Aaron Gunn

Mr. Speaker, it is simply because Conservatives on this side of the House believe in free speech. We believe in free expression, and we believe in freedom of religion. These are the foundational values and principles on which our entire country, the entirety of western civilization, was based upon. Once we start ceding that authority to government, we allow government to control what we can or [more]

Mr. Speaker, what kind of society and what kind of country do we want to be? Is it one where the government has the power to decide what we can or cannot say, to decide what religious texts we can or cannot read and which opinions we can or cannot hear, or do we want to be a country where citizens are allowed to express themselves freely without fear of persecution or intimidation from the [more]

Mr. Speaker, further to the point that I just made, the choice is a simple one. As soon as we start placing these restrictions on free speech and free expression, the question becomes who gets to define where the limits are. Where do we draw the line on what we can or cannot say? The bill proposes that it is the government that would have the right to look over its citizenry and decide how we [more]

Mr. Speaker, over the past 10 years, we have seen violent crime on our streets increase dramatically under the Liberal government. That is an issue that needs to be addressed, and it is not a surge in speech crimes that needs to be dealt with. It is the fact that the government keeps releasing repeat violent offenders back onto our streets over and over again, such as those who assault people and [more]

Mr. Speaker, I know it might be hard for my hon. colleague across the way to understand this, but those of us on this side have deeply committed beliefs when it comes to charter rights, free speech and free expression. We are not making a political calculation. This comes down to a simple question: Do we want to live in a country where the government has the right to decide what we can or cannot [more]

You can have a balance of what? Is it a balance of closing areas and still having a.... The entire point of marine protected areas is to restrict access for various forms of fishing in various areas. Do you agree that this is the point of marine protected areas?

I'm just trying to get the truth.

Are you not planning to close areas?

Okay, that's fine, but I'm asking you some simple yes-or-no questions so that we can get a framework for what is happening. Yes or no, is the department planning to close areas of fishing off B.C.'s coast as part of the marine protected area plan?

That's what marine protected areas are. They're closures. They're not jet ski parks or where people are going water skiing.

I understand all that. I'm just trying to get a simple yes or no answer out of you.