House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 54% of the vote.
Grants and Contributions May 16th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, Industry Canada grants billions of dollars to the Liberals' big business buddies, yet thousands of small businesses struggle to employ Canadians, struggle to make a profit and struggle to pay numerous Liberal taxes. It is truly shameful that the Liberal government uses these very tax dollars to support its pals.
In the spirit of the new proposed elections act will the provisional government, the interim government, stop subsidizing its big business pals?
Taxation May 9th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, tax shelters, such as Barbados, allow rich privileged Canadians, such as the former finance minister, to avoid paying Canadian taxes. What a convenient way to avoid one's responsibilities as a Canadian citizen.
I ask this provisional interim government, what is it doing to close down the Barbados tax loophole?
Supply May 8th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, a democratic society works because we have mutual respect for one another's rights. If I want somebody to treat me fairly and respect my rights, I have to do that with the other person.
The very nature of criminal law is when people ignore other people's rights. The ultimate crime, of course, is murder. Murderers deprive citizens of their rights when they terminate their very existence, which undermines the whole democratic process. Society as a whole would collapse if people did not have respect for one another's right.
It seems to me that a natural consequence of committing a serious criminal offence is that one is deprived of some of one's rights in society. It is a reasonable thing. It can be justified. One of those rights is the right to participate in the democratic process by voting.
Without getting into a legalistic argument with the parliamentary secretary on court decisions, does he not feel that a natural consequence of committing serious crimes should be that people will be deprived of some of their rights under the charter? When people break that social contract is that not the bedrock of our democratic society?
Supply May 8th, 2003
Madam Speaker, that was a good speech from the member opposite.
I have a question pertaining to section 33 of the charter of rights. When the charter was designed, an agreement was reached between the premiers and the Prime Minister at the time. People foresaw the situation where there would be a conflict between the courts and the public, as well as the value system of the country. There would be a clash. The compromise that was reached was section 33 of the charter which says that when that happens Parliament has the final say not the courts. That is part of section 33.
There are members opposite who take the position that section 33 should never be used and that the courts should always have the final say. On some issues we are talking about, public opinion is 90% against the court decisions. Does the member opposite believe that there are situations in which Parliament should exercise section 33 and override the decisions of the courts?
Supply May 8th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House, since we are speaking on voting matters, that it was a Conservative government led by John Diefenbaker that gave aboriginal people the right to vote in this country, not a Liberal government.
The notwithstanding clause, section 33, is part of our Constitution. The premier of Manitoba, Sterling Lyon, a Rhodes Scholar; Allan Blakeney, the premier of Saskatchewan and a Rhodes Scholar; and Peter Lougheed, a very distinguished premier of Alberta, saw the problem, the conflict between the will of the public and an elitist court system when decisions were clashing. They insisted that the supremacy of Parliament had to be the rule. Everyone agreed to that, including Prime Minister Trudeau. That amendment was made to the Constitution. It is part of our Constitution and part of our charter.
Why does the Liberal government refuse to recognize that section 33 is part of our Constitution and charter of rights?
Supply May 8th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The member said something about making the motion votable. I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to make our motion votable.
Taxation May 2nd, 2003
Mr. Speaker, only the Liberal government would want to tax amateur junior hockey players. Revenue Canada still intends to tax players and teams of the Saskatchewan Junior Hockey League.
Could anyone in the government, perhaps the self-proclaimed Saskatchewan boy, please explain why Saskatchewan junior hockey players are being treated differently from junior hockey players in the rest of the country?
Spruce Budworm May 1st, 2003
Mr. Speaker, Parks Canada has finally made a positive decision to combat the spruce budworm problem at Prince Albert National Park. Thankfully, common sense and an effective official opposition can declare victory.
The use of the organic agent BTK is both a safe and an effective means of control. It is in wide use across Canada. Yet this government almost gave in to the pressure of a vocal small minority for whom any form of environmental stewardship is unacceptable.
The Canadian Alliance has worked hard on this issue. However the real winners are the thousands of park users who have fought to save their forests. This decision shows that the average citizen can be heard in cabinet. This is truly a victory for grassroots democracy.
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act April 7th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments made by the member for Crowfoot. Invariably, when the gun registry is mentioned in my riding, my constituents come up with terms like incompetence, arrogance, and even dishonesty. This is how they think of their national government because of this firearms registration system. It is getting worse; it is not getting better.
Benjamin Franklin once said that insanity was doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. The government does that all the time. It keeps on doing the same thing hoping to get better results but it keeps getting failed results.
When we make changes in public policy in our system, we do it by legislation. It is my understanding that this failed firearms registry is being moved from the portfolio of the Minister of Justice to the Solicitor General's portfolio. I do not believe there is anything in these amendments or legislation that authorizes this change. Does the member for Crowfoot know of any legislative authority for this shift that is being made by the government?
Sex Offender Information Registration Act March 31st, 2003
Mr. Speaker, on the question of the retroactive effect of the registration system, I did not hear that sort of enthusiasm from government members when they brought in the firearms registration act on the technicalities of a retroactive effect of the legislation. However when it comes to sexual offenders who cause a lot of damage to a lot of people, they get on their high horse on the issue.
We deal with registration in our society. We register motor vehicles. We have to register with the government so we can file our income tax returns or we will get into trouble. If people want to sell wheat in the country, they have to register with the government.
There are rights that are trampled because of this. We can get into an argument on rights but someone on the government side says that the public good is more important than the individual rights involved.
When we take into account the high rate of recidivism among sexual offenders and the position of trust that so many hold in our society and when we look at their record and the devastation they have caused to people, both women and children, surely the protection of the children, women and people who are abused by people in trust are more important than the offender's right not to be registered.
It seems to me it is a fairly clearcut question when we put it in the perspective of all the other registration regimes we have, that we have a very compelling public reason to make this retroactive. If it is not retroactive, it is not really worth very much because the vast bulk of offenders already have a record and they are the menace to society.
Could the member from Winnipeg address this concern? It seems to me it is such a compelling argument in favour of registration, so overwhelmingly compelling, that we make it retroactive. If we do not, it is virtually useless. I would like to have the member's comments on that.