Mark Holland

[Privilege, June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege that was raised by the Minister of Finance yesterday. Yesterday the finance minister had a question of privilege about a statement I made in the House suggesting that an environmental measure in the budget may benefit his brother's company, Dorset Industrial Chemicals.

My statement was based on an article in the May 12 Ottawa Citizen, which noted the company supplies chemicals to the pulp and paper industry that are used in the process of cogeneration. This budgetary measure accelerates the capital cost allowance for equipment using a pulp and paper chemical byproduct called “black liquor” in the cogeneration process.

As a result of this article, I asked the Ethics Commissioner to look into the actions of the minister to see if the code might have been violated. In light of these serious allegations, my enquiry was appropriate.

I have seen the letter from the Ethics Commissioner and the news release issued by the minister and I do not believe they properly address the allegations contained in the Ottawa Citizen article. There was never any suggestion that Dorset would itself claim the capital cost allowance, so this was in fact never the issue.

In fact, the Ethics Commissioner's letter states:

Based on the information you have thus far provided my Office, and on condition that your Department can confirm to you that a company such as Dorset would not be eligible to avail itself of this particular budgetary measure, I am of the opinion that you are not in a conflict--

Clearly the Ethics Commissioner's statement is conditional and it is premised on an assumption that was in fact never the issue. The issue is whether or not--

[Canada-U.S. Relations, May 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the real record is this. The only thing the government opposite has done on this issue is send a star-struck foreign affairs minister who looked dreamily into the eyes of the U.S. Secretary of State.

The Prime Minister wants to wait now until July to visit Washington, when all the people whom he needs to convince in the U.S. Congress will be away on break.

When are the Prime Minister and his cabinet going to stop gawking at their American idols and actually start standing up for Canada?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, May 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member opposite is staying in practice for opposition.

This question is for him and specifically relates to the passport issue. The reality is that the government has abandoned Canadians on this issue. Yesterday, four of the western premiers, along with the Ontario legislature, stated that the Prime Minister is not being aggressive in dealing with the United States on this issue.

It is becoming obvious that the vast flow of goods and people across the border is simply not one of the government's priorities. What is shameful is that the government is leaving it up to mayors and the premiers to do the work of the Prime Minister. When is the Prime Minister going to act on his responsibilities and stand up for Canada?

[The Environment, May 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there is no greater national imperative than climate change. Whether it is nationally or globally, there is no issue that should grab our attention more than climate change and what it is doing to our planet, to our own nation today and to our own Arctic. This House has recognized that. The overwhelming majority of members of the House voted to support the Kyoto accord.

In Bonn, Germany, the Minister of the Environment shamed Canada because this government ignored the democratic will of the House. It ignored the majority of Canadians. It ignored overwhelming scientific evidence that we need to take action.

It is time for the government to listen to Canadians. Instead of slashing valuable programs like EnerGuide and keeping only the program that benefited the finance minister's brother, the government needs to focus on the priorities of Canadians, honour our Kyoto commitments--

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, May 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, for the member opposite, I will answer with only 36 hours' notice and now six hours of debate in this place, when we do not know what the mandate is, how many troops are involved and what the cost is. We know with certainty that a two year mission is certainly not going to be that, because if we are talking about cutting and running today, then certainly it will be that in two years. What we are really talking about is 10 years.

Does the member not think, in order to be honest with our troops, in order to be honest with Canadians, that we should have a proper debate about what this engagement really means and what indeed our engagement in Afghanistan will cost at the end of the day? And what is the mandate and how many troops will it involve?

[Conservative Party of Canada, May 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps those members will cheer the fact that this is the same member who called for reporters to be hauled off to jail. No doubt the member is going to have interesting ideas on aboriginal justice after suggesting that reporters should go to jail.

How many more Conservative MPs have these wild, eccentric ideas? Perhaps the member for Wild Rose who suggests they should be shot instead, or the member for Halton, who launched personal attacks on Canada's chief justice? Or is it the Prime Minister, who talks about accountability for everyone but himself?

The duct tape is slipping. Reformers are starting to emerge from their caves and people are now starting to see the true face of the party opposite.

[Conservative Party of Canada, May 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday the member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin resigned as chair of the aboriginal affairs committee after making ill-considered comments about the independence of the judiciary.

Who did the Prime Minister pick to replace him? None other than the member for Okanagan—Shuswap, the member who called--

[Justice, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the point that the minister misses is very simple. There is a difference between expressing an opinion about the judiciary and launching a personal attack on the independence of Canada's chief justice and to put words in her mouth. There is a huge difference.

Canadians want to know are the comments from the member for Halton and the Prime Minister's close association with the ultra right wing Civitas Society part of their real agenda, an agenda to destroy the independence of our judiciary?

[Justice, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister tried to disown the member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin for his attack on Canada's chief justice and the independence of the judiciary. This even though the comments were eerily similar to comments made by the Prime Minister in the past. Then last night, unleashed and unmuzzled, the member for Halton took on a new role of PMO apologist, launching a personal attack on Chief Justice McLachlin and calling her reaction “over the top” and saying she is getting “thin in the skin”.

Will the Prime Minister now re-muzzle the member for Halton or admit that his party has no respect for the judiciary?

[Government of Canada, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is the Prime Minister has been ignoring the premier of the province of Ontario and has been shoving him aside. I want to go a little further on the issue of this cozy relationship between the government and the Civitas Society.

The Prime Minister's close associates, Tom Flanigan and Ian Brodie, are intimately involved. Many Conservatives, including the Treasury Board President, were there this weekend. Their mission: to plot out a social conservative agenda and discuss such topics as the morality and justification for war.

Since the Prime Minister muzzles his MPs and hides from the press, is the Civitas Society where we need to look to uncover the truth about the government's real agenda?