Rob Anders

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am wondering whether the House has a quorum.

And the count having been taken:

[Division No. 102, May 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I voted in opposition to the motion but I would like to have my vote reflect that I voted in favour of it. I made a mistake when I was standing before.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, May 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to follow up on a couple of points made by my hon. colleague from the Bloc. She mentioned that CIDA should be subject to an environmental review. She talked about how we should not be having taxpayer promoted pollution. I agree with the hon. member. I happen to think that there are a lot of CIDA projects where Canada is using taxpayer funds to promote questionable things overseas.

She also mentioned the whole idea of broadening ministerial discretion. The federal government almost always continues to expand its influence and give its ministers more jurisdictional ability to put their fingers in more pies. I congratulate her for bringing this issue forward. Would she be able to expound on that in some way?

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, May 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from the Bloc raised questions about federal government violations in provincial jurisdictions. That is a good angle from which to view the bill. Clause 8(b) states:

the Crown corporation or corporation controlled by it makes or authorizes payments or provides a guarantee for a loan or any other form of financial assistance to the proponent for the purpose of enabling the project to be carried out in whole or in part;

The key operating phrase is that these are crown corporations which would provide loan guarantees. It talks about using taxpayer dollars to extend the long arm of the federal government to exert influence on the provinces, whether it be Alberta, or Quebec in this case.

What does the member think of the whole idea of crown corporations being able to use taxpayer dollars to influence business practices in the provinces? It has been rightfully pointed out that it would be a violation of jurisdiction.

The other part that I would like the member to comment on is the reference in clause 9 to the Hamilton harbour commissioners. In the act that we are amending there is a reference to the Toronto harbour commissioners. If we are able to make reference to both the Hamilton harbour and the Toronto harbour, might the member postulate for us why there is no specific reference made to the province of Quebec?

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, May 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue along the vein of questions I had for my hon. colleague from the Bloc.

In proposed paragraph 4(b.2) it says:

to promote cooperation and coordinated action between federal and provincial governments with respect to environmental assessment processes for projects;

One of the hon. members in the House said the proposed change would extend a welcome hand. Surely, I ask my hon. colleague from the Bloc, are there not examples in the past where the federal government has slapped the face of the provinces? Should we really trust these milquetoast resolutions from the federal Liberals?

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, May 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague across the way has some interesting points regarding federal-provincial relations with respect to the bill.

I will start with the name: Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Why do we not call it the confederal environmental assessment act? The federal government is really the creation of the provinces. It came into existence at the will of the provinces. When they came together in 1867 to create Confederation, it was an instrument of the provincial governments, the colonial governments.

Would my colleague across the way support the idea of renaming the bill the confederal environmental assessment act? Does he think that would be an improvement over the word Canadian?

Proposed subsection 2(1) makes reference to the territories. We know the territories are under the thumb of the federal government, that they are oppressed and that the federal government regularly comes in to scavenge their resources at will. How would my hon. colleague from the Bloc feel about provincializing the territories and allowing them a greater share of resources? How would he feel about allowing them to get out from under the evil thumb of the federal government as we all want to do?

Proposed paragraph 2(1)(a) talks about the federal government's powers over waters and airspace. How might my hon. colleague respond to that in terms of provincial rights in those areas or in terms of property rights for individuals?

[The Future Group, May 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to rise in the House today to recognize the efforts of seven dedicated university students known as The Future Group. These students raised enough money to travel to Cambodia so they could learn about and lend their support to local organizations combating child prostitution.

As I speak, a team of students is in Cambodia, acknowledged as the child prostitution capital of the world. One of its tasks is to try to find an effective way to protect children from the sexual depredation of unscrupulous travellers.

Estimates suggest over one million children are victims of child prostitution in southeast Asia. It is encouraging that a group of concerned young Canadians is trying to do something about it.

I would like to tip my hat to the efforts of The Future Group in standing up for decency, integrity and justice.

[Nuclear Weapons, May 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, our southern neighbours have asked Canada's blessing in exchange for generously extending its future missile shield over us. What surprises me is that the government is dragging its feet instead of standing tall with our ally.

Nuclear missile technology is 50 years old and will not go away. In fact every few years a new country is admitted to the nuclear arms club. The ABM treaty, the anti-ballistic missile treaty, is 30 years old and the People's Republic of China has never signed it. As more and more states develop nuclear capability the chances of accidental misfires dramatically increases.

It is time for the government to acknowledge that threats in the world are coming from different countries than in the past. It is time to acknowledge that to be ready for the different world of 20 years from now we must start planning and building today. It is time for the government to stop dragging its feet and commit itself to missile defence.

[Petitions, May 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to present a petition consisting of 3,226 signatures from people who are concerned about the incursions on their freedom with regard to health care choice.

The petitioners are opposed to the government's abuse of natural health products, the regulation of those products and their ability to augment the nutritional quality of their diet with vitamins, minerals, herbs and amino acids.

They simply want to prevent disease with the nutrients available to them without government regulation interference. There are 3,226 people opposed to the bill.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I could not help but notice from the lobby the member's speech. He was saying that he did not want to restrict hunting and that he did not want to cause problems for hunters.

I do not know if the hon. member owns firearms himself. I will let him know that his government has spent in excess of $600 million so far of taxpayer money. If I divide that by 30 million people, that is $20 for every man, woman and child. Not every man, woman and child owns a firearm. Looking at the number of firearm owners, we could be looking at $100 per firearm owner.

Looking at what firearm owners are spending independently; looking at trigger locks the government is telling them they have to use; looking at a firearm's acquisition certificate, which is something I have applied for; and looking at the hunter education courses the government asks people to take, that is all money as well. A person is looking at several hundred dollars for owning of one firearm.

For the hon. member to stand in the House and say that even though he wants to impose a restriction of several hundred dollars for any firearm owned, that somehow that is not a restriction is ludicrous.

By the same token, I will lay the blame at his feet for some of the criminal problems in the country. His government dabbles around with criminal justice instead of coming up with a sex offender registry. It does not go ahead and get rid of early parole for rapists and other types of offenders. It does not change the law. His own members in the House want to come up with consecutive sentences so that people who commit multiple crimes do not serve one single sentence but instead serve multiple criminal convictions one on top of the other for their offences. When it will not act on some of the various criminal provisions, it in a sense creates a hothouse environment for criminals to breed in, to be attracted to. Hence we see those types of people abusing those laws.

His government will not go ahead and crack down on child pornography and pedophilia. It allows people to possess these things and to profit from keeping the avails of these types of activities. It only encourages these types of activities.

How could he say that several hundred dollars for owning one firearm is not a restriction? How could he claim that he is doing a good job on criminal justice when all these other provisions for getting at the real problem of crime are let go by his government?