Larry Miller

[Remembrance Day, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, when we leave the House this Friday, we return home for veterans week. Recently I participated in an event honouring veterans from my riding.

Hosted by the Billy Bishop Museum, guests including Lieutenant-Colonel Rob Kearney helped to honour: William “Bill” Corbett, Barry C. Jackson, John G. Newton, Clarence “Clancy” Wark, John Patten “Jock” Fleming, Gordon Jackson, Doris A. Pedwell, Clifford Iles, Thomas McClelland and William Avery Tiner.

On Remembrance Day, I urge all of us to take the time to attend a service honouring our soldiers past and present.

We pray for those who are serving our country today, like the brave men and women in Afghanistan, as well as for their families, such as the family of Owen Sound native Corporal Robert Thomas James Mitchell, who we lost just one year ago.

We must honour our veterans all year long, but Remembrance Day gives us a special chance to reflect, to respect and most importantly, to remember.

Lest we forget.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it was hard getting out of that chair with a shiver going up my spine because of the fact that she is going to be watching over us. I hope that she and her colleagues do not watch over us the same way they watched over taxpayer money during the sponsorship scandal.

Something really baffles me. The Liberals, my colleague across the way included, always talked about supporting crime, supporting agriculture, the environment and all these things, but nothing ever happened until, all of a sudden, their backs were against the wall and they realized they may not get elected again for a long time. This is I guess typical. There seems to be a theme here.

The government is doing a lot of good things that Canadians want to see. We are working on the environment. It may not satisfy her, but at least something is getting done on it instead of the reverse. We are fighting crime.

My question for my colleague is, first, will she ever admit that we are actually doing something? Second, she had 13 years, why did she not do some of the things she talked so much about?

[Petitions, October 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure today that I stand in the House to present a petition from 438 people in my riding.

The petitioners are displaying their displeasure with the long gun registry and the fact that the vast majority of violent crimes are committed by unregistered or illegal firearms, that the long gun registry has cost Canadian taxpayers more than $1 billion and that the long gun registry usually targets law-abiding citizens, farmers, sport shooters and hunters. The petitioners would like to see this banned.

I have another petition signed by 93 people in my riding, and it is exactly the same petition.

The third petition has 1,418 names on it, for a total of 1,949 names. All these petitioners want to see part of the long gun registry revamped.

This is just a small example of the feeling in my riding.

[Justice, October 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, getting tough on crime is not a part of the Liberal agenda. It was not a priority when the Liberals were government and now, as opposition, it is even less of a concern.

This past weekend the Liberal leader outlined his vision for an alternative plan for Canada. One key element was missing, their fighting crime agenda. While this is no surprise, what is surprising is the fact that the Liberals are now trying to say that they actually care about fighting crime. In fact, for the past four months, the Liberals have been missing in action on the justice files. Now, only when there is talk of an election and the cameras are rolling, do the Liberals say that they are interested in getting tough on crime.

The tackling violent crime bill is a priority for this government because community safety is a major concern for Canadians. Two-thirds of Canadians support the government's approach to criminal justice issues, including mandatory minimum penalties for serious crime.

While the Liberals are idle on the subject of justice, this government has and will continue to deliver what Canadians want.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 18th, 2007]

My apologies, Mr. Speaker.

When the former prime minister knew there was no chance in heaven of ever coming back to this House as the prime minister of Canada, he started giving out more than $1 billion a day for weeks on end.

The bottom line is that members of the party opposite will say anything when their backs are against the wall, and this brings me to my question. For years those members have been saying that they want to cut taxes. They had 13 years to do that, but they did not do it. They said that they wanted to get strong on the environment. The present Leader of the Opposition, when he was the environment minister said that he was going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6%. Not only did the Liberals not do that, but emissions increased by 30% to 35%. Again they did not do what they said they were going to do. Those members are all talk and no action.

The Liberals stood up during the last election and said that they were going to fight crime, something which the Conservative Party ran on. In the last year and a half they have fought it. Why should Canadians believe that the Liberals are serious about this now? If they are serious about this, then they will support our crime bills. They will support the initiatives that are here. They said they will at one point. I want to know, will they actually do it when their backs are up against the wall?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague across the way for giving the throne speech a passing grade. Coming from the opposition, that is probably the closest we could get to a ringing endorsement.

A couple of things really bother me. I do not know why my colleague criticized the fact that we are spending money on some great programs that Canadians are looking for. It is almost laughable because that comes from a member who was part of the government of former prime minister Paul Martin, who--

[Criminal Code, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member very well. I had the pleasure of travelling with him on government business. He is a very smart individual.

I know it is not deliberate, but sometimes people in different parts of the country do not realize that things are different in other parts of the country. I need to point out, as I have with a number of members from his part of the world tonight, that there is life north of Highway 7.

For example, up our way we do not need sidewalks along our country roads, but they do in the city, so there are sidewalks in the cities. Up our way we do not have a very big crime problem, so we have a few officers to do the job. In the city there is a large crime problem, so they need to deal with it, but that does not mean they have to make the rest of the country suffer because of a problem in one area.

[Criminal Code, June 19th, 2007]

It blows me away, Mr. Speaker, how some members can stand in their place and pretend, as they have, that they are tough on crime. Not very long ago they all stood over there and voted against some tough on crime issues. Yet they stand there and pretend. It would almost be laughable, if it were not such a serious issue.

[Criminal Code, June 19th, 2007]

Could we have a little order, Mr. Speaker?

[Criminal Code, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, only the hon. member across the way and the rest of his crowd, cronies, as somebody said, who supported this gun law can answer the question about the billions. They should be ashamed of that. They deceived the Canadian public by saying it would cost $2 million, which was underestimated by $998 million and climbing. It blows me away that members can stand in the House—