Lost his last election, in 2008, with 36% of the vote.
Foreign Affairs April 3rd, 2000
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Having recently returned from a meeting on the conflict in the Great Lakes region of Africa, I know that there is great concern about the resumption of fighting in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Can the minister tell the House what the government is doing to encourage all sides to fully comply with the terms of the Lusaka peace agreement signed last July?
National Capital Commission March 3rd, 2000
Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the National Capital Commission announced plans for a major long term revitalization project affecting the core areas of Ottawa and Hull in the vicinity of the Parliament Buildings. These plans are precisely what is needed to improve the appearance of our national capital.
This project will slowly replace the existing industrial facilities near Parliament Hill with parkland and refurbished heritage buildings, making full use of the majestic Ottawa River. A beautiful aboriginal centre is proposed for Victoria Island. The creation of a square in the Metcalfe-Sparks Street area will create a people place, improve the tourism infrastructure close to Parliament Hill with better parking and open up a beautiful vista of the Parliament Buildings from the downtown core. Also Lebreton Flats will finally be redeveloped.
I am sure that I speak for many of my colleagues in the Ottawa-Hull area when I say that we look forward with great enthusiasm to the realization of this magnificent plan for Canada's capital.
Nortel Networks February 18th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the Internet has revolutionized the way we work and communicate, the changes that are coming will make the advances thus far seem inconsequential.
Nortel Networks' new technology, the Open IP Environment, is predicted to bring massive changes to the Internet over the next two to three years, providing consumers with Internet access from virtually everywhere.
Where will a lot of this work take place? Right here in Canada, and right here in the Ottawa area.
Earlier this week Nortel Networks announced an investment of $260 million U.S. into the further development of fibre optics technology for the Internet, of which more than $100 million will come into the Ottawa area.
Nortel expects to hire 1,000 employees in Ottawa, bringing the number of full time Nortel workers in the area to 14,000.
Recent investments in Internet and fibre optics technology mean the creation of thousands of new jobs and place the national capital region clearly in the vanguard of the Internet revolution.
Canadian Forces February 11th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
In 1997 the minister appointed a panel of distinguished Canadians, led by former House Speaker John Fraser, to monitor a major program of change initiatives within the Canadian Forces. Recently that committee reported its findings.
What is the minister's reaction to this important report and, in particular, what is going to be done to continue the professional development of officers in the Canadian Forces?
An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference February 10th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a pleasure for me to rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-20, the clarity bill. The full title of the bill is an act to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec secession reference. That title explains very well the objective of this legislation. However, I think the bill could just as easily be entitled an act to respect the rights of Quebecers and the rights of Canadians in any future referendum on Quebec separation.
As the justices of the supreme court noted, the subject matter of this issue “requires us to consider momentous questions that go to the heart of our system of constitutional government”. Momentous questions indeed. There are few topics that this House of Commons has dealt with that touch the fibre of our constitutional being more than the bill we have before us today.
This bill speaks to an issue that is fundamental to Canada and Canadians. As the justices stated, the court is engaged in rendering an advisory opinion on certain legal aspects of the continued existence of the Canadian federation.
At the risk of being somewhat literary, this bill grapples with the age old question raised in Hamlet's soliloquy, to be or not to be. That is indeed the very real question. If the Canada we know, one of the great democracies of the world, an oasis of tolerance and compassion, a respected leader in the family of nations, is not to be, then the process by which we arrive at that tragic conclusion and the implications of such a decision must be absolutely clear to each and every Canadian.
If one sets out to dismantle one of the greatest countries on the face of the planet, there is no room for confusion. There is no room for obfuscation, wiggle room or interpretation. At every step of the way there must be the very highest level of clarity.
Clarity is not something that is simply owed to the people of a province wishing to separate. It is owed to the people of Canada and indeed the international community. No country exists in a vacuum, so the precedent that is set by the enactment of this legislation forms an important contribution to the body of international law on the issue of secession.
There is no doubt that, as they said at the U.S. Democratic convention in 1968, the whole world is watching. The issue of secession is one which the international community has a great interest in. There are few areas in the world which have not been affected by both successful and unsuccessful secessionist movements. The recent developments in Chechnya or the other former Soviet republics, East Timor, Eritrea, Slovakia, the breakup of the former Yugoslavia, Kosovo, and Catalonia in Spain illustrate the importance of this issue to the world at large.
A recent article in the respected British magazine The Economist dealt with the issue of secession. Among the points this particular article made on secession were:
It should be carried out only if a clear majority (well over 50% plus one of the voters) have freely chosen it, ideally in an unbiased referendum held in tranquil circumstances.
The Canadian principles of peace, order and good government are deep democratic traditions. Our federalism and constitutionalism are expressed throughout this five page bill.
As I mentioned earlier the purpose of this bill is to give effect to the requirement for clarity set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada. I believe it would be helpful to understand precisely the nature of the questions which the supreme court addressed and some of the other comments that the court made. There were three questions.
Question number one: Under the constitution of Canada, can the national assembly, legislature or Government of Quebec effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?
Question number two: Does international law give the national assembly, legislature or Government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally? In this regard is there a right to self-determination under international law that would give the national assembly, legislature or Government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?
Question number three: In the event of a conflict between domestic and international law on the right of the national assembly, legislature or Government of Quebec to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally, which would take precedence in Canada?
How did the court answer the questions? On question number one the supreme court response was unequivocal. It stated:
The Constitution vouchsafes order and stability, and accordingly secession of a province `under the Constitution' could not be achieved unilaterally, that is, without principled negotiation with other participants in Confederation within the existing constitutional framework.
Again on the question of unilateral secession the court made some statements that may be of particular interest to those on the Bloc and Reform benches. The court stated:
Democracy...means more than simple majority rule. Constitutional jurisprudence show that democracy exists in the larger context of other constitutional values.
At another point in the judgment the court stated:
The referendum result, if it is to be taken as an expression of the democratic will, must be free of ambiguity both in terms of the question asked and in terms of the support it achieves.
On question number two the court is again unequivocal, and I quote the reference:
The National Assembly, the legislature or the government of Quebec do not enjoy a right at international law to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally.
Interestingly the court does note the possibility of what it describes as “an unconstitutional declaration of secession leading to a de facto secession”.
However, I believe with great conviction that Canadians regardless of what province they live in have the unassailable right to expect that their provincial government will in every instance respect the rule of law and the constitution. To do otherwise would turn a secessionist initiative into an illegal and unconstitutional activity that could very well have unfortunate and unintended consequences.
On question number three the court stated that since there was no conflict between domestic and international law there was no need to address that issue. In reading the judgment of the supreme court one is struck by how reasonable the court's conclusions were. In every respect the court has provided a judgment that is in keeping with the letter and the spirit of the constitution.
What precisely does the clarity bill do? It provides for the House of Commons to determine the clarity of a referendum question on the secession of a province and sets out some of the considerations to be taken into account in making its determination. It prohibits the Government of Canada from entering into negotiations on the terms under which a province might cease to be part of Canada if a referendum question was unclear.
Following a referendum on secession in a province the bill provides for the House of Commons to determine if a clear majority of the people in that province had clearly expressed a will to cease to be part of Canada, and it sets out factors to be considered in making its determination. It also prohibits the Government of Canada from engaging in negotiations with a province unless a clear majority had clearly expressed its will to secede.
Finally the legislation recognizes that the secession of a province requires an amendment to the Constitution of Canada, which in turn requires negotiations involving all provincial governments and the Government of Canada. It also requires that certain matters such as the division of assets and liabilities, border changes and the rights of aboriginal peoples and other minorities must be addressed before a constitutional amendment is proposed by a minister of the crown.
The clarity bill is about honesty. It is about providing the conditions for an honest result on any future referendum. If one takes the time to read the supreme court judgment, one will find the document explains our rich constitutional history and analyzes our most important constitutional principles. The inherent duty of our constitution is that it provides and protects fundamental rights within the framework of federalism, the rule of law, democracy, the protection of minorities and constitutionalism.
I would like to end my remarks with a statement that is referred to in the supreme court judgment from one of our most illustrious Fathers of Confederation, Sir George-Étienne Cartier. Those opposite who oppose this measure would do well to reflect upon his words when he said:
In our federation, we will have Catholics and Protestants, English, French, Irish and Scots, and everyone, through his efforts and successes, will add to the prosperity and glory of the new confederation. We are of different races, not so that we can wage war on one another, but in order to work together for our well-being.
Humanitarian Workers December 16th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, even as representatives of the MFS were accepting their Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo last week, two of their number were being held hostage by rebel RUF fighters in Sierra Leone. The two volunteers, a Belgium doctor, Patrick Cloos, and a German logistician had been detained since December 6. They were being held in Kailahun District by renegade RUF field commander Sam Bockarie.
Only a few hours ago these two hostages were released and are making their way back to Freetown by helicopter. One of the hostages, Patrick Cloos, has a strong Canadian connection. In fact, Mr. Cloos is based in Montreal and will be returning to Canada in early January. His fiancée, who lives in Montreal, will be leaving for Brussels to join him within the next few days.
This incident is further evidence of the tremendous courage and devotion to duty of MFS workers. It is also further evidence of why countries like Canada must continue to work to ensure the safety of humanitarian workers in war zones like Sierra Leone.
National Defence December 3rd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, last year the defence committee produced a report about the significant quality of life problems faced by Canadian forces members, problems with pay, housing and support for families.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence explain what action has been taken to implement these important recommendations from the defence committee report and whether or not the Canadian forces have the resources to proceed with the quality of life improvements?
Tobacco November 26th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death in Canada, accounting for 45,000 deaths each year.
We know that 85% of all adults who smoke started the habit before the age of 18. Smoking rates for Canadian youth are increasing at an alarming rate. Twenty-nine per cent of 15 to 19 year olds now smoke, and in some groups, like the Inuit for instance, around 71% of youth are smoking.
I would like to welcome to Ottawa 17 young people from across Canada. They are all members of the newly established youth advisory committee on tobacco issues which will be advising the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Children and Youth on smoking and tobacco issues from a young person's perspective.
These youths were selected on the basis of their work in their own communities and their interest and experience in discouraging tobacco use by their peers. We look forward to their input on this life and death issue.
Iraq November 25th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, this week Iraq cut off shipments of oil and apparently rejected an extension of the oil for food program.
Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell the House what Canada is doing to break the deadlock at the United Nations Security Council on the Iraq sanctions issue?
Hockey November 24th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, not since the Canada-Russia hockey series in 1972 has there been so much excitement and anticipation surrounding a single hockey game. The match-up I am referring to pits the government benches against the opposition to establish the bragging rights to parliamentary hockey supremacy in Canada once and for all.
This hockey battle of the century gets under way tomorrow evening at 8 p.m. at the Corel Centre in Kanata. Believe it or not, admission is free and parking is free.
Regardless of the score, the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario will be the big winner of the evening. We will be passing around the hat to raise funds for this important community facility.
It is bad hockey for a good cause, so let us score a hat trick for the children's hospital.