Tom Lukiwski

[Finance, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party cannot keep its story straight when it comes to the fiscal imbalance.

Behind door number one we have the member for Wascana and the member for Scarborough--Guildwood who have both stated that there is no such thing as the fiscal imbalance.

Meanwhile, behind door number two is the member for Etobicoke--Lakeshore who, for the benefit of his leadership campaign, now claims that the fiscal imbalance does exist and something needs to be done to correct it.

Finally, there is door number three where we find the member for Kings--Hants, who over the weekend amazingly enough said that the fiscal imbalance had already been corrected.

While the Liberal Party keeps on dithering with three completely different positions, Canadians can rest soundly knowing that our country now has strong leadership under a new Conservative government which acknowledges that a fiscal imbalance exists and is looking at solutions to ensure that Canada remains strong, united and free.

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[David Dingwall and Attorney General Arbitration Report, April 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to table, in both official languages, the report in the matter of arbitration between David C. Dingwall and the Attorney General of Canada.

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Points of Order, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning yesterday when the hon. member for Kitchener—Waterloo introduced a motion in the House asking for unanimous consent to have the House observe a moment of silence for our fallen soldiers in Afghanistan. There was no prior consultation yesterday, but I believe you would find today that if the hon. member cares to reintroduce the motion he may find unanimous consent for the motion.

I would ask the Speaker to perhaps give leave to the hon. member to re-introduce the motion.

[Motions for Papers, April 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Committees of the House, April 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations and I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion to refer a number of statutory reviews to committee. I move:

That the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights be the committee for the purposes of section 145 of the Anti-terrorism Act (2001) and that, pursuant to subsection 145(2) of that Act, the committee report no later than June 23, 2006;

that the Standing Committee on Finance be the committee for the purposes of section 89 of the Canada Revenue Agency Act;

that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage be the committee for the purposes of section 5.1 of the Canada Travelling Exhibitions Indemnification Act;

that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights be the committee for the purposes of section 46.1 of An Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and law enforcement);

that the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development be the committee for the purposes of section 343 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act; and

that the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology be the committee for the purposes of section 29 of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg Centre stated in his comments that he felt that perhaps the Conservatives had an ulterior motive for introducing this massive piece of legislation that will finally bring accountability to government. He suggested that we may have built in our own poison pill to ensure its defeat so that the Conservative Party would then be able to go to the electorate and state that once again there is a need for a majority government because the opposition has defeated the bill.

I want to say to my hon. colleague that I believe he has probably been watching too many Oliver Stone movies because there is no conspiracy theory here. We definitely want the legislation to pass and we want it done quickly. The member mentioned that it would be a great gift for Canadians to have the bill pass before the summer recess, and I agree with that. I will be one of the members sitting on the legislative committee who will be trying to shepherd the bill to speedy passage through the House and ultimately through the Senate.

I can assure the member that there is no ulterior motive behind the introduction of this weighty bill. It is merely to try to put into effect a number of practices, procedures, guidelines and conditions that will prevent anything like the sponsorship scandal from ever happening again in government. I give the member my assurances and I am sure the assurances of every member of this side of the House.

My question, quite simply, for the member is with respect to his comments on floor crossing. He said that element was missing in the legislation and that the NDP firmly believe there should be no such thing as floor crossing. My question quite simply is in respect to a comment made earlier by the President of the Treasury Board. Will he simply confirm that under the stewardship and leadership of Ed Broadbent, Mr. Broadbent allowed someone by the name of Mr. Toupin to cross the floor into the NDP Party?

Will he simply confirm that it may be a little hypocritical to suggest now that the NDP is against floor crossing when under the stewardship of the former leader of the NDP, who they tout now as being the most ethical of all leaders, he allowed someone to cross the floor and sit with the NDP?

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.