Gary Goodyear

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the minister for taking a big step toward going back to a balance between criminals and victims. No Canadian would argue that we have gone way over the balance when a person in my riding gets hacked to death on the street and the killer gets 90 days house arrest, which is ridiculous, or when a woman is violently offended and the offender is allowed to move into an apartment just up the street to continue to mentally offend her again.

A number of these bills have been watered—

[Address in Reply, October 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, for 13 years the previous government did absolutely nothing on the environment. Could the hon. member comment on what the government intends to do about the environment, once and for all?

[Justice, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not want to wait any longer for mandatory sentences for gun crimes or for an increase in the age of protection for young people. They waited long enough while the opposition stalled and delayed at committee.

In fact, just this morning the member for Yukon filibustered a discussion on Bill C-32 which would increase minimum penalties for alcohol and drug impaired drivers.

Bill C-22, increasing the age of protection from 14 to 16 years, was held up at committee.

Bill C-18, the DNA identification bill, was held up at committee.

Bill C-10, the bill for mandatory sentences for gun crimes, was also held up at committee by opposition members who are so out of touch with Canadians and still prefer to coddle criminals.

The good news is these three bills have finally passed the House. The bad news is that they are down the hall at the Senate.

Will the Liberal interim leader tell his unelected senators who are preoccupied with protecting their terms to protect Canadians and pass these bills?

[Committees of the House, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand today and present the 56th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I must say that the committee worked very hard this year and I want to thank all members. It was a very cohesive and hard-working committee and all the peripheral staff worked so hard getting a number of things done. Indeed, this is our 56th report.

The report is regarding the order of reference of Monday, May 28, 2007, Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (accountability with respect to loans). The committee considered the bill in great detail, heard from a number of witnesses and experts and reports the bill with some amendments.

[Canada Elections Act, June 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech on these amendments made by the Senate. I know the member was present at some of those committee meetings and did an outstanding job in understanding the issues with respect to the bill.

However, I think the member has forgotten how things turned about and I would like to ask for his opinion on this fact.

Originally, the amendment to use birthdates was brought forward by the Bloc members and at committee that amendment to the bill was actually supported by the Liberal Party and ultimately made it into the final version.

I recall that the NDP suggested, as the member is suggesting, that the birthdate be not used at all. However, the committee's original recommendation was that the birthdate be simply used inside the polling station only on election day as a means of helping folks who may not have photo ID as a second or third way that voters could identify who they were, again trying to help folks who may not have photo ID.

I wonder if the member feels that the middle ground was what the original bill by the government said and that was birthdate inside the polling station only and only on election day as opposed to the amendments made by the Bloc and supported by the Liberals.

[The Budget, June 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, just as they did on Senate term limits, the unelected, clearly unaccountable Liberal senators are trying to hold up passage of Bill C-52, which could cost Canadians almost $4 billion, money the region of Waterloo and my riding of Cambridge desperately needs, money for our environment, spinal cord research, and our labour training initiatives.

It is bad enough that the Liberals and NDP members voted against money for women and girls with cervical cancer in Cambridge and North Dumfries, but in doing so they said no to their own women and girls. They also said no to firefighter training in their own ridings. They said no to money for school boards in their own ridings.

The Conservative government has clearly delivered for Canadians. It is time the Liberals and the Liberal senators do the same. I urge the Liberal interim leader to stand up to his Liberal senators for Canadians and stop these selfish political games for power.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 2006, June 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond, not so much to the issue at hand because I, too, support the initiatives of my hon. colleague. I think it is a worthy thing. However, I want to ask the member two questions, but I will have to lead up to them.

The school boards in Quebec and Ontario sued the Liberal government to get their GST money back on the charges of transporting little kids to and from school. The courts agreed and awarded the school boards money. However, the Liberal government decided to back up and stall the delivery of that cash until it could unilaterally, unethically and, in my opinion, illegally retroactively change the tax laws, thereby denying school boards their GST refunds. Those members voted against the government giving that money rightfully back to the school boards. Even members voted no for school boards in their own ridings.

First, is the hon. member in favour of ignoring court orders when it is convenient? Second, is this member in favour of retroactively changing tax laws for Canadians?

Imagine if a government said, “We're going to change the tax law to 40%, retroactive to 1990. You owe us a quarter of million”. We cannot do that. However, that member voted to do exactly that.

Is he still in favour of those two issues?

[Committees of the House, June 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place among representatives of all parties and I believe, if you were to seek it, you would find consent that the 55th report of the Standing Committee on Procedures and House Affairs, regarding membership changes of committee memberships, be deemed presented and concurred in.

[The Budget, June 12th, 2007]

Surprise, surprise, Mr. Speaker. Today another Liberal senator has said that he and his unelected, unaccountable Liberal dominated buddies will delay the passage of the budget past the June deadline.

Over $4 billion will be lost if those Liberals continue with their selfish partisan games: $1.5 billion to reduce greenhouse gases and air pollution, lost; $225 million to conserve ecological sensitive lands, lost; $600 million to address patient wait times guarantees, lost; $30 million for the Rick Hansen Foundation to help those with spinal cord injuries, lost; $570 million to Ontario's labour market training, lost; and $135 million for developmental assistance in Afghanistan, lost.

The Leader of the Opposition should stand up right now and encourage his Liberal senators to pass the budget so that these investments in Canada are not lost. Canadians are waiting.

[Committees of the House, June 11th, 2007]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am seeking consent. I think if you ask you will find that all the whips in the House have spoken and agreed. This is a report that was done by an all party committee. Other members from the House participated as well. There were a number of committee meetings where other members participated in this. If the member wants to do a bit of work, he might be able to find that report.

However, I have discussed this with the leaders of all parties, not all members because there are 308 of them, as well as the independents, and I am asking for unanimous consent that the 54th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs concerning proposed changes to the Conflict of Interest Code for Members presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.