James Bezan

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, May 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for his enlightening comments. Finally, we are hearing some reason in this debate because what we are hearing from the opposition parties is completely ludicrous.

We know people across the country want to see Senate reform. They have been talking about it. It is ranking higher and higher in opinion polls, but yet we are hearing from the opposition party that it is not going to support the bill. We found out today that the Liberal dominated Senate will not support Bill S-4 to bring about term limits into the Senate.

Why does my colleague think the opposition parties are not supporting democratic reform in the Senate and ensuring we bring modernization into this institution?

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, May 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I fail to see what issue the member for Malpeque is trying to raise. This has absolutely nothing to do with Senate reform, something that he has absolutely no clue about how to get anything done.

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, May 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member was quoting from a document and I would like him to table it.

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, May 7th, 2007]

We cut taxes.

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, May 7th, 2007]

What does this have to do with Bill C-43?

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, May 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we are here to debate Senate reform. The hon. member is talking about issues of the day and about our budget, which have absolutely nothing to do with the--

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, May 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, while I thank the hon. member from Manitoba for his intervention, unfortunately what I am hearing from over there again is more Liberal talk about reforming the Senate but no action.

Finally we have a bill before us that is going to play a critical role in changing the whole process in the Senate to one of actually having a democratized system to appoint senators. I think that is great for Canadians. They are going to have people who are finally going to be accountable for the actions they take.

The hon. member mentioned a few senators who are doing great work. He mentioned Senator Hugh Segal. Senator Segal has said that he will be the first senator to run in an upcoming Senate election. He is prepared to take that next step because he believes in having an elected Senate. I think that is just fabulous. He raises some concerns about having minority and official language representation from smaller populations in western Canada, but I know for a fact that we do have that type of representation today in an elected House of Commons. If we can get that type of representation in an elected House of Commons, I have no idea why it would not happen in an elected Senate.

I want to add my voice in support of this great legislation. I would hope that the Liberals will decide this is something they should support because it is the right thing to do.

[Criminal Code, May 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to add my voice to the many voices in Canada that support this legislation. Canadians across this country want dangerous and violent offenders off the street.

Whenever we do incarcerate these people and then let them go and they reoffend, Canadians find that completely unacceptable. What we are trying to do here, and what the legislation would accomplish, concerns the fact that too many people are walking out and reoffending. Rather than having this catch and release system, Canadians want to ensure these dangerous offenders stay incarcerated.

Peter Whitmore is a good example. The Liberal Party wants people like him thrown back out on the streets and back out into the public. Peter Whitmore abducted children in the Maritimes and in Saskatchewan. If we would have had this legislation, that would never have happened.

[Privilege, May 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I gave notice of my intention to rise on a question of privilege relating to threatening comments made to me on the floor of the House of Commons by the member for Winnipeg South Centre. This occurred just prior to the votes taken last night.

I was in my chair when the member for Winnipeg South Centre approached me in regard to some ten percenters that we had sent into her riding. She said that she was would be taking legal action against the Manitoba Conservative caucus and then went on to say, “You'd better stop doing this or I have a photo and a story which will blow the lid off your caucus”. I really feel that she was trying to intimidate me.

As you well know, Mr. Speaker, evidence of intimidation or threats against members constitute a prima facie question of privilege. This incident was witnessed by the hon. members for Avalon, Palliser, Niagara West—Glanbrook and others who are prepared to support my complaint.

Mr. Speaker, you will be aware of the numerous threatening incidences outlined in Marleau and Montpetit beginning at page 86 that have been considered prima facie evidence of contempts. Should you find that a prima facie case exists, I am prepared to move the necessary motion to refer this matter to committee.

[Petitions, April 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present today a petition from about 50 of my constituents who are concerned about the Raza-Kausar family, who right now are seeking refuge and sanctuary in the Crescent Fort Rouge United Church in Winnipeg. the petitioners would like to see the family's citizenship issue resolved.