John Williams

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, June 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my good friend speak about the employment insurance fund and what he perceives to be a dearth in the surplus. I thought it was rather cute when he said “send out the RCMP and the Sergeant-at-Arms to see if we can find this missing money”. He knows exactly where that money went, as we all do. It was spent by the Liberals.

Every year the Liberals used the money in general revenue, treated it as a tax revenue and spent it. It was spent on behalf of Canadians and now the money is gone and the coffers are empty. That is why we in the government have put forth a plan to kick-start this with a $2 billion fund.

As the member already admitted himself, a $750 million a month surplus is going into the fund. How much does he actually want to tax Canadians? Is this a notion that Canadians are a bottomless pit when it comes to paying tax so he can boast about having all this money sitting in a bank account? We would rather see the money in the pockets of Canadians. We want to see that the fund is protected and there for them should they ever find themselves unemployed.

I thought it was rather cute when he pleaded ignorance as to where the money had gone. Does he acknowledge that the money was spent by the Liberals, that it is gone now so therefore the fund has to be rebuilt?

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Chair, I rise on a point of order. I thought we were dealing with the estimates of the Government of Canada for 2008-09. This particular question pertains to a previous year. It pertains to something that has already been dealt with by the public accounts committee. The minister answered this question in great detail at the public accounts committee.

I thought we were going to have the next four hours of debate on something that is substantive for the nation rather than on dealing with a $122,000 contract that we spent three hours dealing with at the public accounts committee.

Therefore, Mr. Chair, I think you should be directing the opposition to focus the questions on the estimates, because that is why the department is here. Officials are prepared to answer those questions, not some frivolous question that has already been dealt with.

[Business of Supply, May 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I certainly do not want to belittle the tragedy going on in Burma, but the member may want to check his numbers. I think he said that there are 25 million deceased and another 22 million missing. I think the numbers are much smaller than that. As I said, I am not trying to belittle the issue but perhaps he would want to check that.

[Certified General Accountants Association of Canada, February 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, as a fellow of the Certified General Accountants Association, I rise to recognize the association's centennial anniversary.

In 1908, John Leslie, the assistant comptroller of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and two fellow accountants, E.B. Manning and F.A. Cousins, formed the Canadian Accountants' Association.

Five years later on June 6, 1913, the association was federally incorporated as the General Accountants' Association. Today, known as the Certified General Accountants Association, it is the fastest growing accounting designation in Canada and has representation in over 80 countries around the world.

During its 100 years, the association has developed knowledge and professionalism for the accounting industry. By its work, it has created value for the private sector and credibility for the accounting and auditing profession.

When there is money to count and taxes to pay, there will always be a need for a certified general accountant, and by virtue of this House, we all know there will always be taxes to pay.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, December 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to talk on the bill by the member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont because it demonstrates the compassion that he has for young people in this country. It also demonstrates the position of the Conservative Party, that we believe it is important to help our young people rather than just throw the book at them any time they commit a crime.

This bill deals with the fact that when a young offender is apprehended because it is alleged that he may have committed some crime, the first thing the officer has to do is determine the mental state and attitude of the person. On that basis the officer makes a decision whether or not to start the full process of court proceedings, or whether the drug treatment programs that are currently offered would be much better.

This is a great recommendation by the member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont. We have had some high profile cases in the past. I think we all remember Davis Inlet on the north shore of Labrador where young kids were into gas sniffing, glue sniffing, and everything else. They ended up at Poundmaker's Lodge in St. Albert, my constituency, for treatment.

A lot of illegal things were going on in Davis Inlet at that time, but the country's compassion was to help the young people. They were taken to Poundmaker's Lodge and we did everything we could to try to rehabilitate them rather than throw them into criminal proceedings.

That concept is replicated many times in this country, although it may not get national headlines. A young person is arrested for having fallen into criminal behaviour because of his participation in drugs. If that young person says that he would like to start treatment and demonstrates that he is willing to follow through on the treatment and completes the recommended course by the professionals and experts and he cleans himself up, why would we want to give him a criminal record that would dog him for years and years?

Young people are a great asset. Some of them fall by the wayside and some of them can pick themselves up and get back on track. We should not be throwing the book at them. We should be helping them because our justice system is all about rehabilitation and protection of society. If we can rehabilitate that person and make him a contributing member of society rather than a criminal for the rest of his life, surely that is one of the greatest investments we can make.

I am pleased to say that I am going to recommend that we all support the bill proposed by my good colleague from Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont.

[Burma, October 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the House passed a motion to confer honorary Canadian citizenship on Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi for her self-sacrifice, commitment to democracy and for refusing to capitulate to a corrupt dictatorship.

She has been denied the opportunity to lead her people even though she convincingly won the election in 1990. Now the people of Burma are running the gauntlet of beatings, arrests and killings by the dictatorship. What is next? More violence, anarchy or civil war?

One thing is obvious: If people are denied the right to peacefully and democratically choose their government, they will march in the streets. If they are denied the right to march in the streets, violence will follow. If protests are violently suppressed, anarchy or civil war will follow.

There are brave people in Burma and I salute those who accept the dangers of challenging the gun-toting goons of the dictatorship to claim their democratic rights. The people's voice cannot be silenced, it will eventually be heard.

[Criminal Code, May 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to that speech but I thought it was somewhere between a rant and a ramble. I was not exactly sure where the member was coming from. She was all over the map, talking about wanting to represent the people and then bringing out some studies and focus groups to support her opinions.

The legislation that we adopt in this place is about representing the people. Canadians are asking for tougher sentences. It is fairly simple. We are giving them tougher sentences because that is what Canadians want. We know that these things are a deterrent.

The previous speaker, the member for Yukon, was talking about how prison actually makes people worse. He would argue there be no prison at all under those circumstances.

The opposition members' comments on this kind of legislation is that they have no real position other than they would like to hold these people by the hand and the poor little darlings are the victims rather than the perpetrators of the crime. It is time that we said that criminals are criminals and they deserve to be punished accordingly--it is that simple--rather than to hold them by the hand, pat them on the head and tell them, “Be a nice little person. Please, do not do it again”.

I would hope that all members of this House would recognize that Canadians want a judicial system that works, that applies punishment, that makes sure our streets are safe. This kind of legislation is resonating with the general public.

[Zimbabwe, May 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in April, as the chair of the Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Corruption, I attended the Global Forum V anti-corruption conference in Johannesburg and spoke out in support of the parliamentarians and others who have been beaten, imprisoned and intimidated by the government of Zimbabwe.

It is time that each and every one of us who believe in good governance and the rule of law stood up in support of the people of Zimbabwe who are now in considerable danger because they are exercising their democratic right to speak out against their government. For some, free speech can come at a great price.

I called on the African countries to lead an international effort to plan now for the rebuilding of the institutions of Parliament, the judiciary and the government in Zimbabwe to ensure that the current tyranny by Mr. Mugabe does not continue, or continue with his successor.

Strong leaders who are not constrained by strong institutions are dictators. We have seen it in Zimbabwe and we have seen it elsewhere. We have seen enough to know that lack of accountable governance destroys lives, destroys prosperity and destroys nations.

[Business of Supply, April 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question. The hon. member has been talking about the U.K. economist Sir Nicholas Stern, who has reported on his opinions about where we are going for the next 30 to 50 years. However, the member has been using these analyses for his own particular benefit--over the next three to five years--in the application of the Kyoto accord. Therefore, I want to know why he would take the report by Sir Nicholas Stern and twist it to try to substantiate his facts when they are totally different from what was proposed by Sir Nicholas Stern.

[Statutory Programs Evaluation Act, March 29th, 2007]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-421, An Act to provide for the evaluation of statutory programs.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to lay before Parliament, the fifth Parliament before which I have laid this bill, a bill calling for a managerial review of the programs of the Government of Canada to bring some order and efficiency, if possible, to these programs. I think we will find that this government is more amenable to adopting this kind of approach than previous governments.

The bill basically calls for each program to be evaluated on cyclical basis and asks the following. First, what is a program designed to do for Canadians? Once we know that, how well is the program delivering what it is supposed to do for Canadians? Third, is it doing so efficiently and effectively? Fourth, is there a better way to achieve the same results? It is good management and I hope this government follows through.

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