Jeff Watson

[Border Security, December 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, a December 1 bust in Montreal turned up a gun smuggling ring across our border with the U.S. A cache of handguns, automatic weapons and 642 rounds of ammunition for their immediate use passed by border officials without detection on a day when border security was supposed to be on highest alert. These weapons could also have entered through one of our many unmanned border crossings.

Will the Prime Minister admit his failure to protect Canadians and redirect money from a rifle registry to the RCMP to combat gun smuggling?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, November 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Essex extend a warm welcome to George Bush, President of our friend and greatest trading partner, the United States. We look for solutions to problems at the Essex-Windsor border, the busiest crossing in the world with $1 million per minute of trade.

This Liberal government has mismanaged our critical trade relationship, jeopardizing Canadian jobs with anti-American insults, lax marijuana laws and a Prime Minister who has failed to build border infrastructure and get our borders opened to Canadian exports.

The people of Essex have paid a steep price as a result: major seed contracts, lost; suppliers to local businesses, lost; auto jobs, lost; and major investments in our region, lost. The Prime Minister must seize upon the visit of President Bush to make amends and set a new course for healthy relations with the U.S.

If he will not, then let him step aside and a Conservative government will do it for him.

[Justice, November 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, with 25,000 Ontario grow houses currently flooding the U.S. with marijuana, the U.S. ambassador has expressed that the Liberal government's relaxing of drug laws could make Canada-U.S. border problems even worse. While Liberals play to marijuana growers, $1 million per minute of cross-border trade is at stake.

Why is the government jeopardizing Canadian exports to the U.S. and Canadian jobs with its reckless drug policy?

[Supply, November 15th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, it does not matter whether it is in French or English, it is still the same bad response, one that is sorely lacking. I know the guidelines quite well. I have been over them with churches before.

I will ask another question of the hon. minister. I hope that this time we will get a real answer, although I do not imagine we will. The same government that likes to talk about defending the rule of law likes as well to hide behind the law instead of giving a truthful answer.

Did Canada Revenue Agency officials, either before, during or after the recent federal election, call in and threaten the United Church of Canada or the Metropolitan Community Church for their support of the Liberal government position on same sex marriage or are there two sets of applying the law in Canada?

[Supply, November 15th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, recently I rose in this chamber to ask why the Canada Revenue Agency was being allowed to threaten religious freedom in Canada.

There is a pattern emerging from the Liberal government. A religious organization, such as the United Church of Canada or the Metropolitan Community Church, that agrees with the government on a moral issue, for example, same sex marriage, is free to publicly support the government.

CRA guidelines for charitable activities, which I happen to have read and know because I have had some experience in this area, state:

A charity cannot be established with the aim of furthering or opposing the interests of a political party, elected representative, or candidate for public office

Not opposing, but furthering them, supporting them.

I do not want either the United Church of Canada or the Metropolitan Community Church to be called before the CRA and threatened for their charitable status. Their free speech should be preserved.

The pattern continues like this: A religious organization that disagrees with the Liberal government on a moral issue, same sex marriage, for example, is threatened by Canada Revenue Agency officials. Focus on the Family was threatened with an audit for criticizing this government.

The CCCB and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada were suspiciously called into CRA offices just before the recent federal election and were warned not to oppose the Liberal position on same sex marriage. This was reaffirmed by the national revenue minister's own media relations officer. Recently, during the federal election, Catholic Bishop Frederick Henry was threatened to remove a teaching letter from his diocese's website or risk losing charitable status.

In response to my previous question, the hon. Minister for National Revenue stated in the chamber:

The only thing they cannot do as a registered charity is advocate for a political party or a political candidate in an election

I have the letter that was on Bishop Henry's website. I do not see anything here that advocates a cause for voting or not voting for a particular candidate or political party and yet he was threatened anyway. The minister owes us a much better answer than the first time around.

I will ask the minister again the same question. Why is the Prime Minister and the Minister for National Revenue permitting government agencies to attack and threaten religious freedom in Canada? Did this government direct the Canada Revenue Agency to threaten church groups?

[Income Tax Act, November 4th, 2004]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-265, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (exemption from taxation of 50% of United States social security payments to Canadian residents).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce my first measure designed to restore tax fairness to those seniors living in Canada who collect U.S. social security as the basis of their retirement income.

These seniors, living not only in my riding of Essex and in the immediate region of Windsor, Ontario, but also living in communities from British Columbia to Quebec, and to New Brunswick, have waited nine years to see legislation introduced to roll back a 70% tax increase imposed upon them after they had already retired.

Sadly, thousands of these proud Canadians of modest and low income have passed away before ever seeing this measure introduced. Many years ago I pledged to these seniors that I would never forget their struggle to survive when I finally reached elected office in our Parliament. I have kept my word to them.

This is for Olive Smith, Bill Thrasher, Joan Eikre and others who have waited patiently. In the spirit of successful amendments to the throne speech, I urge my colleagues from all parties in the House to enthusiastically support restoring tax fairness to our retired seniors.

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

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, October 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for a very thorough look at the proposed legislation. I have to agree with some of his points. It is incredibly commendable that outstanding comprehensive land claims are being addressed with the legislation. We certainly take no issue with the generosity toward aboriginal peoples. The agreement really speaks to a lot of their needs. I specifically also want to commend the power to raise their own revenues.

However, I am alarmed that the Tlicho constitution may trump our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Could my distinguished colleague speak to his party's desire to protect our beloved Charter of Rights and Freedoms in this matter?

[Taxation, October 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Bishop Henry and other church leaders have been highly critical of the Prime Minister's position on certain matters of conscience. Now the Prime Minister, through his tax collectors, is threatening to remove tax free status from Roman Catholic and evangelical organizations.

Why is the Prime Minister permitting government agencies to attack and threaten freedom of religion in Canada?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and give my first comments here, other than a standing order.

I was of course a major Habs fan and so it is good to see the hon. member's face here. However I have to say that I have some problems with the concept of a national child care system.

My wife and I are proud home educators. My wife stays home predominantly and cares for our children. We both participate in educating our children and we are pleased to do so. We are one of the rare ones though who are allowed to do that by virtue of my job and we have a pretty good income.

I have a lot of problems accepting that somehow Canadians have said that it is time for a national child care system. First , the Liberals were elected on a plurality, not a majority, and not every vote for them was a vote for child care and early childhood education. I think it is presumptuous to suggest that somehow there is a mandate for this, that we have said that it is time.

Second, I have to say that examining the current Canadian reality, where this government has an extreme appetite for growth in spending every single year, that Canadians have lost the real choice for one parent to stay home or for both parents to work fewer hours and not fall behind. That is the reality we face. We do not have a real choice.

[General Amherst High School, October 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the people for electing me as the first Conservative MP to serve the riding of Essex in 46 years.

As I rise today in my first official role in this chamber, I wish to commend the students of General Amherst High School for their outstanding contribution to the Canadian Cancer Society's walkathon held in their hometown of Amherstburg last week.

Seven hundred and fifty of 770 students participated in the walkathon. They raised over $72,000 in only five days of canvassing.

Truly noteworthy, however, is the spirit of service exemplified by these students.

As we embark on this new session of Parliament with all its uncertainties, my hope is that this stellar example of service by these leaders of tomorrow will inspire us, the leaders of today, to remember our call as MPs to humbly serve our constituents.