Rob Anders

[Criminal Code, October 17th, 2005]

Yes, that is right, but we do not have it.

[Criminal Code, October 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, we hear a lot of talk about how this bill is getting tough. Why is it not as tough as the U.K. and the United States? If somebody violates the law in the U.K., there are unlimited fines. I do not see any mention of fines here in this bill. I would think that Canada should be just as tough as the United Kingdom when it comes to fines. In the United States, instead of putting in penalties like Canada has here of 5 or 10 years, the Americans are talking about 20 years imprisonment.

Why is Canada not as tough as the U.K. and the United States on traffickers? Why does the bill have such a light touch on human traffickers as compared to those jurisdictions?

[Search and Rescue, October 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, if the hurricanes in the southern United States have taught us anything, it is that being properly prepared will save lives, property and money.

Unfortunately, the Liberal government is ignoring this hard learned lesson. Heavy urban search and rescue, or HUSAR teams, are an integral part of emergency preparedness. These teams, headquartered in major cities, do the dirty work during an emergency.

These teams pull people out of collapsed buildings and out of fast flowing water. They are the only ones who keep damaged buildings standing and take care of the victims of disasters. The government has acknowledged the importance of these teams and has announced millions of dollars of funding. Sadly, the government has not put its money where its mouth is.

With the federal government squabbling with itself and unable to deliver all the promised funds, the team in Calgary had to cancel training. Halifax has not even got off the ground and Toronto has had to rely on provincial funding. This is unacceptable.

Emergency preparedness deserves better. Canadians deserve better. When the money was announced, the government stated that disasters can strike anywhere.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in my previous question I put to the member for Langley whether or not he thought this move would lead to the trivialization of marriage and a decrease in the birth rate. I have had a similar conversation with some members across the way who happen to disagree, I think largely on emotional grounds rather than rational grounds; they just do not agree with that point of view.

I am asking the member, is he aware of any country, any circumstance in the world, whereby this change in the definition of marriage has resulted in an increase in the number of marriages and/or an increase in the birth rate of a country? I am not aware of any such change in the definition of marriage that has resulted in an increase in marriage or an increase in the birth rate. I am wondering if he knows of an example.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have had a number of concerns about this bill myself and I hope to get up later this evening and speak to it as well.

I would like to ask the hon. member how he thinks this bill will affect the number of marriages in the country.

My understanding is that in Holland just a few years ago about 134,000 people would get married in a given year. Holland made same sex marriages about three years ago, and as a result of changes that we are about to embark on, both its homosexual and heterosexual marriages have dropped to around 30,000 per year. That is about a 75% reduction in the number of marriages. Therefore, I imagine it will also result in a drastic drop in the birth rate. Holland already has some issues on that front.

I was wondering how the hon. member feels about that. Does he think that this change to the definition of marriage will drastically affect the number of marriages and the birth rate in this country?

[Vietnam, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, not every Canadian has been made aware of the visit of the Prime Minister of Vietnam to Canada this week, nor are they familiar with the lack of democracy and violations of human rights taking place.

The disrespect for democracy and human rights is so evident that even when the Vietnamese prime minister was holding discussions with the President of the United States last week, 10 Buddhist monks were arrested in Hanoi for exercising democracy.

It is imperative that the Prime Minister of Vietnam be questioned about his government's human rights violations. Will the Prime Minister emphasize this issue with the Vietnamese government's appalling treatment of its own citizens?

[Extended Sitting Period, June 22nd, 2005]

He didn't hear you. Explain it again.

[Points of Order, June 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberal member for Ahuntsic rose in the House on a speech that I had given with regard to changes to the Elections Act. I would like to read into the record exactly what I said so that she clearly understands it. The first sentence reads:

In the member's last presentation, he spoke about how even current presidents of Liberal riding associations have actually been appointed to be the returning officers in their ridings.

The second sentence reads:

He listed specifically the riding of Ahuntsic, where the returning officer was the president of the Liberal riding association.

The third sentence reads:

If that is not a spurious and strange conflict of interest, I do not know what is.

The first sentence, which is what the Bloc member said about current presidents of Liberal riding associations being appointed, is true.

The second sentence, in which he specifically mentioned the riding of Ahuntsic where the returning officer was the president of the Liberal riding association, is also true.

The third sentence, which is where I said that it was a spurious and I believe strange conflict of interest, is a matter of debate.

I think the hon. member's issue was that the person who was appointed was indeed a former president. My second sentence stated that. She has taken umbrage with the idea that he was not the current sitting president.

Mr. Speaker, if you read the record, you will find that it is a matter of debate.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I remember door knocking during the 2000 election campaign and one of my constituents said something very wise to me. He said, “You know, you get what you tolerate”.

Let us talk about balance. On that side I see excessive spending. I see a withering away of the military, a morale decay, a corruption that is setting in and a tolerance for crime. What we should be looking for on the other side of the scales for that balance is: frugality; a strong military; a government exercising real moral authority rather than jiggery-pokery and smoke screens; a lowering of taxes; personal responsibility; a commander in chief , a Prime Minister who is personally going to take command of some of these issues; a maintenance and preservation of order by going after the criminals and protecting the victims; and the protection of the sanctity of marriage in honouring our traditions. That is the balance that this country needs.

I would ask my colleagues across the way to think about this. Where is the balance when it sends tens of millions of dollars to a government like China that has repressed Falun Gong practitioners, that has engaged in gunboat diplomacy against Taiwan, that has used forced abortions with regard to its population control policies and that is committing genocide in Tibet?

How is it that the government justifies taking hard-earned Canadian tax dollars and giving it to a regime with the worst human rights record on the face of the earth? How is it that the government is able to support a Prime Minister who builds his ships overseas, tries to avoid Canadian taxes, flies foreign flags and has his ships built by the people's liberation army and navy in China? There is nothing morally upright about those two things.

I will address my NDP colleagues in the House for a second because I know they will have a kindred spirit on this. The government takes about $11 billion a year out of honest, decent people's pockets to go ahead and put into corporate welfare where they rob from Peter to pay Paul. It is wrong. There is nothing morally right about that.

I remember representing a company in the Goulds which is close to the St. John's area. It was sad when we found out that the company went bankrupt twice but the government propped it up continually and actually put the law-abiding tax paying company out of business. That is not right and that is exactly what has to come to an end. It is the reason that I do not support Bill C-48 and it is the reason that the government needs to fall.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read some stories into the record, if I may.

In my rookie years from 1997 to 2000 when I served on the human resources development committee, the current President of the Treasury Board was the chair of the committee. At that time he told us that the minister of finance, who is now the current Prime Minister, had his finger in every single expenditure of the government and had the accounting software flagged for anything above $10 million.

We have heard about $800 million that has gone missing or was misappropriated with regard to the sponsorship scandal and the unity fund. That would imply to me that at least--