Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have a new member in the chamber who just finished his speech, but perhaps a little reminder that we cannot use the names of members of Parliament in this chamber.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 69% of the vote.
Resumption of debate on Address in Reply April 10th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have a new member in the chamber who just finished his speech, but perhaps a little reminder that we cannot use the names of members of Parliament in this chamber.
Agriculture April 6th, 2006
Mr. Chair, it is good to add my voice to those who are expressing concern for the crisis in agriculture tonight. The one thing the people watching us on television cannot see is that virtually the entire Conservative caucus and virtually no Liberals are here to show their interest in the debate on agriculture. I wish the cameras would show the support for the agriculture community from the Conservative caucus.
The member pointed out that he had received a letter from someone in my riding. I would like to point out to him that in my riding virtually 100% of the farmers will tell me that CAIS is not working. It is a Liberal-designed program that is not working for farmers. That particular example that was used is a disaster. The way the program is designed it cannot help those farmers.
Why was it not designed to help farmers and why are they so displeased with that Liberal designed CAIS program that we probably will have around for a couple more years? The Liberal government tied the hands of farmers. They virtually have no way to access help.
Firearms Registry November 24th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, it is pretty obvious that the minister is trying to equate paper shuffling by bureaucrats with public safety. She is not answering the question. Why does the computer system for guns cost hundreds of times more than that for cows?
The firearms fiasco is starting to make the sponsorship scandal look like a corner store robbery compared to a bank heist.
When will the Liberals quit pouring hundreds of millions of tax dollars into a black hole? When will they stop?
Firearms Registry November 24th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, thanks to our access to information requests, Parliament now knows that the Liberals spent more than $527 million just on the computer contracts to register seven million guns. That is almost $100 per gun. Forty million cows were registered for only $8 million. That is about 25¢ per cow. The gun registry is not doing anything to stop gun and gang violence in Toronto or anywhere else either.
How is it possible for the Liberals to spend more than half a billion dollars on a computer system that should have cost only a fraction of that amount?
Parliament of Canada Act November 23rd, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting yes.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police November 17th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, that answer makes it quite obvious she is still denying the facts. Here are the facts. Three towns in my own riding have unfulfilled requests. Our RCMP sources say that currently, Saskatchewan has unfulfilled requests for seven constables, 23 corporals, 14 sergeants, two staff sergeants and one officer.
Who is right about these so-called unfulfilled requests? Is it the towns and the RCMP in Saskatchewan, or the minister who is denying them?
Royal Canadian Mounted Police November 17th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Minister of Public Safety answered my order paper question on RCMP shortages. She stated, “Currently, there are no unfulfilled requests for RCMP officers”. The minister then went on to contradict herself. Her own tables show a shortage of 1,059 RCMP officers across Canada. British Columbia is short 281, Ontario 139, Quebec 134, Alberta 85, and Nova Scotia 30.
The minister is denying the obvious. There are clearly RCMP shortages in every province. How can she still say there are no unfulfilled requests?
Keeseekoose First Nation November 16th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, apparently the new Liberal education policy involves paying for California vacations out of a schoolchild's education fund. I ask members to listen to this list of money taken from the Keeseekoose school account: $1,200 for Sea World, $158 for Zorro Jewelry of Santa Monica, $125 for Universal Studios. In total, this is over $3,000 stolen from the children on the reserve to pay for a California vacation.
Why will the minister not stand up for the schoolchildren of the Keeseekoose reserve?
Keeseekoose First Nation November 15th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that there is a cover-up taking place at Keeseekoose, but that is not a surprise because the Liberals do not want anyone to know what is going on at the reserve.
The Indian affairs department spent $9 million to build a school for only 250 students. How can a school for 250 students cost that much? We know that over $600,000 was stolen from the school account. How much of that $9 million for a new school was stolen from the children of Keeseekoose? What is the minister trying to hide?
Criminal Code November 14th, 2005
Madam Speaker, I want to offer a couple of suggestions for amendments and get the hon. member's reaction to them.
First, I want to make the comment that I do not think this is necessarily an urban-rural issue because I know of many people in our large cities that love to hunt and fish. This will have a very chilling effect on that. It does not protect normal farming practices. My question would be, why not put amendments in this bill to protect normal hunting and fishing practices and introduce amendments like other areas that have this kind of legislation?
I will quote from a number of states that have included in this type of legislation a section that read something like this: “It is an exception to the application of this section that the conduct engaged in by the actor is generally accepted and otherwise lawful: (a) fishing, hunting or trapping” or from another state, “fishing, hunting or trapping of wildlife controlled and regulated pursuant to the natural resources and Environmental protection acts”.
Many farmers use practices to control pests and rodents, that kind of thing, around their farmyards and they could be at risk. I want to read a bit more of the Lang Michener brief, so the member does not think I am somehow making this stuff up. It states:
While there are legislative mechanisms ensuring that both the federal Attorney General and provincial Crown Attorneys are able to oversee private prosecutions and intervene when appropriate, the Attorney General and the Crown Attorneys are not required to do so. The fear of private prosecutions by animal rights groups is not unfounded. So it is likely that individual anglers or hunters will be charged under Bill C-50 and will be drawn into the criminal court system for a period of time, whether or not such matter proceeds to trial.
Even if anyone charged under this section is ultimately acquitted, or if the Attorney General or Crown Attorney were to intervene to stay the proceeding, this long and involved process will certainly be costly and difficult for the anglers or hunters involved. Such prosecutions will clearly have a chilling effect on anglers and hunters across Canada.
This is the issue I am raising. Why can we not put an amendment in here to protect fishing, hunting and normal farming practices?