House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2004, with 46% of the vote.
Justice March 16th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about is a repeat offender.
The government has turned aboriginal women into second class victims by encouraging such race based handling of aboriginal male attackers. When will the government end this affront to aboriginal women?
Justice March 16th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, a repeat sexual offender who showed no remorse and has a lengthy criminal record will serve no jail time, despite being found guilty last week of sexually assaulting a native woman in my riding of Okanagan—Shuswap.
The judge cited the government's change to the criminal code when he allowed the aboriginal offender to remain at large in their small aboriginal community. Is this what the government calls justice?
Supply March 13th, 2001
There is a difference.
Supply March 13th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I could not help but listen to what the member was saying about fearmongering, picking scabs and taking certain issues out of context. I take exception to that. What we are talking about here is the safety of our children, not partisan politics, and I wish the member would get that straight.
Underneath the registry issue we are talking about, we all know that the average lifespan of a child who has been kidnapped for sexual purposes is seven hours. After seven hours, the chances of that child coming back alive just about disintegrate. My question to the member is, underneath this proposal, would that not speed up the process in helping to find the child?
Supply March 13th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech with great interest and I too have great concerns about what is going on. Parents now walk their children to and from school and a lot of parents absolutely refuse to let their children play in parks.
It has always been my understanding that the government's first and foremost responsibility is the safety and protection of its law-abiding citizens. Our children are the most vulnerable. Should that not be the government's first and foremost responsibility?
Sales Tax And Excise Tax Amendments Act, 2001 March 2nd, 2001
Madam Speaker, I cannot just sit and listen to the ramblings and the ravings of the hon. member from down on the far reaches of the opposition benches.
Maybe I should explain a little bit that there is a big difference. I know it is hard for the member to comprehend so I will say it very slowly so that maybe he will really understand. The difference between a single rate and a flat rate tax is deductions.
In a single rate tax standard deductions are allowed. That is the policy. Those making over $100,000 are taxed more. It is unfortunate to say but it is the truth.
Let us go into the history of the NDP. We are all well aware of how the NDP got ahead in British Columbia and how it stole from the blind and from charities through bingo hall services. That is common knowledge. We have also seen its socialistic attitude: the more people work, the more will be taken away from them. We are well aware of that attitude in British Columbia under the NDP regime in place there now.
We do not have far to look to see what NDP members think about private medicine. Their own leader uses private medical services in Canada. The hon. member knows that, yet he will stand here and tell the world that NDP members do not do that. That is their policy. What is good for them is good for them, and the rest of Canada can do without.
Standing Orders February 26th, 2001
We already do.
Supply February 8th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with what I heard in the hon. member's speech. I also heard complaints about the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration with regard to some of her comments during the campaign. The ethics counsellor could be an avenue where that could be addressed.
I also understood the member to say that an ethics commissioner is already in place in British Columbia. Did this position come into place after the NDP were caught raiding the charities, filtering the money out of that and using it during its campaigns? If so, it is a good example of why we do need that here in Ottawa.
My understanding of the way it is set up now is that it is almost like asking Frank James to look after Jesse James or Bonnie to look after Clyde.
Corrections And Conditional Release Act February 8th, 2001
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-252, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (statutory release granted only when earned and subject to mandatory supervision).
Mr. Speaker, I too thank my hon. colleague from Athabasca for seconding the bill. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that all inmates applying for statutory release establish that they are rehabilitated to the extent that public safety and the safety of individuals are not jeopardized by their being at large.
It also requires that all those on statutory release to be subject to a mandatory supervision order. Statutory release would not be granted if the offender has shown behaviour that raises reasonable doubt about public safety or complying with the supervision order.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Criminal Code September 26th, 2000
Madam Speaker, as I listened to the member's speech many things came to the forefront, the first being the many scopes to the bill.
In this piece of legislation that the government is trying to put through, why would it put under cruelty to animals, penalties for disarming police officers? It almost seems like the government is putting part of a bill through so it can use it to campaign on. If we have a problem with the cruelty to animals aspect of it and do not vote for the total package it could be said that we were not standing up for penalties being imposed on people who disarm peace officers, which is not the case at all.
The government has come before the House and the Canadian public with a bill that is half rotten and half good. What we are being told from the government side, I would say to the hon. member who just spoke, is that we should hold our noses for the smell on the front end and hope that the rose at the back end will outweigh it. That is one of the problems I have with the bill.
This piece of legislation does not exactly define what cruelty to animals is. When some of us from rural areas happen to go into large cities we often see people walking around with large dogs. Many of these people live in apartments. When we see a dog that weighs 140 or 160 pounds being kept inside a small apartment, some of us see that as a cruel act. What is the definition and how far is the government willing to carry it? Who will lay the charges? Does the bill lay it open to anybody to lay charges against a person? If that is the case, will they come forward and identify themselves or can it be just used as a malicious act upon somebody who is no longer liked?
The bill has no beginning and no end. We are leaving it again to the courts and judges to decide the law when that should be our job here.
I would like to know if the hon. member has answers to these questions. I cannot seem to find the answers anywhere. I have not heard any of the government members stand up to speak on this issue today so that I could ask them questions.