Maurice Vellacott

[Constitution Act, 2010 (Senate Term Limits), November 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have some questions to ask the member opposite. I know the NDP is of the view that there should not be a Senate at all. As we know, things move incrementally in this place. Even if I strongly disagree with his point of view in respect of the removal of senators altogether, would it not make some sense to at least get on board, make the adjustment and modernize to the present, and then they can go their way and do what they think they need to do thereafter?

Canadians across the country, as he well knows, have shown a clear desire to change the Senate, to have Senate reform, and we are committed to modernizing the Senate to reflect a 21st century democracy. Surely we could have basic agreement to say that a senator being elected for terms up to 45 years is not right or appropriate in this modern era and that something in the order of eight years would certainly be better.

Would the member opposite not agree that rather than 45-year terms for unelected, unaccountable senators, a term of eight years would be an improvement on that?

[Bill C-343, November 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberal-Bloc-NDP coalition proved once again that it is soft on crime and cares more about criminals than victims and law-abiding Canadians. The Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP banded together yesterday at the HUMA committee and supported and passed Bloc Bill C-343 that would reward youth criminals.

Bill C-343 would provide thousands of dollars from EI for parents to stay home and take care of youth criminals who were injured while committing a crime, such as robbery, arson, gang activity or other criminal acts. The bill would result in increased EI premiums for law-abiding Canadian families and business owners who would be forced to pay even more money to these criminals. It is shocking.

The bill is offensive to victims and to law-abiding Canadians. Our Conservative government will never support a bill that rewards criminals. Unlike the coalition, our government will continue to stand up for victims and for hard-working Canadian families.

[Business of Supply, November 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite not yet having been in government and possibly never will be either, does not seem to be able to make the distinction between talking and making clear one's opinion privately and where it counts in some instances and also the other difference of keeping one's powder dry, so to speak, in the public domain, sometimes because of legal constraints. The member with her legal background should appreciate the nuances of this.

Is the opposition member for Willowdale not aware that government caucus MPs have some greater responsibility incumbent upon them at such a time as this? I refer to the member for Wascana. I thought she was going to refer to the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt or one of the other good members of our Conservative caucus as she built up to that. However, the member for Wascana should know the need for there not to be even the appearance of imprudence. I think it was before her time, but she might recall a scenario involving the member for Wascana who was blamed for losing the 2006 election for the Liberals. There were allegations that the member for Wascana's office was not discreet enough in respect to a decision on income trusts.

Is the opposition Liberal member for Willowdale not aware of criminal sanctions that apply to government members who are not as yappy as opposition Liberal members?

[Business of Supply, November 4th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, my colleague across the way and I have had some good discussions on different things over time, but in respect of his attitude and whether it parallels that of some of his counterparts elsewhere in the country, particularly in the province of Saskatchewan, is it his view that Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan should be nationalized, expropriated? What would be his view in respect of that?

[Business of Supply, November 4th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, the member commented on the net benefit clause in the investment act.

On the one hand, the Liberals rubber-stamp everything that comes along; on the other hand, the NDP opposes everything.

An individual named Jim who has a membership in the New Democratic Party infers that nationalization might be the way to go. How the coalition works out that polar opposite, I am not sure.

I would like the member's take on comments made by the Liberal provincial leader in Saskatchewan, which seem to contradict some members comments here in the House.

[Business of Supply, November 4th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague across the way, the Bloc member. I would have liked to have asked it of the member for Wascana before he scurried away from his seat shortly after his speech. I will just give a bit of history to my Bloc friends regarding the member for Wascana.

The member for Wascana was the provincial Liberal leader for some time in that province before he escaped to Ottawa. He was kind of lonely there, being the only, lonely Liberal for a period of time. Now he has come here and history repeats itself, I guess, insofar as he is the only, lonely Liberal in the whole province, surrounded by a sea of 13 Conservatives, and he does not much like that. He does not particularly like the fact that he is no longer in the government, in the government caucus, in the cabinet. He can yap and yip all he wants on that side because he does not have disclosure restraints. There are no criminal sanctions that would apply to him as a member of the opposition, yipping and yapping on the other side.

The members from the Conservative Party, the 13 of us here in this place, take our responsibility seriously in providing the kind of input that the minister requests as he gathers all the input he requires for a very serious and very sobering kind of decision. At the end of the day, the minister, as he has rightly said, made a good decision, that it does not present a likely net benefit to Canada, in respect of the Billiton bid.

I would remind the Bloc member and the Liberal member for Wascana who was here in his seat talking some moments ago that the current Liberal leader in the province of Saskatchewan actually said in public comments that this should be wide open, that we should just let it happen, that the government should not be involved at all.

So it is fine for the member for Wascana to flail his arms and all of that in this place, to flap his arms and his gums, I guess I would say, but what does the Bloc member think of the fact that the federal Liberals rubber-stamp everything and the provincial Liberal leader said it should just be left open, when in fact--

[International Day of Older Persons, September 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, October 1 is International Day of Older Persons. This Friday, Canadians will celebrate Canadian seniors and recognize the important contributions they continue to make.

One in seven Canadians today is a senior. Today's diverse group of seniors assumes many different roles. Seniors are remarkable business leaders, devoted mentors, energetic athletes and exemplary volunteers.

Budget 2010 invested an additional $5 million per year in the new horizons for seniors program, bringing the total overall budget to $40 million. This additional funding will support projects that encourage seniors to volunteer and mentor other generations, as well as initiatives that aim to increase awareness of financial abuse.

The government also introduced several cost-saving measures, including pension income splitting, doubling the pension income credit, increasing the age credit and reducing minimum RRIF withdrawals.

Much still needs to be done. We will continue to work hard to meet the needs of Canadian seniors.

For strengthening our yesterday and continuing to shape tomorrow, let us honour Canadian seniors today.

[Points of Order, September 24th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I can reiterate for the record exactly what I said just not so long ago here. It is true; he voted one way then and then he flipped and he voted the other way. I simply said, “20 coalition MPs who originally voted to scrap the long gun registry bowed under the pressure from their Ottawa bosses,” and if he wants me to be more specific, their leaders, in other words, and voted to keep the wasteful long gun registry.

There is every bit of truth in that and I am not sure what he objects to in that statement.

[Firearms Registry, September 24th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the coalition voted to keep the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry. In fact, 20 coalition MPs who had originally voted to scrap the long gun registry bowed under the pressure from their Ottawa bosses and voted to keep it.

My Conservative colleagues and I will continue to work hard to scrap this wasteful and ineffective registry. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety update this House on our efforts to scrap the long gun registry?

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member figure she is going far enough in only including parliamentary secretaries? If she wants to do a thorough job, would she be open to something a little more expansive, possibly including that lobbyists have to note the fact when they are meeting with any members of Parliament?

An observation I have made while sitting in this seat over 13 years now is that members of the opposition parties will often come and talk to ministers here right before me. They may be coming on behalf of somebody else. Who really knows?

Would the member be open to having it so that any lobbying of a member of Parliament by an individual has to be reported?