Dave Van Kesteren

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is calling for the vote, but I think some of us still have some questions as to some of the statements that were made and more particularly the fact that jail times do not result in a slowdown on crime.

I would like to express some of my own experience. I have two sons who are police officers. They often tell me about their frustration. There is a term to which they refer to: “catch and release”. They say they are doing their jobs as policemen, they are catching the guys who are repeating time and again. The result is that they are back on the streets.

I am a little confused when the hon. member begins to question whether or not we are going in the right direction when we as a government, incidentally I think it is also fair to say that it is also the direction of the public, say that we are fed up with this. There has to be a consequence for actions that are taken.

We can use statistics and studies, and I am sure there are studies on both sides, but the fact remains that we have habitual criminals, individuals who insist on breaking the law time and again. We are not talking about the young person who makes a mistake and gets into trouble. We are talking about people who have violently offended. We are talking about people who have stolen cars not once or twice but over and over again.

We are talking about people who have no regard for the law and no regard for our police officers. After repeatedly being arrested and repeatedly standing before the judge, at what point do we then say they have to pay for what they have done, there is a penalty for their actions. At what point would the hon. member say that we now have to take some action?

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will make this quite short. We have all been watching this with quite some interest. I have listened to the member's speech. We share the concern, as he does, that we really have to adjust our attitudes.

I recall an incident not that long ago when we were discussing the punishment of crime. I would like the member to comment on some of the remarks that I heard. There was a reference to prison as repression. I heard that reference a number of times from the Bloc.

Would the member care to comment on that? Is there something I am missing here? Have we turned a page in history?

[Agriculture, April 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, farmers want to do their part to help the environment. They want to invest in facilities that will transform their crops into biofuels, but these facilities are expensive and capital is not readily available or accessible.

What are the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Agriculture doing to help farmers help our environment?

[Foreign Affairs, April 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, today China's official news agency is reporting that Huseyin Celil has been sentenced to life in prison and the deprivation of all political rights, as well as a second sentence of a further 10 years in prison.

Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs inform the House of the government's reaction to this news?

[North Buxton, February 9th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have a town in my riding of Chatham-Kent—Essex called North Buxton, and in that town there is a church and in that church a bell has hung since 1850.

North Buxton was one of the safe havens around Chatham that served as the home for escaped slaves who came to Canada on the underground railroad. The vision of its founders was to establish an entirely self-sufficient and prosperous black community, thereby quieting the then commonly accepted notion of black inferiority.

When a group of resolute blacks from Pittsburgh heard of this place, they donated this lasting symbol of freedom, along with a letter that concluded:

...and when the bell, with its solemn tones, calls you to the House of God, remember your brethren who are in bonds; and let your prayers ascent to God, that he may, in his own good time, break every yoke and let the oppressed go free.

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost respect for my colleague, the hon. member from Windsor. I am a rookie and I understand that he has much more expertise in these areas than I have. I refer to what was said before. When the Supreme Court ruled on this issue, it left that one clause open. It said that this is an issue for Parliament to decide. Therefore, I leave the member with that.

I say that this was not done in a fair way. This was something that was not fairly represented to the people of Canada. Let us do it right tomorrow. Let us vote, let us have a chance to discuss this, and let us have a chance to look at this fairly, as we ought to.

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. member's concerns, but again, it needs to be repeated, there are those who are saying that it can withstand a challenge. If we are going to look at this fairly, the motion gives us an opportunity to look at this again. We are talking about discussing the motion again. If we go through the whole procedure and after committee we come to the conclusion that no, this is not the direction we want to go, then we can do that.

Tomorrow we have an opportunity to do what we have not had before and that is the opportunity to vote with a clear conscience. Every one of us has to answer this question. What has been the message of the majority of our constituents, the people with deep seated beliefs for whatever reason? If the member can say that the majority of his people have said do not revisit this again, then the member is doing what he said he would do. If not, then you are doing the same thing you did last time. We ought not do that in this place.

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to make a brief presentation of my own feelings and that of my constituents as well.

I am a new member, as are many of the members here. When I first sought election in 2004 this issue was one which my constituents were really not aware of. There was some indication that there would be a vote. At that time the member of Parliament in my riding indicated that he would vote with traditional marriage, but that was not the case. As a result, in the next election there was an incredible surge from my constituents, an incredible uprising of people who felt that they had been deceived and had been let down by their member of Parliament. I think largely as a result of that, I am here today.

I can say that bar no other issue, this has been the number one reason that people write to me and people talk to me. Let us not kid ourselves, this is a big event.

It was not a surprise that we as a party promised during the last election campaign that we would revisit this issue, so here we are today. The Conservative Party has done what it said it would do. We have brought forward a motion that gives an opportunity to those who are on the other side from all parties to vote with their conscience.

We can argue until the cows come home whether or not this is constitutional, but we all know there is a large segment of the population, our constituents, who are telling us that they want this issue revisited. They want us to look at this again.

Our leader, the Prime Minister, offered this very simple motion. It is something on which we can all agree. Let us look at this issue again and debate it. Let us give this a proper place in the House, so that all our constituents can feel at ease with whatever decision is made.

I lay the challenge out to my colleagues on the opposite side. I understand there are pressures and we all have these pressures to do the right thing. We have heard from members on the other side. I understand there are conflicting views. It has been said and it bears repeating that this is an institution which for a millennium has been the same. There has never been a question. We have provided means for those who want to live another lifestyle. This is a free country and we understand that. Yet this institution, this basic building block of our society is being challenged. It is that question we are faced with today.

We are all at the threshold of a decision tomorrow. Where will we go? Will we duck under constitutional amendments and will this hold up in the charter, or will we do what our constituents have asked us to do, to look at this issue again and say, “Yes, let us revisit it”. Let us be fair about this. I am going to have my opportunity, as are other members, and let us bring this out one more time and let us talk about it.

I challenge and urge members to listen to their constituents, as I am going to listen to my constituents. Again it bears repeating that every day I receive letters asking me to please revisit this. I am sure other members are finding the same thing. I ask members to do the right thing tomorrow and give their constituents the voice that they expected to be given.

[Business of Supply, November 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. As I stated before, the cash transfers to provinces and territories are in addition to the support that the Government of Canada provides through tax transfers. In 2007 alone the tax transfer component will total $12.4 billion, an amount that will continue to grow in line with provincial and territorial economies.

We will also provide $1 billion over the next five years to improve Canada's ability to respond effectively to pandemics. We all know that is a looming situation that could strike at any time. This government recognized that and set aside the funds to work for those things.

This money will provide Canadians in every region with a publicly funded health care system they need and rely on.

[Business of Supply, November 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member opposite that our first promise was not to health care. Our first promise was to accountability. We would encourage the member opposite and his party to speed that process through the Senate and to speed it through here as well.

Health care is a top priority of this government and we have demonstrated that. We demonstrated that today with the new announcements for the first nations. I am pleased to report, as all will be pleased to hear, that this government will be working in conjunction with our natives and with the minister in charge of that portfolio to aid in the work on diabetes and the terrible plague that has come upon our people on the reserves. That is just another example of how this government has moved forward.

We have acknowledged what the Liberals have done but we have added to that and we are doing much more.

If the hon. member would just have a look at what we have done and the things that we have accomplished he would see that we are moving forward and we are doing a whole lot more than we promised.