Jason Kenney

[Justice, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this Minister of Justice is not defending the rule of law. She is undermining it today by refusing to assert the sovereignty of this parliament to defend innocent children.

She says that this only matters to the lower court level in British Columbia. So only 10% of Canadian children are subject to this kind of obscenity through possession of child pornography.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Tonight will he or will he not allow a free vote so that his members can vote their conscience, yes or no? Will he allow a free vote, yes or no?

[Justice, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we heard the attorney general say that she wants the rule of law. We want the rule of law.

Right now what we have in British Columbia is rule by judge and lawlessness when it comes to the possession of child pornography.

We want the rule of law. The constitution of this land says that this parliament has the power and in fact the responsibility to override irresponsible decisions by the courts.

Will this Minister of Justice give her members the right to vote their conscience this evening on this motion, yes or no?

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I find it remarkable that the member for Peterborough is quoting with some authority Allan Dershowitz, a radical leftist American constitutional authority.

The American constitutional system is based on judicial review, whereas the Canadian system is based on a principle known as parliamentary supremacy, a principle which even this Prime Minister guaranteed was enshrined in the charter through section 33. This place has not used it before. Whenever we have raised the issue of judicial activism this government has said that we were Chicken Littles. Today we see the ultimate consequences of a completely unencumbered, unaccountable judiciary. That is why I ask my colleague from Prince Albert what he thinks about using American constitutional theory to apply to the Canadian charter.

[Finance, February 1st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the comments from the member for Mississauga South indicate once more that Liberal accountants may know how to count beans but they do not understand how to grow the economy.

The hon. member opposite said that it really is not consequential whether we have the highest marginal rate kick in at $60,000 or a quarter of a million or a half a million dollars. This really does suggest he does not understand the disincentives to work, save and invest among the most productive segment of the economy. I am offended when I hear a member from Ontario, who stood in this place and voted to cut billions of dollars in health transfers from his own people and his own province, turn around and blame the Ontario government for cutting taxes. Yes, the Ontario government cut taxes but its income tax revenues went up by $5 billion because more people are working, saving and investing, something a Liberal could not possible understand as a rational response to tax relief.

Does the member for Kings—Hants agree with me that the member opposite does not understand the supply side dynamic that tax relief provides as demonstrated in the crucible of Ontario in the past three years?

[Questions On The Order Paper, February 1st, 1999]

What was the total value of payments in lieu made by the government to the regional municipal government of Ottawa-Carleton in the years 1997 and 1998?

[Revenue Canada, February 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the minister is still asleep at the switch. He still has not given an answer. How many jobs have moved to Shawinigan?

When Brian Mulroney started filling his riding with pork, the Liberals cried foul. Now this Prime Minister has become the king of pork, the prince of pork in his own constituency, giving his riding three new hotel additions, a new convention centre, tennis courts, a theme park, a new armoury and of course the canoe hall of fame, all paid for with tax dollars.

Is this why the tax centre is being moved to Shawinigan, because that is where all the money is being spent?

[Revenue Canada, February 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Revenue Canada workers in Ottawa are being handed pink slips so that the Prime Minister can spread more pork around his riding.

In December I asked the revenue minister just how many of his employees were being moved from Ottawa to Shawinigan and he did not have a clue at that time.

Again, how many public servants in the revenue department are being moved from Ottawa to Shawinigan or are being fired so that the Prime Minister can take care of business back home?

[Income Tax Act, December 10th, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-466, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (exemption from taxation of 50% of U.S. social security payments to Canadian residents).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move first reading of this bill which would seek to reduce the inclusion rate of taxation for social security income received by Canadian residents from the 85% rate adopted by this parliament in Bill C-10, the fourth protocol on taxation with the United States, to 50% inclusion rate which existed prior to 1996. This is a measure which would provide tax relief to many Canadian seniors on fixed incomes.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Revenue Canada, December 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the minister does not have a clue what is going on in his department yet again. Clearly the minister does not understand how many jobs are being moved from Ottawa, coincidentally I am sure, to the Prime Minister's constituency.

Could the minister tell us how many hundreds of public service jobs are going to Shawinigan as a going away present from an outgoing Prime Minister?

[Revenue Canada, December 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Revenue Canada is rife with internal reports that hundreds of positions are being moved from Ottawa to Shawinigan, the Prime Minister's constituency.

Revenue Canada employees are calling talk shows and reporting that they have been issued pink slips because their positions are being moved.

Can the minister of revenue confirm or deny for us whether positions are being moved to Shawinigan and, if so, how many?