David Cameron CHATTERS

CHATTERS, David Cameron

Personal Data

Party
Conservative
Constituency
Westlock--St. Paul (Alberta)
Birth Date
April 15, 1946
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chatters
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=7689f45d-0d4a-4a98-a008-49a1d1ecd042&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
farmer, rancher

Parliamentary Career

October 25, 1993 - April 27, 1997
REF
  Athabasca (Alberta)
June 2, 1997 - October 22, 2000
REF
  Athabasca (Alberta)
  • Deputy Whip of the Official Opposition (March 27, 2000 - July 31, 2000)
March 27, 2000 - October 22, 2000
CA
  Athabasca (Alberta)
  • Deputy Whip of the Official Opposition (March 27, 2000 - July 31, 2000)
November 27, 2000 - May 23, 2004
CA
  Athabasca (Alberta)
December 23, 2003 - May 23, 2004
CPC
  Athabasca (Alberta)
June 28, 2004 - November 29, 2005
CPC
  Westlock--St. Paul (Alberta)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 118)


November 16, 2005

Mr. David Chatters (Westlock—St. Paul, CPC)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-445, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (female presumption in child care).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this private member's bill. The intent is to remove the female presumption in child care for purposes of the Canada child tax benefit within the Income Tax Act. The act should be gender neutral in this case and leave it up to the parents to decide to whom the benefit should be paid.

I have a constituent who is the father of two children. He has a court order providing legal custody, and he is divorced. Recently he has become involved in a common law relationship and Revenue Canada now says that the child tax benefit must be sent to the common law partner, despite the father having a court order saying that the kids are his responsibility, and the fact that the common law partner has agreed that the father is the primary caregiver.

The Income Tax Act needs to be changed to follow court rulings.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Topic:   Routine Proceedings
Subtopic:   Income Tax Act
Full View Permalink

November 16, 2005

Mr. David Chatters (Westlock—St. Paul, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition today on behalf of over 300 residents of my riding of Westlock--St. Paul. They are outraged at the government's reaction to the private member's bill presented by the member for Lethbridge on the age of sexual consent. They are asking that the government raise the age of sexual consent to 18 years of age.

Topic:   Routine Proceedings
Subtopic:   Petitions
Full View Permalink

November 16, 2005

Mr. David Chatters (Westlock—St. Paul, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

The committee has studied the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2006 and has agreed to report them without amendment.

Topic:   Routine Proceedings
Subtopic:   Committees of the House
Full View Permalink

November 15, 2005

Mr. David Chatters

Mr. Speaker, I think there is a bit of a play on words there. There is a difference between being of interest to the public and being in the public interest.

Certainly, it is in the public interest that the government operates ethically and transparently, that it makes sound decisions, and that it issues contracts fairly and those kinds of things. Those are in the public interest and it would be up to the Information Commissioner to put that request for information of whether it is in the public interest.

There are all kinds of things going on in government that might be of interest to someone in the public and there are exemptions that would prevent a person from finding things out. I am thinking of the personal business information of an individual or a company that is very important to the success of a business. Revealing that is not in the public interest although it might be in the interest of someone in the public.

We can play with the words but when the Information Commissioner came before the committee, he made it very plain what he was talking about and where he would not allow those exemptions to apply because it was in the public interest that they not apply. We can play the word game, but I think most people understand that.

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Supply
Full View Permalink

November 15, 2005

Mr. David Chatters (Westlock—St. Paul, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, I am shocked. I think that was the most flagrant distortion of the truth and the facts that I have heard in a long time in this place.

We analyzed very carefully the draft paper that was presented to the committee. In spite of the fact that we were led to understand that we were going to receive a draft bill for discussion, we went ahead and we did study the proposal. What the proposal embodied, quite frankly, was an enhancement of the secrecy, which enhanced the inability of Canadians to access the information they needed.

We did in fact call witnesses on the issue, including the Information Commissioner who was quite shocked and disturbed at the direction the government and minister wanted to go in the paper. When we asked the minister himself to appear before the committee to further the discussion, he refused to appear before the committee. I absolutely reject the things we just heard from the minister. I do not think it adds anything to this discussion.

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Supply
Full View Permalink