Massimo Pacetti

[Petitions, November 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to table in the House today, a petition that does not come from my constituents.

This petition asks the Government of Canada to establish a new trade policy for the automobile sector. The petitioners urge the Government of Canada to cancel negotiations with Korea with a view to concluding a free-trade agreement, which would increase the massive one-way influx of automobile products on our market.

The petitioners also ask the government to develop a new trade policy for the automobile sector, requiring that Korea and other foreign markets purchase equivalent quantities of finished cars and car parts in North America if they wish to continue to access our market.

[Petitions, November 1st, 2006]

The second petition concerns civil marriage. It contains a number of requests. Most of the petitioners are people from my riding. I will not read all the requests, but here is one:

Therefore, your petitioners are calling for Parliament to reopen the marriage debate in Parliament and to repeal or amend the Civil Marriage Act so as to promote and defend marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Petitions, November 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to deposit today in the House.

The first one petitions the Government of Canada for a new automotive trade policy. It is not from my constituents but it does call upon the Government of Canada to cancel negotiations for a free trade agreement with Korea, which will worsen the one-way flood of automotive products into our market and, secondly, develop a new automotive trade policy that would require Korea and other offshore markets to purchase equivalent volumes of finished vehicles and auto parts from North America as a condition of their continued access to our market.

[The Environment, September 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, how can Canadians possibly take seriously what the government is doing to fight global warming? The government, for its part, certainly does not take Canadians seriously.

This summer, the Conservative government devoted a lot of time and resources to distributing information on its environmental plan to groups that had been hand-picked, while forgetting to invite Greenpeace and the Sierra Club. The Conservatives are obviously trying to curry favour with these groups by taking them into its confidence.

We are told that we will have to wait until 2025 for Canada to comply with ceilings on greenhouse gas emissions. The government also apparently wants to introduce new legislation even though we already have the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which was passed by the Liberal government and is looked upon as model government legislation all around the world. What we need is action, not more acts.

[Income Tax Act, June 21st, 2006]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-342, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (travel expenses).

Mr. Speaker, how many Canadians, prior to choosing a travel destination, even consider travelling to a Canadian destination? The purpose of the bill is to make that decision a much easier one for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to present a bill to amend the Income Tax Act (travel expenses). This bill provides a maximum deduction of $1,000 from a taxpayer's income in respect of the expenses of purchasing tickets for the taxpayer or members of the taxpayer's family for travel by airplane, train or bus if the travel involves crossing at least three different provincial boundaries.

As former chairman of the finance committee, I had the opportunity to travel across Canada and I wondered how many Canadians get to visit all corners of this vast country of ours.

The bill will have Canadians thinking about choosing travel within Canada first, and second, the bill will promote national unity by allowing Canadians to learn more about their fellow citizens.

It can only have a positive effect on local economies. With additional money spent during these trips, this private member's bill would be revenue neutral for the finance department.

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

[Government Policies, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, here are some more changes that we know Canadians did not vote for.

The funding set aside for the Manitoba Literacy Partners, beginning in March 2007, will be cancelled.

Mail delivery was suddenly interrupted for 53,000 homes in rural areas of Canada.

Credits of $1.8 billion set aside for Aboriginal education programs have been abandoned.

Popular programs such as the one tonne challenge and EnerGuide have been cancelled.

Billions of dollars to help fund post-secondary education have been reduced to an $80 tax credit for textbooks.

Funding for the Canadian Unity Council has been cancelled to help the separatists.

Funding for the National Literacy Secretariat has been cancelled.

Annual appropriations for immigration have been cut by $145 million.

And that is not all.

[Criminal Code, June 14th, 2006]

asked for leave to introduce Bill C-323, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (use of hand-held cellular telephone while operating a motor vehicle).

He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill seeks to make it an offence to use a hand-held cellular telephone while operating a motor vehicle on a highway.

If passed, the bill will still allow drivers to use a cellphone while driving as long as it is connected to an earpiece and mouthpiece so that both hands can remain fixed on the wheel. It seems to me that if we can afford a car and a cellular phone, chances are that we can afford a headset as well. There is no reason to take this kind of unnecessary risk on the road and endanger innocent lives.

The bill carries no more than a $500 fine for a first offence and a maximum $2,000 fine or six months of jail time for second and subsequent offences. This bill sends a clear message that convenience and lifestyle habits cannot take priority over public safety.

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

[The Environment, May 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will put the question another way.

While the Conservative government is throwing in the towel over global warming by cancelling the EnerGuide program, the Liberal government of Quebec announced last week that it will maintain the EnerGuide program with the help of its partners, such as Hydro-Québec and Gaz Métro.

Is the Prime Minister not ashamed to drop Quebec and its partners in the fight against global warming? Will he compensate Quebec instead of leaving it with the bill?

[The Environment, May 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, instead of supporting the provinces financially as it promised, the Conservative government is cutting their funding. That is its way of saying it will let the provinces pay the bill.

We learned on the weekend, in fact, that the $328 million set aside for Quebec for the environment are now in doubt.

Instead of playing with the fate of the planet, why will the Prime Minister not guarantee that the Government of Quebec will receive the $328 million? How will he reconcile his lip service with reality?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, May 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am one of the last people who would agree with the NDP, but unfortunately, I have to agree with the member here. There was no plan and I do not see a plan in the budget. Giving somebody a tax credit for public transit is not an environmental plan.

Like I said in my speech, a credit on a monthly pass comes out to about $150 a year. That money is probably going to be clawed back by the transit companies. The normal transit user is probably going to end up paying more money for a transit pass at the end of the year because transit companies are probably going to increase fares by the gross amount and not the net amount. There will be no tax benefit to the normal transit user.

I was not in Bonn, so I am not sure what really happened there. I have to take the member's word as to what happened. We did at least have an environmental plan and a long term vision where we were investing in renewable energy sources.