Leon Benoit

[Petitions, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to present, on behalf of my constituents, several petitions where the constituents are calling upon Parliament to enshrine the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and making the point that it is the responsibility of Parliament, not the courts, to make this decision. I am happy to present this on behalf of my constituents.

[Canadian Livestock Industry, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member made a couple of statements which were probably accurate. One was that BSE exists in the United States and has not been brought out. Second, R-CALF is doing what it is doing for the sake of making more money. However, that is still not dealing with the real issue.

The real issue here is the political harm that has been done by the government when it comes to our relationship with our American neighbours. It is the result of the name calling that took place over the past year and a half and more recently, through the unfortunate and stupid timing on the part of the Prime Minister when he announced just before the opening of the border that he would not take part in missile defence. That is the issue. That is why the border is not open. There is no other reason. I would like the member to comment on that, if he would.

[Canadian Livestock Industry, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker--

[Petitions, February 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to present two petitions on behalf of my constituents.

My constituents feel that it is wrong that the courts have been involved in defining marriage. They believe that is a responsibility correctly left to the elected people in the House of Commons. Further, they believe it is the responsibility of the members of this House of Commons to uphold the current definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Citizenship and Immigration, February 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the government falsely leads new Canadians to believe that they can successfully sponsor their parents to come to Canada.

Top immigration officials tell me that sponsoring parents and grandparents is a zero priority. They will not even look at the files. However the Liberals continue to rake in the application fees and all of the other related funds.

Why is the government misleading new Canadians and taking their money under the false promise that they can actually get their parents into this country?

[Petitions, February 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present on behalf of Canadians who believe that in fundamental matters of social policy, it should be people elected to Parliament who make decisions on those issues.

The petitioners also support the current definition of marriage which is supported by a majority of Canadians. They urge Parliament to use all possible legislative and administrative measures to uphold the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

[Income Tax Act, February 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member is red-faced having to defend this program. The fact that the government will not release the cost benefit analysis tells the story. Once again the member is spreading some information that is less than complete.

For example, he talked about a poll done in January 2003 where 74% of Canadians supported the current gun legislation. The fact is that a poll done in April 2004 by JMCK Polling stated that a substantial majority, in fact 77% of Canadians, wanted the registry scrapped.

Why did the parliamentary secretary not refer to that survey and that poll result? Those are the facts. This program has done nothing to help the police deal with the issues of crime.

In fact, the chief of police for Toronto, the place we would think would be supporting this legislation, has said that the registry should be scrapped and that money should go into policing instead. That is what should be done.

[Income Tax Act, February 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I asked a question in the House on December 2 regarding the firearms registry. The background to my question read as follows:

Mr. Speaker, the government keeps talking about the benefits of its bungled gun registry, which it now says will...cost [by its own estimates] $1.4 billion, 2,000% more than the Liberals said it would. They are so confident of the benefits that they keep the cost benefit analysis locked away as a cabinet secret.

I want to refer to the fact that while the government continued to say that the gun registry was providing a great service to Canadians, it went to the expense to carry out a cost benefit analysis of the program. The results obviously came back extremely negative because they refused to make the results of the cost benefit analysis public. The reason it gives for not providing the information under access to information is that it is a cabinet secret, which is absurd.

I therefore would like to try asking my question again in the hope that the parliamentary secretary, in his response, will say that the government will release the cost benefit analysis. I doubt that will happen but that is what I am hoping for.

I want to make it very clear that the benefit is not there for the gun registry and we know that. The following are the top 10 items that demonstrate that very clearly.

Ten. Of firearms used in homicides, 86% were unregistered and 80% of murderers were unlicensed.

Nine. A briefing note dated April 12, 2001, to the current securities minister, the minister from Edmonton, when she was the minister of justice, said that staffing levels associated with the firearms program were 1,800 employees.

Eight. The firearms registration in Nunavut was temporarily suspended by the courts for more than two years.

Seven. There is no requirement in the Firearms Act for gun owners to tell anyone where they store their guns or who they loan their guns to. So much for the Liberal promise that the police will know where the guns are.

Six. There are only 282,000 of the two million firearm licence holders who have taken a firearms safety course.

Five. There are more than five million of the seven million firearms in the gun registry that have still not been verified, contrary to police demands.

Four. More than 315,000 owners of a registered handgun still have not registered their handgun. They know they are out there but they are still not registered.

Three. More than 400,000 firearm licence-holders still have not registered a gun.

Two. More than 300,000 owners of previously registered handguns still do not have a firearms licence.

One. The Liberals have only registered 7 million out of 16.5 million guns.

I think those quick facts demonstrate very clearly that the Liberal firearms registry program simply is not effective. I am hoping that the minister or the parliamentary secretary--

[Committees of the House, February 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

The committee has studied Bill C-8, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act, the Canada School of Public Service Act and the Official Languages Act, and has agreed to report it with amendment.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2004, No. 2, February 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that the type of government provided by the Liberal Party over the past 11 years has pushed wage earners away from the higher earning jobs to the McJobs, as they are called, the really low end jobs. That has happened all too much. The fact is that if taxes were lowered there would be a lot more disposable income automatically. That is the way it works.

I have a lot of respect for the member but I would like to say that he thinks the solutions come from social programs. He is a socialist and he is proud of that. The problem is that socialism has not worked in any country in the world. The kinds of proposals that we are putting forward will make things better for Canadian families, especially low and middle income families. They have been proven to work around the world. That is the difference between the member's philosophy and mine.