House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 51% of the vote.
Petitions September 22nd, 2010
Mr. Speaker, the final petition, signed by a number of petitioners from Terrace, British Columbia area, is calling upon the government to ensure that Canada Post does not continue to close post offices in rural Canada as it has been doing, and to improve services not diminish them for rural Canadians right across Canada, coast to coast to coast.
Petitions September 22nd, 2010
Mr. Speaker, the next petition concerns KAIROS funding.
As many members in this House and Canadians will know, the federal government decided to pull many millions of dollars from the funding of KAIROS, which is a multi-faith aid group that works in foreign countries around the world alleviating poverty. It is an absolute shame that the government has rescinded its funding.
Petitions September 22nd, 2010
Mr. Speaker, the second petition has several hundred names from Telkwa, British Columbia and surrounding communities discussing the issue of Tibetans being detained by the Chinese government.
Petitions September 22nd, 2010
Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions.
The first petition is from people in Smithers and Fraser Lake, Northwestern British Columbia, calling upon the federal government to rescind their damaging harmonized sales tax and to no longer continue to bribe provinces with taxpayers' money to increase taxes on those same taxpayers.
Combating Terrorism Act September 20th, 2010
Madam Speaker, I am trying to follow my colleague's logic in that the utility of this bill is to protect Canadians and keep them safe, but it has not been applied. There has been testimony from many who work around this specific type of law, which is very particular, that already in the legal definitions in Canada there is the power to do things to prevent terrorism.
In the draconian measures that we are talking about, anecdotal officers talking to me does not cut it. We need legal experts to come forward and say the law is deficient to protect Canadians.
In the terrorism cases we have prosecuted in this country, if this law were so important, it certainly would have been applied. If this were the critical piece of legislation that was missing prior to 9/11 and the government came up with this and said this is what we need to keep Canadians safe, it would have been used in cases of homegrown terrorism, clearly.
The draconian nature of this is that in Bill C-17 somebody can be held without charge for up to a year, no charges whatsoever. Never does the evidence come before the person who is being held in custody. This should concern all of us. I cast no aspersions on the government, but this law enables this or any future government to simply hold any Canadian for up to a year without presenting a single charge.
We must, as legislators, contemplate the future. We must contemplate bad government always, misinformed government, racist government, governments under some sort of pressure. Why do we need a law that has not been applied now with such draconian measures in it that hurts the rights of all Canadians across the board?
Combating Terrorism Act September 20th, 2010
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments, especially as they come from a former member of our national police force.
When this legislation was introduced, it was created in an obviously different context from where we are right now. Soon after 9/11, many countries tried to shore up certain aspects of their security laws. This was Canada's effort. The government of the day included a sunset clause because it was understood at the time that in such a heated environment sometimes governments will make decisions and changes to laws that they do not necessarily want to have in permanent effect. It is a temporary measure for extreme circumstances. We are now at the sunset clause of this legislation again where it is up for renewal or dismissal, depending on whether it has been useful or not.
This government and the one before have prosecuted cases around homegrown terrorism without using any of these requirements. We actually heard from witnesses at the committee on the provisions in this bill. We understand that the provisions border on the draconian at times, forcing a witness to testify against his or her own interests. This is one of the foundations of our justice system and it is removed through this bill. Holding people without charge is also against the very foundations of what parliaments have stood for, for many years. So know that the measures are serious, and I think the hon. member appreciates that.
These are not light uses in this legislation, but we have never had to use them, even in prosecuting criminal charges of homegrown terrorism. So in the balance that we try to establish here in Parliament as legislators, between the rights of individuals and the protection of society, suspending a person's ability to testify against themselves, suspending the rights of people who are then held without charge, for a piece of legislation that does not get used even when we prosecute in criminal cases involving terrorism, does it not seem to the hon. member that we should allow the sunset to finally take place on this legislation? It was drawn up in a different context, and it has not been applied. Even in moments when we have needed to apply the force of the law and all our security details to terrorism, we have not used this. Is it worth the continued sacrifice to have, on the books in our Parliament and our land, laws that so override basic fundamental human rights, for a law that we simply have not used?
Offshore Drilling June 16th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, the only thing the NEB is going to monitor is itself. This is like asking students to mark their own examine papers. Parliament unanimously passed a New Democratic motion calling for a complete review of all federal laws, regulations, and policies. President Obama has put a suspension on all deepwater drilling and has further boosted U.S. spending on alternative energy.
The fact is, the government is pushing for drilling in even deeper and more dangerous water. The fact is that the government has cut all funding to green energy solutions. Unlike the Conservatives, Canadians will not put their trust in blind faith. Will the minister stop carving up the Arctic and restore funding for the green energy solutions we so--
Offshore Drilling June 16th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, Chevron is currently operating an offshore oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico that is tragically named Blind Faith. That could also be the name of the Conservative government's approach to offshore safety.
Yesterday at committee, an oil cleanup expert testified that there is no known way to get oil out of ice-filled Arctic waters. We have known this for years, but the government insists on selling off more and more exploration rights in the middle of ecologically sensitive areas.
When will the minister admit his mistake, change course, and start protecting instead of endangering our environment?
Foreign Aid June 10th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, helping out a neighbour in need is always a good idea but when the government pitched in to help protect U.S. beaches from the BP spill, it inadvertently exposed how badly prepared it was for a disaster here in Canada.
Here are the facts. The U.S. government made available more than 1,500 kilometres of boom for the cleanup. The Canadian government says that it has a total of six kilometres of boom stockpiled. This would be pathetic if the risks were not so great.
Does the oil-loving government have any plans whatsoever to boost our dangerously low supply?
Jobs and Economic Growth Act June 8th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, I suspect my colleague has some constituents who are connected to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, the nuclear industry in Canada that is located in his riding.
I guess the confusion I have, and which I think many Canadians would share with me, is when my hon. colleague talked about how Bill C-9 contains 900 pages of everything, including the kitchen sink. Anything the government could not pass independently, it rammed into this bill, which is an omnibus bill, a Trojan horse, or we can call it what we want, but most people would call it a disaster.
The bill would also give permission for the government to sell Canada's largest crown corporation, AECL, with no public debate and no discussion, which by law was required. AECL was set up at the beginning so that if the government ever wanted to sell it off, it would need to bring a bill before Parliament for discussion and a debate about whether that was a good idea, how to do it and what the terms of sale were. Instead, the government has gone through the back door and rammed it into a budget bill with no debate at all.
My hon. colleague's recommendation was that the bill should be broken up into its parts so that we could debate the sale of AECL, debate the environmental watering down of regulations that are in this bill and debate what is happening to Canada Post, which is being stripped of its international mailing rights. We voted on those motions last night. New Democrats moved motions at the committee but the Liberals ducked out of the committee room in order to allow the vote to pass. We had votes in this House last night and the Liberals voted to keep all those things in the bill. We had a vote not more than 12 hours ago on the very thing he is asking for and he voted to keep it in rather than have it out in the light of day. I do not understand how he can stand today and say that this is what should happen, when we had the chance--