Canadian children do not take advantage of day care. They have other models of care. For example, in my riding there is a large Indo-Canadian community. Many Indo-Canadian families have an intergenerational model of care, where the parents live with their children. The children go to work. The grandparents take care of the grandchildren. That is a different model. Others have stay at home parents, like we did. My wife was able to stay at home.
Yet the model that the member's party, the NDP, has promoted for many, many years is one which essentially has excluded those other models of child care. The NDP just like the institutionalized day care.
Why is it that for so many years her party has focused on that one group of children, but have omitted to address the needs of the majority of young children in our country?
Business of Supply October 25th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I appreciated working with the hon. member on the heritage committee. I know she is very knowledge about heritage issues, having being an actress on CBC Television. However, I want to focus on something that she did not mention.
The Liberal opposition in the House has opposed our proposal to cut the GST even more. We had committed to cutting it by 2%, and we hope to achieve that shortly. The Liberal Party is opposed to reducing the GST, yet she knows the GST is the one tax that applies to all Canadians, including the 30% who do not pay income tax.
The member was critical of us for not reducing income taxes, yet a reduction in income taxes would never apply to the 30% who do not pay taxes, which includes Canada's poor. She mentioned that her riding has a significant number of people who are below the poverty line. Surely she would want to help them by reducing the one tax that would impact them.
Could she explain to the House how her party opposes GST cuts and prefers to reduce corporate taxes and the taxes on the rich?
Business of Supply October 25th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, one thing the member did not spend a lot of time on, and it is the one area of our throne speech that clearly benefits the poor in Canada, is the reduction of the GST by another 1%. As she knows, the GST is the one tax in Canada that when it is reduced, it benefits all Canadians, not just those that pay income tax.
If the member had listened to the comments coming from the Liberal benches, they of course attacked our government for reducing the GST. They believe it is the wrong way to go. They believe in corporate tax cuts. They believe in focusing on the rich in Canada and giving them tax breaks, but not extending tax breaks to the poor, the working poor, students and seniors. They basically want to cozy up to their rich friends, their corporate buddies. That is something our government will not do.
My question is, what is her opinion of the Liberal approach to reducing taxes, as opposed to a 1% reduction in the GST?
Business of Supply October 25th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, of course the member will know that I disagree with her on virtually every point she has made. In fact, she refers to Canada going in the wrong direction under our Conservative government, but Canada has never had economic fundamentals as strong as they are today. We have record low unemployment rates, the lowest unemployment rates in the last 33 years. We have the strongest economic fundamentals of the G-8 nations. We have an incredibly robust economy. As well, we are repaying Canada's debt, which is long overdue.
However, there is one thing the member and I do have in common: we agree on the shameful performance of the Liberal Party in this House last night.
Liberal members of the House were elected to represent their constituents and to vote, to make decisions, to say yes or no to the various policies we bring forward. Last night we were voting on the throne speech and the direction our government wants to take. What did the Liberals do? They simply sat on their duffs. That is irresponsible. It was a shameful performance. I would ask the member who just spoke to comment on whether she approves of that performance or whether she expects members of the House to stand up, vote and have the courage of their convictions.
Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply October 23rd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I was very encouraged by the hon. member's comments. He started off talking about all the great things in the throne speech. I think that is echoed in Canada. Canadians have picked up on the fact that the throne speech is a very forward looking document. It was a clear statement of where Canada wants to go. It wants to take its place on the world stage. It also wants to grow as a country and provide a great place for Canadians to live.
The member talked about Arctic sovereignty. He supported our initiatives there. He talked about tourism. He talked about infrastructure and supported that. He liked the aboriginal skills training. He liked the water strategy. He also liked the citizenship for Aung San Suu Kyi.
He then got into these big four but he actually never got around to talking about them because, quite frankly, I suspect that he actually really liked the throne speech. Perhaps he should be on this side of the House rather than that side.
After all the plaudits that he gave our throne speech and all the positive comments he made about the throne speech, he and his leader, the Leader of the Liberal Party, have stated that they will sit on their duffs and not even vote. They will not represent their constituents and Canadians across the country and take a position on the throne speech.
Everything the member said seems to indicate that he liked our throne speech, subject to what he calls the big four, which he did not get into in great detail. Why is it that he, his leader and the other members of his party in the House do not have the courage to actually take a position on the throne speech?
Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply October 23rd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I by welcoming the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot to this august chamber. I hope she has as much satisfaction in serving her constituency as I have had in my first 20 months in the House.
As time goes by, she will notice there are many opinions floating around this chamber and, as she knows, opinions are, at the very heart, subjective. They are our own feelings about different issues. However, from time to time, all of us make statements that allege certain facts. She made one of those, and I think she may be incorrect and I want to challenge her on that.
She had suggested that in Canada's role in Afghanistan, in trying to rebuild and reconstruct a fledgling democracy in Afghanistan, somehow Canada had failed to turn the Afghan people into allies of ours.
In fact, a recent poll last week indicated that a huge majority of the Afghan people were not only very aware of the role Canada plays in Afghanistan, but in fact support Canada's role there and want our armed forces to remain engaged in providing security and protection to the people of Afghanistan.
In light of that poll, which was done by a very prestigious Canadian polling organization, could she explain how she then would allege that the Afghan people were not allies of Canada? From my view, it is very clear—
Resumption of debate on Address in Reply October 18th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully as my Liberal colleague misrepresented our anti-crime legislation.
If we ask Canadians across Canada whom they trust on the issue of crime, two-thirds of Canadians say it is the Conservatives. They like the Conservative crime agenda. They know we are getting tough on crime. They know we are getting things done.
It was interesting to listen to the Liberal leader's response to the throne speech. I also listened to the comments of a number of other Liberal MPs today in the House. The Liberal leader said that there were five of our six anti-crime bills that he actually supported. I listened to that member who said that she would love to fast track the legislation. Yet I listened to the member for Kitchener—Waterloo, also a Liberal MP, and what did he say earlier this morning? He said that it is neo-conservative crime legislation.
I want to know, does the member believe it is neo-conservative crime legislation? Does she support her leader? Would she be honest with Canadians and let them know what she really thinks about getting tough on crime?
Justice October 18th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to commend the Minister of Justice for his campaign to tackle crime.
Today he brought forward our comprehensive tackling violent crimes act. A recent survey has shown that two-thirds of Canadians like the direction our government has taken in fighting crime.
Canadians like the idea of serious jail time for serious gun crimes. They like the idea of tougher bail rules. They want to see children protected from predators. They also like the idea of cracking down on drunk and stoned drivers, and strangely enough, Canadians say they want dangerous offenders to face longer prison sentences.
Now Canadians want to see action. That is exactly what they will get from our Conservative government, but will they see action from the Liberal Party? Will the Liberal leader for once listen to Canadians and vote for our anti-crime strategy? Methinks the only thing the Liberal leader wants to do is save his own skin.
Will the Liberals ever stop being soft on crime?
Resumption of debate on Address in Reply October 18th, 2007
Let's talk about the RCMP investigation.