Rick Dykstra

[Canadian Forces, March 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the lives of three brave Canadian soldiers serving in Afghanistan were lost to an improvised explosive device northwest of Kandahar city. One of these men was Warrant Officer Dennis Raymond Brown from the Lincoln and Welland Regiment based in St. Catharines.

Warrant Office Brown spent his life serving his community and his country, first as a constable with the Niagara Regional Police and then with the Canadian Forces. He is described as a loving husband and father whose desire to help others led him to serve in Afghanistan. His wife, Mishelle, described his commitment so well this week.

As parliamentarians, our votes directly affect the lives of our soldiers and we feel the loss of each soldier we send into duty. Soldiers like Warrant Officer Brown, Corporal Dany Olivier Fortin and Corporal Kenneth Chad O'Quinn paid the ultimate price defending our country and helping Afghanistan build a stable democracy.

We in the House, regardless of political stripe, thank and honour them for their courageous service.

[Hon. Gilbert Parent, March 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to follow and echo the comments made by the member for Toronto Centre.

Gib served in this House for exactly 8,100 days. Any of us who have the opportunity to be elected and sit in this House would see it as quite an achievement to reach that level. He served as the member of Parliament for St. Catharines from 1974 to 1979, one of 17 proud Canadians to have represented St. Catharines since Confederation.

While politics certainly was Mr. Parent's passion, teaching was his love. In 1996 he launched the Teachers Institute on Canadian Parliamentary Democracy, a professional development opportunity that brings 70 teachers from across the country to the capital each year for an insider's view on how Parliament works.

I thought I would share with the House a short story about a student, actually a very close friend of mine, Mr. Wayne Schmidt. He was a student of Mr. Parent's. As a vice-principal in the public school board at Thorold, Mr. Parent reached out to Wayne, not in a mean way, not in a direct way that would have him think anything less of himself, but in a way that allowed him to think more clearly about the future that he wanted to lead and the importance of his education, of community-mindedness and of community spirit.

I hear from Wayne on a regular basis about how he used to knock on doors for Gib just because of the commitment that he made to him, as an educator and as a friend, to help him along not only with his education but also with his steps in life. That is a strong testament for any individual who aspires to leadership. Wayne used to vote for Gib in that party; thankfully he has now converted, but nonetheless he continues to speak highly of Mr. Parent and the impact Gib had on him.

When we look at his political focus, he certainly did lose an election in 1984, but came back that much stronger in 1988 and was returned to this House. He won his seat back, showing the commitment he had to his community and what it meant to him.

I want to echo somewhat the comments from the member for Toronto Centre when he spoke about the fact that Gib was elected as Speaker of the House. What is interesting is that in 1993 there was a majority led by former Prime Minister Chrétien, who did have his choice for who he believed should be the Speaker at that time. Mr. Gauthier, a member at the time, was the former prime minister's choice, but Gib, after thoughtful reflection, determined that he would put his name forward. Two members who sit on this side of the House now, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and our current House leader, and this will speak to the type of camaraderie that this side of the House would like to continue to work by, assisted Mr. Parent in his endeavour to become Speaker of the House.

That evening it took a long time for Mr. Parent to actually become the Speaker. Ironically, it was a tie vote on the second-last ballot. A number of members in the House had assumed that this was the final ballot and that they could leave. One of the members of the former Reform Party, Mr. Ray Speaker, was actually getting his hair cut at the time. He saw on TV that it was a tie. He was only halfway through getting his hair cut, and he ripped off the cover and stormed back into the House. Of course, as legend would have it, it was the first time ever that a fellow by the name of Speaker actually determined who the next Speaker would be.

One further thought I would leave the House with is one that Gib Parent made when he became the Speaker. He pledged his best efforts to ensure that MPs would comport themselves with dignity, respect and civility in the strenuous debates that were sure to follow, considering the potentially intractable positions represented in the 35th Parliament.

I would suggest that those words for the 35th Parliament are just as needed, just as ready, and just able for us to follow here in the 40th Parliament.

[Science and Technology, February 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this week Brock University received a significant investment from the federal government for three Canada research chairs. This is good news not only for St. Catharines and the Niagara region, but also for the future of science and technology in our country.

Dr. Vincenzo De Luca, Dr. Ping Liang and Dr. Cheryl McCormick are all experts in their fields of study and will no doubt further our knowledge and understanding of the world around us.

Brock University has also proposed the Niagara Health and Biosciences Research Complex. This complex will use biotechnology to advance human health and diversify the economic base of the region. This funding announcement reiterates our government's recognition of the key role of science and technology in our society.

This is why upon forming government in 2006, we introduced our strategy entitled “Mobilizing Science and Technology to Canada's Advantage”. This strategy is promoting and harnessing scientific innovation in our country and is strengthening our competitive advantage.

This government is committed to supporting this industry so that it is good for scientists, good for our economy and good for Canadians.

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member. In the 39th Parliament, we were colleagues on the finance committee. I can recall when we started together. It was a very positive experience. The member for Markham—Unionville certainly thought there could be a productive session. It was a minority government and I thought we started off very well together. Since that time I have noticed he has taken his critic's role very seriously, specifically the word “critic”.

There is an opportunity during the 40th Parliament, during the passing of the budget, for us to take maybe a leap of faith to work together to ensure that we pass the budget that is before the House now.

I would simply ask the member, and give him the opportunity not to take on the role of being the critic, and I understand he does a very good job of that, but to actually take a couple of moments to say something positive to the House, positive in the outcome of what we will do here and which will mean something to the people of the country in terms of the economy. I challenge him and ask him to do that.

[Israel, February 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Ontario's largest public sector union, CUPE, is targeting academics simply because of their nationality and religion. This behaviour is unacceptable to Canadians and it is unacceptable to this government.

Last week our immigration minister represented the Government of Canada in London at the conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Commission for Combating Anti-Semitism, where he explained our government's concern. This new anti-Semitism seeks to deny the right of the Jewish people to secure existence in their homeland, the state of Israel.

Surely this should be an issue that all sides of the House can agree on, but unfortunately that is not the case. Even here there are those who want taxpayers to fund organizations that call Israel a racist state and members of the Bloc who circulate videos from banned terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

Parliamentarians must stand up and condemn those who deny the Jewish people their right to a homeland.

[February 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the concern, the effort and the work that the member opposite has done, especially at committee. I want to touch on that, because it is important to recognize here that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is getting off to what I think is a pretty good start. It is not a bad example, actually, of how we here in Ottawa need to work a lot more closely with each other in these very difficult economic times.

As vice-chair of the committee, the member put forward a motion that would seek support for the individual to have the case heard, and it would certainly bring forward a perspective and a view as to what we thought of that decision from an all-party perspective.

That was passed unanimously. I think the answer to his question is--

[February 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank the hon. member for his intervention. I share with him the commitment to ensure that the Official Languages Act is respected by all government bodies, but I must acknowledge that it would be inappropriate for the government to comment on this current case, as it is currently before the Immigration and Refugee Board. As the member knows, the IRB operates independently of government.

As the immigration minister has said, the government obviously expects all agencies and boards, including the IRB, to operate in full compliance with the letter and the spirit of the Official Languages Act and the charter in allowing individuals to be represented in the language of their choice.

As the member knows and acknowledges, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration unanimously passed a motion earlier today speaking against the decision of the IRB not to allow an applicant to proceed in the official language of his choice. All four parties concurrred.

Also, as the member knows, this case is under investigation by the official languages commissioner. Every year the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada renders more than 50,000 decisions. I can assure the House that it is required to do so in a manner that is consistent with the charter and in a manner that is consistent with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada is required to respect the right of everyone who appears before it to use either official language. This means that every person appearing before the board has the right to choose the official language of his or her choice.

The position of our government is very clear. We expect and anticipate that all agencies and boards, including the IRB, will operate in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the Official Languages Act and the charter in allowing individuals to be represented in the language of their choice.

Certain cases have attracted media attention. As I have said, it would be inappropriate for the government to comment on such specifics. It is worth noting again that this case is currently being investigated by the official languages commissioner, and I would further note that the board has asked for final submissions from all parties on this matter.

Our government is working cooperatively with the Government of Quebec to make our immigration system work well and serve the unique needs of the Province of Quebec. That is why we support the Canada-Quebec accord, which allows the province of Quebec to determine its own immigration needs with federal funding assistance.

Our government will always support the rights of Canadians in Quebec and in other provinces and territories to relate to the government and its independent agencies in the official language of their choice.

[Cancer, February 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, today on World Cancer Day, I rise to speak to an issue of great personal significance.

Every week thousands of Canadians will be diagnosed with cancer. Cancer is not discriminatory in who it affects. In September my family and I experienced the tragedy of losing a loved one to cancer, a tragedy many Canadians have also experienced. That is why I am proud to be part of a government that has risen to the challenge of working towards a solution.

We began a Canadian strategy for cancer control in 2006, and this has led to new research and initiatives such as the Canadian partnership for tomorrow project, which began in 2008. It will explore how genetics, environment, lifestyle and behaviour contribute to the development of cancer.

I believe it is important for the millions of Canadians affected by this disease to know their government is working hard on their behalf to help beat this terrible disease.

[The Budget, January 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the hon. member for Welland suggested our multi-year action plan for Canada's future would somehow not benefit his constituents.

I believe it is important to set the record straight so that people in the Niagara region know that their government is taking action to ensure a productive and prosperous future.

Our action plan includes extending work-sharing agreements. We are investing in training, delivered through the EI program, to help people develop new skills for today's workforce.

We are investing in knowledge infrastructure, with a plan to help universities like Brock, which is in the ridings of Welland and St. Catharines. Our budget is aimed at creating jobs and getting people back to work.

I know we have made a budget that would benefit St. Catharines and all the Niagara region. Three of the four members from Niagara are supporting this economic plan. I would simply ask the fourth to do likewise.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 19th, 2008]

With regard to the tax reductions introduced by the government since the beginning of 2006, how much less in taxes could a retired couple over the age of 65 with combined income of $40,200 (with one spouse having a private pension income of $23,000, $11,490 in income from Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security (OAS) payments, and the other spouse having an income of $5,710 in OAS payments) save as a result of: (a) the introduction of pension income splitting; (b) the increase in the age credit; (c) the increase in the pension income credit; (d) the reduction in the goods and services tax; (e) the increase in the basic personal exemption; (f) the reduction of personal income tax rates; (g) the increase in the refundable medical expense supplement, if eligible expenses are $2,000; (h) the introduction of the public transit tax credit, if the cost of a monthly pass is $42; (i) the increase in the maximum amount eligible for the spouse or common-law partner credit; and (j) the Tax-Free Savings Account?