House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 69% of the vote.
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006 December 5th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief question. The member who was speaking described the institution of the Canadian Wheat Board as an institution that is uniquely Canadian. He knows that it only applies to Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba. If this is such a uniquely Canadian institution, why do Ontario farmers not want any part of it?
Business of Supply November 28th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if the hon. member makes a second speech, we will not have time for questions.
Committees of the House November 22nd, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on Bill C-12, An Act to provide for emergency management and to amend and repeal certain Acts,
The emergency management act will allow the Government of Canada to improve its own preparedness for a coordinated response to emergencies. It will clarify the federal government's leadership role in coordinating a response to major emergencies. The emergency management act will enhance the Government of Canada's collaboration with provinces, territories and key stakeholders.
This bill will better protect Canada's critical infrastructure and will also protect the sharing of sensitive information between the private sector and government when it comes to emergency management.
I respectfully submit this report.
Heritage Hunting, Trapping and Fishing Protection Act November 3rd, 2006
Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise in the House today to support the goals of my Manitoba colleague in Bill C-222, An Act to recognize and protect Canada’s hunting, trapping and fishing heritage.
I was the first MP to jointly second the bill in April of this year. The member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, our neighbour to the east of my constituency of Yorkton—Melville, is to be commended for his efforts to preserve the practices of hunting, fishing and trapping, practices so central to our history and tradition that they form an integral part of the fabric of our culture.
There is a growing list of 358 municipalities from every province in Canada that support this groundbreaking piece of legislation. I am eager to engage the efforts of the 77 MPs and senators who comprise the newly formed outdoors caucus, representing all four political parties in this House and all 10 provinces and two territories, and to discuss how we can best accomplish the goals described in Bill C-222.
We should promote our hunting, fishing and trapping heritage activities, because the men and women who use the outdoors are most interested in preserving the environment. Many groups are seeking to shut down these three traditional heritage activities. Acknowledging and using the considerable resources of the federal government to promote our traditional heritage activities would go a long way to protecting them.
There is no question that hunting, fishing and trapping are heritage activities. Where would Canada be without them? All of the exploration and settlement of Canada took place mainly because of these three heritage activities, but where do we find recognition of this fact in the old government's websites? Nowhere.
Hunting, fishing and trapping do not appear in the 221 items listed in the site map of the Canadian heritage department's website. Hunting, fishing and trapping are not a part of Canada Tourism's website. Hunting and trapping are also missing from the Canadian Tourism Commission's website and just 12 fishing lodges are listed. The section on wildlife does not even mention hunting or trapping.
Nor is there any mention made in any of these three websites with respect to gun shows, shooting competitions, skeet shoots, historic re-enactments, gun clubs, fish and game organizations, wildlife federations or trappers associations, all essential elements of preserving the heritage activities of hunting, fishing and trapping. These three activities are essential to wildlife management and habitat conservation and rehabilitation.
This certainly indicates a lack of recognition by the old federal government, which Bill C-222 proposes to address. This lack of recognition begs the question: how can we protect these heritage activities if we fail to acknowledge that they even exist? In failing to acknowledge these heritage activities, the old government also failed to acknowledge the huge contribution that hunting, fishing and trapping make to Canada's economy and jobs.
Sustenance hunting is an important part of the lives and survival of thousands of aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians, but sport hunting is where the real money is at. In August of this year, the Library of Parliament completed a report entitled “The Benefits of Firearms Ownership--Hunting and Wildlife Management”. In this paper, Library of Parliament economist Tony Jackson wrote:
The Federal-Provincial-Territorial Task Force on the Importance of Nature to Canadians...is made up of agencies responsible for the environment and tourism.
In 1996, 10.3 million Canadians aged 15 and over took part in outdoor activities, with 4.2 million fishing and 1.2 million hunting. According to the survey, men and women enjoy the Canadian outdoors equally; however, 85% of recreational hunters are men, as are 66% of recreational fishers.
Respondents were asked to report their detailed expenditures for mainly nature-related activities over a 12-month period. In just under half of the reported trips, the participants undertook more than one activity. The survey estimated that over $7.2 billion was spent on outdoor activities in natural areas in 1996, including $1.3 billion on wildlife viewing as both a primary and secondary activity. Canadians spent $1.9 billion on fishing and $823.8 million on recreational hunting.
One of the first tasks of the new outdoors caucus that I co-chair with the hon. member for Yukon will be to ask the environment minister to renew this survey.
In addition to this direct economic impact, in the last 15 years hunters have devoted 14 million volunteer hours or 1,600 years of personal work to habitat conservation. Hunter licence fees brought in almost $600 million to government treasuries, coupled with approximately $600 million spent on equipment, travel, lodging, guides, tourism and other expenditures.
Despite the fees and paperwork created by the useless gun registry each year, approximately 70,000 foreign visitors, mainly Americans, come into Canada with their guns to hunt and sport shoot each year.
The Canadian Sportfishing Industry Association reports that anglers spend a total of $6.7 billion annually to support their outdoor passion. For example, in the year 2000, recreational fishermen spent $970 million on boat equipment alone. According to the most recent industry reports, in Canada eight million people of all ages fish. Let me repeat that: eight million people.
In 2000 Canadian anglers devoted over one million volunteer days to cleaning up waterways and fish habitat. In 1999 Canadians spent $1.3 billion on overnight trips for hunting and angling. That is almost three times the revenue obtained from all the performing arts in Canada, including government grants and private donations.
The Fur Institute of Canada states:
The Fur Trade in Canada contributes approximately $800 million to the Canadian GDP... The Fur Trade in Canada is comprised of approximately 60,000 trappers (includes 25,000 Aboriginal)...The first international marketing for Canada's premier [fur] resource began in 1670 with the establishment of the Hudson's Bay Company.
That is what I call a heritage activity.
Hunting, fishing and trapping are indeed important parts of our heritage. They deserve recognition and protection in keeping with their place in history and to the extent possible, given the respective constitutional jurisdictions of the federal, provincial and territorial governments. That is why I commend my colleague, the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, for his years of work in this important heritage preservation and conservation initiative. I had a motion that I was going to put forward to the committee on the subject of the bill so that the report could be issued by the committee, but I cannot get the consent of the mover and some political parties so there is no sense trying to move forward on that.
In summary, we need to recognize our heritage activities. The traditional aspect is important to the development of this country. I would urge all members to support this and carry it forward. One of the key things that we have to remember is that these are the people who are most concerned about preserving and enhancing our environment and making sure that we use our outdoors respectfully.
I am thankful to have been allowed to address this issue. I hope all members will take to heart the remarks that I have made.
Committees of the House October 18th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member. We should hear from farmers and we should hear from both sides.
I just received a letter from someone in my constituency. I will give a little background. If the member for Malpeque will tone it down a bit, maybe we can get some communications going. This farmer is from my constituency. Just so someone from downtown Winnipeg can understand the trials and tribulations of some of these farmers, I want to give him an idea what is involved and to also counter some of the spin that the NDP have put out.
He says: “The majority of farmers in my area want choice. The Wheat Board knows that. They have elected a free marketing representative. I come out of an area that used to be NDP for 25 years until the Conservatives came along. They have changed their mind and they understand the advantages of it”.
This farmer marketed 3,837 bushels to the Wheat Board. He got 24¢ a bushel from the Wheat Board. Today he could take that same grain to Butte, North Dakota and get $3.42 a bushel. That is many times more. We are talking less than $1,000 to over $12,000. The Wheat Board is holding his grain. There is more to this story. The Wheat Board said that it was malt, it took it and sold it for feed and there is a lot more to it.
Because my time is limited I cannot go through the whole story. He is upset. He has now got farming bills which he has to pay and he cannot do it. That is an example of what happens when one does not have choice on the farm.
I think people from the cities, people from Quebec, who are holding back--
Committees of the House October 18th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member was asked a direct question by the Minister of Agriculture. He has completely avoided it.
What products are to be included under the Wheat Board?
Committees of the House October 18th, 2006
This is garbage.
Firearms Storage October 18th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, year after year, the Liberals keep proposing one costly, ineffective gun control measure after the next leaving real public safety for the Conservatives to deal with.
Last week, one of the Liberal MPs from Toronto proposed that hundreds of thousands of legally owned and safely stored firearms should all be moved to a central storage facility. It was a silly idea in 1991 when the leader of the NDP first proposed it and it is still a foolish idea today.
The Liberals must be campaigning for the criminal vote because criminals are the only people who would benefit from having all the lawful guns stored in one place.
We should ask ourselves one question. Would criminals rather break into houses at random hoping there was a gun in there that they could steal from a gun safe, or would criminals rather just sit around the city's firearms storage building and wait for law-abiding gun owners to get into their cars with their firearms?
I guess the Liberals really are in favour of one stop shopping. Talk about making shopping for guns more convenient for criminals.
Petitions October 2nd, 2006
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me at this point to present a petition from hundreds of my constituents on the topic of the age of consent. They would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the protection of our children from sexual predators must be a top priority of the federal government. The Canadian Police Association and a number of provincial governments in a parliamentary committee report all favour raising the age of consent.
Also, studies show that 14 and 15 year olds are most vulnerable to sexual exploitation, including recruitment by pimps. It is the duty of Parliament through the enactment and enforcement of the Criminal Code to protect the most vulnerable.
Therefore, they petition the government assembled in Parliament to take all measures necessary to immediately raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age.
Buddies June 8th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I recently visited the community of Kelvington in my riding. An exciting new program called Buddies is matching senior students with junior students, youth with seniors, and adults and youth with children to build mutually beneficial relationships.
Bullying has decreased as those involved have made a commitment to be kind and caring toward another person. This volunteer program has become so popular that over half the students in Kelvington High School are involved.
I want to thank the corporate sponsors for supporting the Buddies program: East Central Co-op, Kelvington Credit Union and V&S Esso. The schools, churches, seniors lodge and RCMP in the community, together with manager Debora Pauchay, need to be complimented for bringing this program together.
This pilot project in Kelvington, a community of 1,000 people, could be a model for other communities to use in reducing the problems our youth are experiencing.
Congratulations Buddies.