Tom Lukiwski

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, first, I wish to congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker. It is a great honour and given your length of service in this chamber, it is well-deserved.

I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Privilege, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, although the hon. member may have a grievance I really do not see under what guise the Speaker could consider this a prima facie question of privilege.

This is the first time we have heard of this and, if it does please the Speaker, I would look into the matter and get back to the House later today or first thing tomorrow before the Speaker's ruling.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. opposition leader for his comments in response to the throne speech delivered by our Prime Minister yesterday. The hon. member brought forward many things that I would like to question but I know my colleagues and others in the House want equal opportunity so I will just focus on one. The one that is certainly near and dear to my heart and to the heart of my constituents is, in my estimation, the unconscionable national gun registry which the party opposite seems to support with an unwaivering and unflagging level of support that seems to be completely unjustified.

I would like to focus on one comment my hon. friend opposite made when he said that the national gun registry prevented violent crime. Could the hon. member give me any examples from any police association or any advocacy group of one violent crime which quantitatively has been demonstrated was stopped because of this national gun registry, a gun registry that has cost taxpayers.

My other hon. friend, the one who also portends to be the next leader of the Liberal Party, asks me how there can be a violent crime that we do not know about. The fact of the matter is that the gun registry does nothing to stop violent crime in this country.

The national gun registry, which has cost Canadian taxpayers close to $2 billion and which I think will be verified by the Auditor General's report coming up very shortly, does nothing to stop violent crime. The fact that we do not seem to be able to get across to members opposite is that criminals and violent criminals do not register guns. Think about that. I just do not know if members opposite can grasp that very basic fact. People who are about to commit a violent crime simply do not register their guns.

I wonder if the member could please stand in the House and once again assure Canadians that the Liberals will forever support the national gun registry and admit once again that our party and most rational thinking Canadians oppose this unconscionable waste of taxpayer dollars.

[Multiculturalism, November 28th, 2005]

I will get to the point. Mr. Ignatieff said that “Ukrainian independence conjures up images of peasant embroidered shirts, the nasal whine of ethnic instruments”.

Canada is a country that is tolerant and multicultural. Will the minister join with me in condemning the remarks of Michael Ignatieff?

[Multiculturalism, November 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians of Ukrainian ancestry are protesting the recent nomination of Liberal candidate Mr. Michael Ignatieff. Mr. Ignatieff refers to Ukrainians as little Russians and talks about the disdain he has for Ukrainians--

[Petitions, November 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to very humbly submit on behalf of many of my constituents from throughout my riding asking the government to axe the tax on tax, in other words, to remove the GST on top of the federal excise tax on the price of gasoline.

[Criminal Code, November 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I would like the opinion of my hon. colleague. I think there is a reason why we have never seen this bill pass over the course of the last number of years. It seems to me there would have to be so many exclusions and exceptions to the bill that we may never get it passed. As the member knows, we live in a very litigious society. I think a lot of people would be somewhat fearful or very fearful of the fact that if the bill is not narrow cast sufficiently, one might be open for legal action. There are many examples. From the agricultural perspective, what would happen if we brand cattle, as an example? What would happen if we kill gophers?

I do not know whether the bill will ever see the light of day. As other members have stated, and I believe we have unanimity, we do not want to see cruelty to animals in the common sense, family pets, for example. No one wants to see a dog, or a cat, or a budgie or anything else cruelly tortured and abused.

I do not know if we can ever get to a point where we narrow cast the legislation sufficiently to allow passage in this place. Would my hon. colleague care to comment on that?

[Points of Order, November 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize unreservedly to all members of the House for the remarks I made during question period. I obviously lost my composure, something I do not normally do in the House. I offer my unequivocal apologies to the House.

[Keeseekoose First Nation, November 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, most Canadians by now have come to the realization that the minister really does not understand what is going on. I am going to give the minister a chance to stand in the House and try to convince Canadians that indeed he has not been hit in the head by a rock.

Therefore, I am going to speak slowly and distinctly. Money was stolen from school children. Liberals were involved. Why does the minister simply not take his finger out of his butt and do something about it?