Randy White

[Supply, February 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy of some of these statements really gets me.

The member opposite said “we have identified”, but the fact is, the members opposite did not identify anything. This was identified for them. They got caught. There is a big difference between saying, “We have identified the problem and now we are going to try to find the solution”, and “We got caught with our hands in someone else's pocket”. There is a big difference between those two.

I would like to ask the member opposite whether he understands the difference between identifying a problem and a solution and getting caught with a problem and everybody else looking for the solution. We cannot leave the solution to this problem with the government because the government, the Liberal Party, and many other people associated with this are the problem in the first place.

[Petitions, February 17th, 2004]

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the last petition asks Parliament to protect the rights of Canadians to be free to share their religious beliefs without fear of prosecution.

[Petitions, February 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition asks Parliament not to amend the Human Rights Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act nor the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships, or of homosexuality, including amending the Human Rights Code to include the prohibited grounds of discrimination and the undefined phrase “sexual orientation”.

[Petitions, February 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions. The first one asks that Parliament legislate an opposite sex requirement for the institution of marriage and that marriage be restricted to be between one man and one woman.

[Petitions, February 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the other petition asks Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being the lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Petitions, February 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in addition I have several other petitions, one that asks Parliament to enact legislation to establish a retroactive national sex offender registry.

[Petitions, February 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we will be submitting tens of thousands of names on petitions over the next few weeks with regard to Bill C-453, an act to amend the Criminal Code, failure to stop at the scene of an accident.

The petitioners state that current hit and run legislation does not provide an adequate sentence to offenders who leave the scene of the accident and that prosecutors should be unable to offer those accused of fleeing the scene of an accident the opportunity to plead guilty to an offence with a lesser punishment.

The petitioners ask government assembled in Parliament to vote in favour of Bill C-453, an act to amend the Criminal Code, failure to stop at the scene of an accident, to make sentencing for hit and run offenders more clear.

[Proceeds of Crime, February 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the great Canadian dream is to own one's own home after years of hard work to pay the mortgage. I want to tell Canadians what is really going on so I will use just one example of many.

Phu Son came to Canada in 1994. He was 38 years old and had no money when he arrived. He has been on welfare from the time he arrived 10 years ago. He recently got busted for drug dealing. Now I find he owns three homes, not one but three: one in Abbotsford, another in Aldergrove, and yet another in Langley, British Columbia.

How does a person come to Canada and stay on welfare for 10 years? How does a person living exclusively on welfare come to own three houses? Why are these houses not seized as proceeds of crime and used for rehabilitation of drug addicts?

I do not know the answers, but the government of British Columbia and the federal Liberal government have a lot of explaining to do. This situation is becoming all too common in this country.

[Resumption Of Debate On Address In Reply, February 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am interested in one of the statements made by the member opposite. He said that seniors' poverty has never been more acute in this country. We have watched recent events with the government imploding over the fact that it has virtually stolen money out of the pockets of taxpayers of millions and millions of dollars.

I find it hard to put it into perspective how government members can say that seniors' poverty has never been more acute, yet they just steal some of their money, give it to some of their buddies and pound it back into the Liberal Party's coffers. If they were so darn concerned about seniors' poverty, perhaps they should not have stolen from--

[Resumption Of Debate On Address In Reply, February 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised at the comments that were just made about a more therapeutic approach to drugs and marijuana and about this idea that decriminalization is a much more sensible approach.

The fact is that the way the government has approached this whole issue of drugs is rather pathetic. Having been the vice-chair of that committee and knowing what happened, I know that the real problem in this country is that there is no national drug strategy out there.

Also, there is the issue that when we talk about decriminalization of marijuana, the government says we are going to have maximum penalties for grow ops. Maximum penalties for grow ops are useless: the current penalties today are not being used. Judges and lawyers across this land are getting people off for any amount of grow ops. It happens in my community every day.

How can the member justify that this whole issue of decriminalization in legislation is great and therapeutic when the whole darn issue of drugs among the Liberal government is a mess?