Walter David BAKER

BAKER, The Hon. Walter David, P.C., Q.C.

Parliamentary Career

October 30, 1972 - May 9, 1974
PC
  Grenville--Carleton (Ontario)
  • Progressive Conservative Party Deputy House Leader (September 21, 1973 - February 24, 1976)
  • Deputy House Leader of the Official Opposition (September 21, 1973 - February 24, 1976)
July 8, 1974 - March 26, 1979
PC
  Grenville--Carleton (Ontario)
  • Progressive Conservative Party Deputy House Leader (September 21, 1973 - February 24, 1976)
  • Deputy House Leader of the Official Opposition (September 21, 1973 - February 24, 1976)
  • Progressive Conservative Party House Leader (February 25, 1976 - March 26, 1979)
  • Official Opposition House Leader (February 25, 1976 - March 26, 1979)
May 22, 1979 - December 14, 1979
PC
  Nepean--Carleton (Ontario)
  • President of the Privy Council (June 4, 1979 - March 2, 1980)
  • Minister of National Revenue (June 4, 1979 - March 2, 1980)
  • Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (October 9, 1979 - December 14, 1979)
  • Progressive Conservative Party House Leader (October 9, 1979 - December 14, 1979)
February 18, 1980 - July 9, 1984
PC
  Nepean--Carleton (Ontario)
  • President of the Privy Council (June 4, 1979 - March 2, 1980)
  • Minister of National Revenue (June 4, 1979 - March 2, 1980)
  • Progressive Conservative Party House Leader (April 14, 1980 - September 8, 1981)
  • Official Opposition House Leader (April 14, 1980 - September 8, 1981)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 1408)


May 31, 1984

Mr. Baker:

Mr. Speaker, before I direct my question to the Hon. Member, I would like just to comment that it is quite unfortunate that a massive tax audit was started in the fall of 1979 when the Progressive Conservative Party was in power, and we saw for four years fishermen harrassed throughout Canada. Some of the statements made by previous speakers on the unfairness of the collection system certainly ring true. It is unfortunate that the tax audit was ordered in 1979. I am sure

May 31, 1984

that if the Liberal Government had been in power at that time it would not have been ordered.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Full View Permalink

May 31, 1984

Mr. Baker:

My question deals with the third party demand. Does the Hon. Member have the same difficulty I do with a disgusting aspect of that third party demand on low-income people, the primary producers? The third party demand is made on the gross amount, not on the net. If a fisherman owes money to the dealer to whom he is selling fish and he has other expenses, the 25 per cent, sometimes 50 per cent, is taken right off the top. You take the Revenue Canada portion of the attachment, then you take out his expenses and he is left with zero, or sometimes less than zero. Does the Hon. Member find the same thing in dealing with primary producers in his part of the country?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Full View Permalink

May 31, 1984

Mr. Baker:

The Hon. Member who introduced this motion was, I believe, a Cabinet Minister at the time. It is unfortunate that some of the good things he is suggesting now were not initiated by his own Government.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Full View Permalink

May 29, 1984

Mr. Baker:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In listening to motion No. 106 on the Order Paper, "that, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of declaring Canada a nuclear arms free zone", to my recollection a similar motion was dealt with last week in the House by general agreement of Members. The motion as I read it is similar in substance and intent to that dealt with last week. Perhaps the Speaker cannot rule on this immediately, but I am pretty sure, Sir, that you were in the chair at the time. Does it meet with the rules of the Chamber that we can deal with the motion again?

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS
Subtopic:   NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
Full View Permalink

May 29, 1984

Mr. Baker:

The reason I pointed this out and regardless of what the hon. gentleman says, Mr. Speaker, both are motions and the rule applies to motions. A bill is a motion, a resolution is a motion. This is dealt with in Erskine May and in Beau-chesne under motions. The point of order I raised deals with the sections on motions. Could Your Honour, who was in the chair at the time, rule on the question now?

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS
Subtopic:   NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
Full View Permalink