John Cannis

[Business of Supply, May 17th, 2007]

Mr. Chair, I think the minister misunderstood my question.

The comments in the past were that they were outdated, worn out and endangering the lives of our men and women, no matter the use to which they were put.

My question is very simple. Why were they dangerous to our men and women then and why are they not now?

[Business of Supply, May 17th, 2007]

Mr. Chair, that is correct.

[Business of Supply, May 17th, 2007]

Mr. Chair, could the minister give us a brief description why they are able to use them today and he feels that they are safe today, when while in opposition he felt they were endangering our men and women? Could the minister give me an explanation, please?

[Business of Supply, May 17th, 2007]

Mr. Chair, have we used the Hercules C-130 at all for the Afghan mission?

[Business of Supply, May 17th, 2007]

Mr. Chair, I want to ask the minister, are we not using any of our Hercules C-130s?

[Business of Supply, May 17th, 2007]

Both.

[Business of Supply, May 17th, 2007]

Mr. Chair, I want to pick up on what the member for Bourassa said, that this exchange be respectful. First and foremost, our men and women in the past, present and future have done their jobs so admirably. No matter how tough the questions are, it has nothing to do with our men and women in the military.

I want to ask the minister with respect to our heavy lift, what type of aircraft are we using now to transport our heavy equipment?

[Income Trusts, May 16th, 2007]

Thank you kindly, Mr. Speaker. Every member, after they have moved on and are outside this House, has every right to say something. The members who may have more information on this are the committee members, who participate on a daily basis, or experts such as the people I have just outlined, including the former finance minister, the president of the teachers' pension fund, the president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, the president of the Canadian Council of the--

[Income Trusts, May 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member because he is adding a human element to this. I very much appreciate that.

When the potential leader of a nation, as he becomes the leader of the nation, sends a signal, people take certain steps. They may invest savings and they may invest for their future, et cetera. Today, a year and a half later, these people have been misled. Their lives have been affected negatively. That is what this is all about.

I am simply telling them to let us add a human element to this. They have betrayed seniors and it has to stop.

[Income Trusts, May 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as for all the huffing and puffing that was going on over there, if the member had read the motion he would have seen how we are asking this initiative to indeed become revenue neutral so that nobody is penalized. Those members are just used to taxing. For example, we are just saying to move it from the 31.5% that they are proposing to 10%. Who is being fair here?

Second, I want to remind the member that we are trying to protect the country first of all. He will have to answer to the seniors in his riding.

I also want to point out for the hon. member that 15 income trusts were taken over just recently, costing a tax base for our country of $6 billion.

Let me close with this. The Gartner Letter, a United Kingdom daily commentary on the markets, described it this way: the Canadian finance minister's “idiotic 'trust' taxation decision rendered last October 31st, which we still believe ranks as one of the worst decisions ever rendered by a person in a position of monetary authority”.

That says it all.