House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was tax.

Last in Parliament March 2011, as Liberal MP for Mississauga South (Ontario)

Lost his last election, in 2011, with 37% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Petitions October 2nd, 2009

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.

The first petition has to do with public safety officers.

The petitioners from my riding of Mississauga South would like to bring to the attention of the House that police officers and firefighters are required to place their lives at risk during the execution of their duties on a daily basis and that the employee benefits of police officers and firefighters often do not provide sufficient compensation for the families of those who are killed in the line of duty and that the public also mourns the loss when one loses his or her life in the line of duty.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to establish a fund known as the “public safety officers compensation fund” for the benefit of families of public safety officers who are killed in the line of duty.

Natural Resources October 2nd, 2009

Mr. Speaker, a breach of conduct but no consequences.

Michael McSweeney is a registered lobbyist for the Cement Association of Canada, who has lobbied the government eight times in the past eight months, including lobbying the Minister of Natural Resources. Mr. McSweeney also improperly served as the chief organizer for the minister's political fundraising on September 24. Mr. McSweeney appears to be in violation of rule 8 of the Lobbyists Registration Act and the minister is obviously implicated.

Will the Minister of Industry, who is responsible for that act, immediately call for a full investigation by the Commissioner of Lobbying?

Natural Resources October 2nd, 2009

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I advised the House that the Minister of Natural Resources had used a registered lobbyist as the chief organizer for her political fundraiser on September 24. In response to the minister's apparent conflict of interest and breach of the code of conduct for ministers, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities said, “That practice is wrong. It is totally unacceptable and it is totally inappropriate...”.

If that is the government's conclusion, what is the Prime Minister going to do about it?

Privilege October 2nd, 2009

Well, no. Mr. Speaker, the member just said this is BS, and this is a Conservative member for whom I have a great deal of respect, but this is the kind of intimidation of which I speak.

It is not just that someone, some person, did what some would refer to as flip the bird or give a middle finger gesture to someone in a random occurrence.

Mr. Speaker, you must consider the point of time at which it was done and the context in which it was done. That gesture says much more than simply, “I don't respect you”. It says much more.

In fact, the issue here it this, and I could go through a number of the processes, but I do not want to take up time. I want to be direct on this matter with the House because what happened has concerned me and disturbed me very much.

I happen to be the chair of the standing committee on ethics. I have had some activity, in terms of ethical activity, which I know is not a good experience for the government.

However, I was also in receipt of the direct evidence showing that the natural resources minister was in a conflict of interest and had breached the code of conduct for public office holders for ministers, parliamentary secretaries and other order in council appointees.

The minister also noted that I have called for investigations to be conducted by the Ethics Commissioner, the Commissioner of Lobbying and the Chief Electoral Officer.

In the context of the things that I have to do, my duties and responsibilities as a member of Parliament, that gesture to me, at the time it was being raised and after it had been in the media, was a direct statement to me that the minister was contemptuous of my right to freedom of speech, which is constitutionally protected, to raise those matters in the House, to protect the interest of the House, and to raise these issues on behalf of all Canadians.

It is a constitutionally protected right. My freedom of speech is a constitutionally protected right.

I am afraid that this is an indication that any attempt that I make in my responsibilities, whether it be as chair of the ethics committee or as an ordinary member of Parliament, to seek to have investigations until the government takes action with regard to breach of conduct and failure to abide by the code of conduct for ministers, which has been put into law, will be challenged.

Let me conclude. I see that you have heard enough, Mr. Speaker, and I accept that. I want you to know that I am very disturbed by what happened. I am very concerned. I feel intimidated, I feel that my rights are being challenged and I am anticipating that this is going to continue while I try to discharge my duties.

I wanted to bring it to the House's attention at the earliest opportunity, which I have done. I can also indicate that the member for Oak Ridges—Markham, who is not in the House today, was a witness. I am sure there are others. He is not here today but will be prepared to rise in the House to confirm this.

Mr. Speaker, should you find a prima facie case of breach of my personal privileges or simply a breach of privilege, I will be prepared to move the appropriate motion.

Privilege October 2nd, 2009

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 48(1) and (2), I am rising on a question of privilege for which I have given written notice to the Speaker at 8 a.m. this morning. It is relating, as I indicated in my letter, to a matter which disturbs me very personally and significantly because it is a matter which I believe is an attempt to intimidate me from discharging my duties as a member of Parliament.

Yesterday, during question period, I raised a question which had to do with the Minister of Natural Resources. It was a question which brought into question her actions and decisions to deliberately or knowingly put herself in a conflict of interest with regard to using a registered lobbyist to do political fundraising for her and, as well, to procure the resources and private information of the Toronto Port Authority for purposes of political fundraising.

In raising those points, which the Minister of Transport acknowledged were correct and that they were totally unacceptable, the Minister of Natural Resources made a rude finger gesture at me, in the middle of the question. It was distracting.

I raise this because this is not just a question; for instance, there was the issue where the member for Nepean—Carleton and a couple of other members were shown on film making certain gestures which were unparliamentary and it was dealt with as a privilege issue. However, because it was in the context of many members, et cetera, nothing between two members or whatever, the matter resulted in just an instruction to members that these kinds of things are inappropriate.

However,--

Natural Resources October 1st, 2009

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

It appears that the Minister of Natural Resources knowingly put herself in a conflict of interest by using a registered lobbyist to organize her political financing and that she was in breach of the code of ethical conduct for ministers by using the resources and private information of the federally regulated Toronto Port Authority to promote her political financing.

Will the Prime Minister be requesting investigations by the Ethics Commissioner, the Commissioner of Lobbying and by the Chief Electoral Officer, and if not, why not?

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act September 30th, 2009

Madam Speaker, I welcome the member's input into this matter. He always does it with passion.

In the briefing notes I was looking at, there is presumption that a rules based trade system will somehow address the problems of the drug trade in Colombia. I can only assume that the drug business out of Colombia is probably one of the most profitable ventures with certainly lots of support and interest of various nefarious types of people.

I am wondering if the member has any response to those who suggest that a trade deal with Colombia at this time would have any meaningful impact on the drug trade in Colombia.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act September 29th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to speak to this bill earlier and I addressed some of the concerns about human rights issues that constituents and others have raised with me.

Maybe the member has received some other information since that time, but the committee considered this deal and made a recommendation that an independent human rights assessment be done and that it was essential in terms of assessing the context in which a free trade deal could be addressed. Subsequently, I have found out that Amnesty International has refused to participate in an independent human rights assessment. This is troubling and maybe equally confusing since this is clearly an area that requires some attention.

I wonder whether the member has any idea where we are in terms of an independent human rights assessment to address the concerns expressed by many Canadians. If organizations like Amnesty International are not prepared to deal with it, what options do we have to satisfy that criteria?

Petitions September 29th, 2009

Madam Speaker, the hon. Conservative member really likes this one, so I am going to do it for him again.

These petitioners, many from my riding, would like to draw to the attention of the House that the Prime Minister once boasted about his apparent commitment to accountability when he said that greatest fraud is a promise not kept. He also promised never to tax income trusts. He broke that promise and imposed a 31.5% punitive tax which permanently wiped out $25 billion of the hard-earned savings of about two millions Canadians, particularly seniors.

The petitioners call on the Conservative minority government, first, to admit that the decision to tax income trusts was based on flawed methodology and incorrect assumptions, as was clearly demonstrated at the finance committee when hearings were held; second, to apologize to those who were unfairly harmed by the broken promise; and finally, to repeal the 31.5% tax on income trusts.

Petitions September 29th, 2009

Madam Speaker, the second petition is on the income trust broken promise.