Tom Lukiwski

[Sponsorship Program, November 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Justice Gomery's report indicates that there was widespread corruption and criminal activity within the Liberal Party of Canada. Simply put, the Liberals owe the Canadian taxpayer over $40 million and it is the government's responsibility to recover that money.

Will the Prime Minister commit today to launch a lawsuit against the Liberal Party of Canada to recover the millions of dollars that were stolen from Canadian taxpayers?

[Pacific Gateway Act, November 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad there was some laughter on this side. I want to put on the record, of course, that I am not trying to offend the mothers-in-law across Canada and I must say, again for the record, that I love my mother-in-law.

I am trying to illustrate that I do have some conflicting thoughts about the bill. On the one hand I can see some benefit from the bill, but on the other hand I can see, as is typical of most Liberal pieces of legislation, it is only dealing with half measures at best.

I agree, and I think all of the members on this side of the House would agree, that we should support anything that brings light to the Pacific gateway strategy. However, by establishing an advisory committee that is primarily comprised of Liberal patronage appointments to advise how best to spend the $400 million allocated is really, in my mind, something that is almost useless.

The British Columbia port strategy has already developed a very comprehensive strategy of what initiatives in British Columbia should be best served and best funded on a priority basis. Yet the government once again has gone against the wishes and the advice of a very professional, blue level expert panel. The panel dealt with the funding initiative on a very solid and comprehensive level and came up with very qualified and very professional advice as to which initiatives should be proceeding on a priority basis. The government chose to ignore that advice and instead decided to set up an advisory council, which could cost up to $35 million over the course of the next few years.

This seems to be typical of a lot of Liberal initiatives. The Liberals either talk the talk and do not walk the walk, or in this case they decide to set up another commission to study a situation that has already been studied.

I do not know whether or not the citizens of British Columbia and the citizens of western Canada would ever truly see the benefit of the gateway initiative, because this initiative of setting up a commission to advise the government on how best to spend $400 million could take years. It could delay the process that should be happening now.

This is so typical of why Canadians in my part of the world feel alienated from the federal government.

We heard much talk from the Prime Minister during the last election campaign about western alienation and how the Prime Minister admitted that in his view, western alienation was real. He said he would deal with it. He said that he would ensure that the west was included in all of the federal government's initiatives, that he would make sure that westerners felt part of the decision making process for all Canadians.

I can assure the House that nothing has been done in that regard to alleviate the feelings of alienation that we in western Canada have toward the government. There are so many examples, and I will try to list just a few to illustrate my point.

Most recently we have seen in the last few days the result from the Gomery commission. The report from Justice Gomery validated our concerns and the statements that we had been making for months that we have seen perpetrated upon the Canadian taxpayer the largest political scandal in Canada's history where, on a systematic basis, Canadian taxpayers were robbed. Their money was stolen and illegally diverted to the Liberal Party of Canada. All of this of course occurred in Quebec.

While we are not blaming anyone in Quebec except Liberals for the scandal, it again seems to reinforce the image that many people have in my neck of the woods, which is that Canada's western provinces are ignored and all efforts are made only in Quebec to placate the government and the Liberal Party of Canada.

[Pacific Gateway Act, November 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to share the time with my hon. colleague.

I must say that while I stand here to speak in support of Bill C-68, I do so with mixed emotions. I am sure we all understand the definition of mixed emotions, but I will give an example. Mixed emotions is defined as watching one's mother-in-law drive off a cliff in one's brand new Cadillac.

[Criminal Code, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there should be. I absolutely and totally agree 100% with the member for Dufferin—Caledon.

Why is there not? We have to ask the government. It does not seem to be in favour of minimum sentencing and I think that is absolutely a travesty of justice. That is something that we should be doing. We should be embracing it as parliamentarians. I am speechless every time I hear the justice minister stand in his place and say that minimum sentencing does not work. He will not even explore the opportunity to advance that in the House and that is a shame

[Criminal Code, October 24th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I consider my colleague to be very fortunate to have known Mr. Cadman as well as he did.

The member is absolutely right. What Mr. Cadman was trying to do was protect the victim. It seems all too often in this country that we have a system that seems to protect the criminal and not the victim, which is just wrong. I do not care what side of the political arena one sits on, can we not at least agree that the victims should be the ones who are protected and not the criminals?

Mr. Cadman's bill sought to address that. In all of Mr. Cadman's private members' bills and in all his initiatives, he sought to address that very thing, victims' rights. Let us protect the victims. Let us make sure the victims are heard and that the penalties are toward the criminals. All too often it seems that the victims are the ones who end up being penalized. That is just wrong.

Can we not agree to move forward as a whole, as all parties, with one simple objective in mind, which is to protect the victims and to penalize the criminals? If we can do that, this country will be a far better society than the one in which we have been living under Liberal rule for the last 12 or 14 years.

[Criminal Code, October 24th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I was a little confused at the start of my hon. colleague's question as to how the Constitution got into this debate but I think I understand the point the hon. member was trying to make.

I must tell the hon. member that I am a big believer in deterrents which is why I think the bill could be effective. It is not so much what happens after a criminal is apprehended and perhaps sent to jail. What we must question is whether the crime could have been prevented to begin with. I think the best answer to crime prevention is having a system of criminal law that would deter individuals from committing a crime.

Bills, such as the one Mr. Cadman was purporting and bills my colleague from Langley was sponsoring, that would put severe penalties on individuals for committing crimes, whether it be the theft of a motor vehicle or the defacing or removal of VINs, would be effective law-making in my view. I believe that if laws like this came into effect in Canada and more young offenders understood the penalties they would be facing, they would think twice before they committed such acts.

What we really want to get at in all of the legislation that we bring forward in this place is legislation that would not only be effective after the fact but legislation that would act as a deterrent before the fact. That is what I am looking for in any legislation that deals with crime and law and order issues. This does not effectively deal with that.

[Criminal Code, October 24th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-64, a bill designed to amend the Criminal Code with respect to vehicle identification numbers.

While I can agree in part with the spirit of the proposed legislation, like many Liberal bills that I have seen over the course of the last year, I cannot support the legislation as written. As we have seen countless times, the spirit may be strong but the devil is in the details. It always seems that when the Liberals put forward legislation, they either water it down to make the original intent almost worthless or they alter it to a point where I think most Canadians cannot accept it. I wish I knew the reason why they do this.

Had the legislation been presented in the form that it was originally presented in as a private member's bill, I would support it. I think most of the members of my party and most Canadians would support it. However, that is not the way the legislation has been written.

Mr. Chuck Cadman originally put forward a private member's bill to deal with this issue and this bill does not reflect his intent. I find it offensive to hear the justice minister say that this bill has been presented in memory of Mr. Chuck Cadman. It diminishes his memory.

Chuck Cadman would not want a bill that is written this way to be presented before the House, and that is quite clear. Any member who purports the bill to be a Chuck Cadman bill is being more than just slightly disingenuous. This is not the type of bill he would support himself if he were with us today.

I want to speak for a few moments on Mr. Cadman himself. I respected him so much for what he did. We all know the history. Any Canadian who has passing knowledge or interest in Canadian politics knows the story of Chuck Cadman and the tragedy he encountered when his 16 year old son was killed in a vicious attack. Rather than going into a shell and becoming a recluse, he decided to become an advocate for and a tireless worker on behalf of victims across Canada. After working in that regard in British Columbia, he decided to seek public office and was successful in his attempt.

Until the time he died, Mr. Chuck Cadman never for one moment forgot the reason he came to this place, and that was to advance the cause of victims' rights across Canada. It was to address issues of crime and law and order in a positive and meaningful way by bringing forward legislation that would hopefully put an end to the type of violence that Chuck Cadman experienced in his life. He would never have agreed with the wording contained in Bill C-64.

I did not have the honour and the privilege of knowing Chuck Cadman. I had the honour of shaking his hand once and introducing myself but that was the extent of it. I certainly will not purport to say that I knew him or that I was a friend of his because I was not. I respected him as a man and as a legislator.

If we are going to say that we are honouring Chuck Cadman's memory by bringing forward legislation, then we should do so in a way that is respectful to his memory. In my view this legislation is anything but respectful of the late Chuck Cadman. It does not accurately reflect what he would have us do.

Quite frankly, when it came to this bill, Chuck Cadman would have been ashamed to allow his name to be associated with it. Let us back up a moment and talk about what he tried to do in his private members' bills with respect to vehicle identification numbers.

Mr. Cadman quite simply stated that it should be a crime for anyone to obscure, alter or deface a vehicle identification number, bottom line, full stop. If people do that, they are guilty of a crime and should be punished accordingly. I cannot think of anything that is simpler or more direct than that. Mr. Cadman was correct that it should be a crime. Currently, it is not.

If a person is caught in possession of a vehicle that has its vehicle identification number altered, defaced or destroyed, that person can be charged with a crime. However, the sheer act of defacing or destroying a VIN currently is not a crime. Mr. Cadman sought to redress that. He sought to put a bill into place that would make the alteration, destruction or tampering of a vehicle identification number a crime.

What did the government do? Again the devil is always in the details. The government does not seem to get it when it comes to taking a private member's bill that made perfect sense, redrafting it in the same language of that bill and then presenting it to the House. It seems incapable of doing that, and I do not understand why.

What it has done with this legislation is, first. add a caveat that states that if there are circumstances that come into play that might make it okay, then perhaps there is no crime. Second, it puts the onus on the Crown. In other words, Mr. Cadman said that if someone destroyed or defaced a VIN, that person would be guilty and would have to prove otherwise. That individual would have to go to court and convince the judge that there was a lawful excuse why he or she did that.

It seems the Liberals have it all backward. They suggest that the crown prosecutors have to prove a person who defaced a VIN did not have a lawful excuse and is guilty. That is completely backward.

What Mr. Cadman attempted to do in all his private members' bills was to put the onus on the individual. If individuals were caught tampering with a VIN, those individuals would have to prove that they had a lawful excuse to do it. If they could not, they would be guilty.

I do not think we could have anything more direct, to the point or simple as that. Yet the government sought to change that intent. It sought to make not the individual who tampered with the VIN prove why he or she did so. This legislation says that the Crown has to prove it, and it has loopholes. It allows individuals to come up with perhaps a convoluted message that might prevent the Crown from successfully prosecuting its case. Why in the world would any government or political party want to water down a bill to that extent? It is beyond me.

For the Liberals to bring forward Bill C-64 in this form and suggest this is something that Chuck Cadman would support, is utterly and entirely wrong. Not only is it disrespectful of Mr. Cadman's memory, but it borders on being untruthful.

Earlier in my remarks I said that at best the Liberals could be considered disingenuous in their remarks. If the Liberals truly wanted to bring forward legislation, they would have simply picked up a copy of Chuck Cadman's earlier private member's bill, replicated the language and presented it. They could take credit for it. I know Mr. Cadman would not have a problem with that. He was a man without ego. He did not look for personal self-glorification, saying that he had a private member's bill, brought it forward and his name would go down in history. In my view he did not care about all that. All he wanted were results. Yet the government cannot even present the results that Mr. Cadman so tirelessly worked for, for many years. That is absolutely a shame.

Although I do not know this to be true, I would suspect very strongly that if one would ask Mr. Cadman's widow, Donna Cadman, if she would support this bill, she would say no. I also suspect that in the upcoming days and perhaps weeks, Donna Cadman will speak out against the bill. There will be no better proof than that as to why the government is wrong in its attempts to portray this bill as a Chuck Cadman bill. We will see what we will see.

I cannot suggest that this is something unique, that this is something at which the government has failed. There is a consistent pattern of the government on issues of crime, particularly motor vehicle theft. There is a continuing pattern where the government has failed to understand the realities of what is needed in terms of law and order, crime and punishment.

I will give a further example of what I speak. Recently, in the last few months, one of our colleagues, the hon. member for Langley, introduced a private member's bill that would increase the penalties of those individuals who stole cars. The bill sets out severe penalties for the first, second and third time offences for individuals who have stolen motor vehicles. From my perspective, as the member for Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre, I heartily endorsed that bill.

In the capital city of Saskatchewan, which is part of my riding, Regina has been known in years past as the national stolen car capital of Canada, on a per capita basis at least. We have a terrible problem with car thefts in Regina. We have had gangs that had monikers and reputations as being car thieves. For those from Saskatchewan, the infamous Oldsmobile gang is one that I would draw to the attention of members of the House. They would steal nothing but Oldsmobiles. To them it was perhaps a badge of honour. We consistently saw youth offenders primarily steal time and time again motor vehicles from the city. Sometimes they were for joyrides. Other times they were stolen to perpetrate more insidious and serious crimes such as drug trafficking and that type of thing. In all cases, the number of thefts of motor vehicles in Regina was absolutely staggering.

The member for Langley brought forward a bill that would put severe penalties and deterrents upon those individuals who might be willing to or thinking of stealing a motor vehicle. If memory serves me well, and perhaps some of my hon. colleagues can refresh my memory in case I am wrong, the penalty for the first time was up to a maximum of $1,000 or a year in jail, or both, as determined by the judge. The second offence was more serious. I think it was $5,000 and up to two years and a third offence, perhaps $10,000, et cetera.

The Liberal government voted against the legislation. Did the Liberals bring forward any alternative legislation? No. When the justice minister talked about the bill the only thing I can remember is that he related it back to another issue that members on this side have, which is with mandatory minimum sentencing. The justice minister consistently said that mandatory minimums did not work because statistics and empirical evidence suggest that the judges will always go to the lesser amount as indicated on the mandatory minimums. They will not increase the sentencing. He said that was wrong and that they did not want that. The problem is that right now the sentences do not even reach the level of mandatory minimums that we were suggesting.

How in the world can the justice minister say that empirical evidence suggests that mandatory minimum sentencing does not work when in fact the sentences that are currently being given out are less than what we would suggest as the mandatory minimum? It makes no sense to me and yet we have a government that continually says one thing and does another. It says that it is tough on crime and yet I have seen no evidence from the government that would suggest it actually wants to get tough on crime.

Bill C-64 is another example. We had a private member's bill sponsored by Mr. Cadman that would have been direct, effective and would have acted as a deterrent and should have been supported by all members of the House but what did we see? Time and time again, when Mr. Cadman wanted to bring forward legislation such as this, members on that side of the House voted against it.

We have heard the government on different issues say that the reason it will not support certain things is that it wants to bring forward its own legislation, a government initiative, that will make the bill stronger, better worded and more effective. However, time and time again, when we do see legislation brought down by the government, it is not complementary legislation. It is not legislation that accurately reflects the intent of the private member's bill. It is something that is weakened, watered down and does absolutely nothing to accurately reflect the intent of the original bill. This is what is happening with Bill C-64.

Chuck Cadman would have voted against this legislation, not because he was soft on crime, far from it. We all know his record and his background. He would vote against this legislation as introduced by the government because it does not reflect his private member's bill. However we heard the justice minister stand in his place and say that this was in honour and in memory of Chuck Cadman.

I cannot think of anything more offensive than a member of Parliament trying to say that his government is honouring the memory of one of our fallen colleagues, a man who was so widely respected that after losing the nomination in his home riding as a Reform member, he ran as an independent and won overwhelmingly with, I believe, a larger plurality than he had received in the previous election. For an independent to win with that margin of victory in parliamentary circles is unheard of. That is the level of respect people had for Chuck Cadman. The Liberals are sullying his reputation and for that they should be ashamed.

[Telecommunications Act, October 19th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his presentation and also my colleague from Edmonton—Leduc for his. I first have an observation to make before I ask my colleague from the Bloc a direct question.

My observation is that the committee clearly did good work to bring forward these exemptions and amendments. I think the original piece of legislation that was proposed in December 2004 was, as my colleague from Edmonton—Leduc put it so eloquently, a mess. I think this is one of the benefits of having committee work. Committees can take a perhaps flawed piece of legislation and make a bad piece of legislation better. I would certainly applaud all members of the committee, because I do agree with the spirit of the legislation.

I do have one concern. That is the area on which I would like to query my hon. colleague from the Bloc. My concern is the potential for cost overruns.

From what had been originally projected as a $2 million registry, we have seen the national firearms registry balloon and spiral completely out of control, to where its costs are now probably close to a thousand times more than originally projected. I have somewhat of a concern, even though I think this registry will be a good thing for all Canadians. My concern is that the registry itself may get into a situation where its costs start spiralling out of control.

Does my colleague from the Bloc share those concerns or does he have some suggestions that might be able to prevent an independent registry from escalating costs, thus making this more an embarrassment than a benefit to Canadians?

[Government Aircraft, October 6th, 2005]

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that Challenger jets were only to be used when “there is no other alternative that would allow government business to be discharged reasonably”.

On January 29 of this year, the finance minister flew back to Regina by himself on the Challenger when, according to his own media advisories, his next event was on January 31 back here in Ottawa.

Could the minister explain why he spent $67,000 of taxpayer dollars on what appears to be a personal trip?

[First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act, October 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I support Bill C-54, which is important legislation as I mentioned in my remarks to the parliamentary secretary.

I come from Saskatchewan and although I do not have any reserves in my home riding, I live on native land. My house is on a portion of land that is controlled by six Indian bands. I am quite familiar with many of their projects, including a golf course which they operate, plans for expansion of the golf club and plans to one day perhaps apply for a casino licence.

The one difficulty the bands have in my small area of the world is the lack of funding for the expansion of some of their planned projects. In previous years a lot of funding came from the federal government, but there were always strings attached, which is normal between any level of government and first nations people or any stakeholder that goes to the government for financial assistance. That in itself has always caused some problems. Rather than being accountable to themselves, first nations people were accountable to the federal government and in many respects dependent upon the federal government for their funding.

I will be splitting my time, Mr. Speaker, with the member for Desnethé--Missinippi--Churchill River.

I believe it is important for first nations in all their activities and in their pursuit of their economic development plans, dreams and aspirations to have control of their own destiny. One critical way to have control over their own destiny is to have control over their own revenue. This legislation would allow first nations, if they wished, to fully control and manage the revenue from their own oil and gas.

As the parliamentary secretary mentioned, this is not to say that all first nations people will take advantage of the legislation. Some may still wish to fall under the purview of the federal government and have their oil and gas revenues controlled by it. I would hope that most first nations people would take the revenues produced from oil and gas on their land and administer it, manage it and use it themselves.

By my records, the White Bear reserve would be earning at current oil prices approximately $32 million per year gross revenue. That is an incredible amount of money. Currently, that money is managed by IOGC, but I believe first nations people on the White Bear reserve could manage it more effectively than any federal government agency. Aboriginals and first nations people on White Bear reserve are looking forward to the challenges that will come with this legislation being enacted.

Let us make no mistake about it. I truly believe and anticipate that there will be challenges. There will be problems. There will be growing pains, but that is to be expected. Any time that we move toward the ultimate goal of self-government for first nations people, there will be hiccups along the way.

However, I think it would be remiss of us as parliamentarians and of any other level of government to suggest that we should not pursue the ultimate goal of allowing first nations people their goal of self-government. I think it is absolutely critical. I think it is something in which all of us on both sides of the House and in all four corners of the House need to take an active part, that is, assisting first nations people with their ultimate goal of self-government.

Therefore, again I suggest that this piece of legislation is an extremely important first step, a small but very important first step toward achieving the goal of aboriginal and first nations self-government.

I hope, however, that what comes as a result of the legislation and what comes as a result of first nations people being able to control and manage their own oil and gas revenues is that there are no other impediments or drawbacks imposed upon them from the federal government. We have seen this before when it comes to the ownership and management of natural resources, not necessarily directly with respect to first nations people, but certainly with jurisdictional management, accountability and ownership of oil and gas revenues.

I can again point to my home province of Saskatchewan, where we have been in a long and ongoing discussion, debate and, some would suggest, fight with the federal government over oil and gas revenues. I refer specifically to the ongoing battle our province has with the federal government on equalization payments.

Currently, as hon. members might know, Saskatchewan is considered a have province, but for many years prior to this we were considered a have not province and have been recipients of oil and gas revenues through equalization payments. The problem is that even though Saskatchewan has generated significant wealth over the past number of years through oil and gas revenues, the clawback system that the federal government has imposed upon our province literally makes it almost, at best, revenue neutral.

In other words, Saskatchewan has been clawed back anywhere from 90¢ on every dollar to $1.25 on every dollar for the amount of oil and gas revenues we generate. By conservative estimates, and I note that is small-c conservative, Mr. Speaker, over the past decade Saskatchewan would have received an additional $4 billion to $5 billion in revenue had the federal government not clawed back, through the equalization formula, all of the revenue that we have generated.

In fact, if Saskatchewan had a proper, fair and just equalization formula right now, at today's oil prices Saskatchewan would be receiving, by my calculations, anywhere between $800 million and $1.5 billion in additional revenue each and every year. Of course we do not have that agreement, and even though this legislation looks attractive and is something I would very actively and vocally support, I would hope that down the line there will be no other impediments placed upon first nations people by the federal government.

I would encourage and certainly urge all members across the floor to take that into consideration and to take that message to the minister and to the Prime Minister, to give some guarantees to first nations people that they will not at some point in the future be burdened by the same clawbacks, by the same impediments from the federal government on the ownership, management and control of all of their oil and gas revenues. If members opposite can guarantee me that, I will certainly endorse the bill.