House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was world.

Last in Parliament March 2008, as Liberal MP for Toronto Centre (Ontario)

Won his last election, in 2006, with 52% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Attack on the United States September 17th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the last comment made by the member for Provencher. He said that the response of democratic nations must be the same and that we must respect our democratic traditions. Where is he coming from when he says we do not have to understand the root causes, that we do not have to understand where these things are and that we just have to smack them?

I totally disagree with his last statement about understanding where Hitler came from. One problem was that we did not understand where he came from so we did not stand up to him and deal with him in the right way.

I suggest to the member that what we need to do is to come together in the House to understand the root causes of terrorism, not who individual terrorists are. We can always get a few terrorists.

The member for Wild Rose would ride off with a posse and hang them all before there is a judge, or a jury or anyone else. This is not the way in which we will deal with the issue. This is not the way in which we will solve this problem. Those of us on this side of the House are anxious to make sure that we solve the problem, not create new ones.

Would the hon. member be willing to look at this with us and not go off on this rhetoric as if this was a simplistic solution to these problems? It is not simple. Would our hon. colleagues show some sophistication in this debate?

Committees Of The House June 8th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) the committee considered the issue of the third summit of the Americas held in Quebec City in April 2001 and is pleased to table this report, which we believe will make a contribution to improving future summits and understanding this important process.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

In accordance with its order of reference from the House of May 30, 2001, the committee has considered votes 20 and 25 under Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Canadian International Development Agency, and reports the same.

Foreign Affairs June 8th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa. On June 2 Colombian indigenous leader, Kimy Pernia Domico, was kidnapped by unknown forces.

Mr. Pernia is well known in Canada. He was a keynote speaker on indigenous rights at the people's summit in Quebec City and has appeared as a key witness before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. What action is Canada taking in response to the kidnapping of this prominent Colombian indigenous leader?

Committees Of The House June 6th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) the committee considered the issue of Canada's foreign policy objectives in south Caucasus and central Asia and has made recommendations for our future policy in this important but little understood region.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

Human Rights June 5th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House a very serious violation of human rights that took place in Colombia this weekend.

On Saturday, June 2, a highly respected indigenous leader, Kimy Pernia, was kidnapped by unknown abductors.

In November 1999, Mr. Pernia appeared before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs to give important testimony concerning EDC funding of a dam that threatened his community's way of life. Members of the committee were most impressed with his passion for his people and for his community.

His disappearance is one of many examples of kidnappings, killings and increasing human rights infractions taking place in Colombia today.

I ask the House to join me in condemning his kidnapping, in calling on those responsible to release him and on the government of Colombia to take all steps possible to secure his release.

As integration in our hemisphere brings Canadians ever closer to such events, we must try to ensure that all civilian populations throughout the Americas are protected in accordance with the principles of international humanitarian law.

Committees Of The House May 30th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday May 8, your committee has considered Bill C-6, an act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, and has agreed to report this important legislation protecting one of our greatest natural resources with one amendment.

I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), and on a motion from the member for Calgary East, the committee considered the situation in Afghanistan. It condemns the recent actions of religious intolerance in that country and recommends that the government work through the United Nations to promote and protect religious freedom in Afghanistan.

Interparliamentary Delegations May 9th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34 I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association to the OSCE, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly Standing Committee meeting in Vienna, Austria, February 22-23, 2001.

Supply April 24th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, my answer will be brief because there are several questions here.

I will leave the debate to FIPA and COPA, because it is somewhat an internal debate, but I suggest to the hon. member that the reason why FIPA has been referred to in the final summit document is precisely because it represents national parliaments throughout the Americas. FIPA was entrusted by the governments to do certain tasks. Therefore, it is quite justified on their part to choose some instrument for doing that.

Can COPA do something else? I totally accept COPA's legitimacy in its area of influence, but I believe we should accept FIPA's legitimacy in its area of influence as well.

Supply April 24th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of premises in the hon. member's question that I do not accept. I do not accept that the agreement was arrived at behind closed doors. It was on television. It was as open and transparent as it could possibly be when we had 34 heads of state together in one place. We could not have 5,000 people in the room. We do not have 50,000 people sitting in parliament.

Why will the member not stand here and say that this is an illegitimate organization? Everybody is not in the Chamber. Not everybody can walk in here. The hon. member cannot bring a constituent into the Chamber and neither can I. Why? It is because we need a way to exchange views with one another.

That does not make us illegitimate. We were elected to be there and the leaders of the Americas were elected to be in Quebec City. We need to give them the tools to do the job. The member's suggestion that they are illegitimately there is striking at the very fundamental roots of democracy that the member purports to be in favour of.

I also do not accept the fact that what took place was as a result of pressure from her party. The leadership came from the Minister for International Trade and from the Prime Minister to open up the process. The Prime Minister of Canada does not need the NDP to tell him how to run the country. That is very clear, as the last election pointed out.

The last point about the democracy clause is where I have a fundamental difference with the member. I listened to the speeches of the member's colleagues this morning. The New Democratic Party's position is as simple as this: the NDP says that other elected governments have entered into international agreements which have made them undemocratic. The hon. member does not believe there is a democracy clause, but what the hon. member forgets is that the people who entered into these trade agreements that have been criticized by everyone, including ourselves, were democratically elected governments.

If we choose to give up to international interests some part of our sovereignty to benefit more our citizens through a pooled sovereignty, that is our decision as a democratically elected people to make. That is what was taking place in Quebec City and that is what the member does not like. The member does not like the fact that other people have adopted a system of democracy and values that the member disapproves of.

That does not make them less democratic. It just makes them different. It is that difference in the world that we should be celebrating, not the imposition of one's values on everybody else in the world.

Supply April 24th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share my time with the hon. member for Brampton West—Mississauga.

First, I would like to congratulate the member for Joliette for his motion. It includes a very important principle, that is the participation of parliamentarians and of the civil society in the process of economic integration of our hemisphere.

Judging by today's debate and question period, it is clear that the members are already involved in this process. Opinions vary quite a bit, but members are well-informed about the best conditions for the development of free trade in the Americas.

As I said to the member for Halifax this morning, we all agree that we want trade. We recognize the need for economic integration but we also recognize that it needs to exist in the context that recognizes human rights, democracy, sustainable development, cultural diversity and the protection of labour standards. We therefore often differ on the means to achieve that end.

My constituents fully understand that the prosperity of our citizens depends on a free and open economy throughout the Americas and throughout the world. It depends on a system of international trade that is buttressed by international rules. These rules would enable trade and economic integration to take place so that we who have benefited so much from that trade and from the wealth that has been created by a free and open society and a free and open economy, can now begin to share those values, that openness and those opportunities with other less fortunate people in our own hemisphere.

I am very proud of what took place in Quebec City last weekend. It was an open and transparent process resulting in a democracy clause that will continue to guarantee that there will be democratic governments throughout the Americas.

A commitment was made by the leaders on such diverse issues as health, poverty reduction, education, human rights, the assurance of effective courts, the elimination of the drug trade and other issues. A plan of action was made with concrete steps, amendments and commitments that would ensure that these take place with proper financial resources and human resources to ensure it.

Thanks to our government, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister for International Trade and others, we have had a meeting in Quebec City which has brought together the leaders of the Americas. They have made concrete commitments to ensure values throughout our hemisphere that would benefit all of our citizens.

I wish to pay particular tribute to the Minister for International Trade. I was present in the room when the United States representative for trade pointed out that it was our minister of trade who ensured that the negotiating text of the free trade agreement be made available so that all members of civil society and all members of parliament could have an opportunity to discuss its terms. It was under pressure from our government and our minister that achieved that result in Buenos Aires and for which we would all benefit.

The debate calls for an open and continuous process to engage parliamentarians and civil society in what we were engaged in last weekend. The government is committed to that.

Parliamentarians also have a role to play. I ask my colleagues who participated in the foreign affairs and international trade standing committee for the past two years what we have been doing. We did a report on the MAI, the FTAA and the WTO. We are presently doing a study into the summit process itself. All these meetings and discussions, which are available to all members and all parties, bring together not only members of parliament but witnesses from civil society as well.

We travel across the country and we hear from every individual who wants to come before our committee to give his or her position on these important issues. We have extensive hearings and we make recommendations. The government is then obliged to respond to those recommendations in the House, which it has done.

Through our committee system we have had the opportunity to actively participate as parliamentarians in the process of hemispheric economic integration. We attend meetings regularly. The member for Calgary East, who spoke critically of the process himself, pointed out this morning that he attended the ministerial meeting of the WTO in Seattle. I was also there. Other members of the House have been to many ministerial meetings. We accompany the ministers. We have an opportunity to be part of the process and we do that on a regular basis.

I remind everyone that in the House just a few weeks ago we established the interparliamentary forum of the Americas, bringing together the representatives from the parliaments of 34 countries of the Americas. They will be able to debate and they will be able to share their values, views and impressions with one another on a permanent basis now because Canada led the way in the formation of what is a very important interparliamentary body for the Americas.

Parliamentarians are actively engaged and through our government do actively engage themselves in this process, as is also true of civil society. I recall what happened in Toronto some years ago when our minister of trade held the first meeting as a lead up to the summit. He brought in civil society at that time. It was the first time that had been done.

A similar meeting took place at the summit in Quebec City. On the weekend I had the opportunity to chair an extraordinary meeting of 57 NGOs composed of representatives of indigenous peoples, human rights groups, sustainable development groups, youth, every form and segment of society.

On Saturday afternoon four Canadian ministers had the opportunity to meet with twenty ministers from other countries in the hemisphere. At that meeting we discussed issues and responded to questions, all in the presence of the president of the World Bank, the president of the Inter-American Development Bank, the head of PAHO, and other leaders of multilateral institutions, including the president of the OAS.

This was an unparalleled and unprecedented opportunity for the engagement of civil society in the process, not as observers but as active interveners who had an opportunity to participate, to ask ministers questions, to have Mr. Zoellick from the United States respond, to have ministers from across the Caribbean and from the southern hemisphere respond to their questions and concerns.

At the post mortem follow up that we held to those meetings, we received an assurance from our government representatives that this process would continue. This was the first time that this has ever taken place, and I ask all colleagues to bear that in mind when they criticize. We are so critical all the time about everything.

The Canadian government led the way. We insisted on it. This was our summit. It was our government, our Prime Minister, our ministers who insisted among their colleagues that we should put this in place. I am confident that we have established a precedent now that will survive throughout the future. This is something that cannot be stopped. It is a wonderful precedent that we established this weekend and we should be celebrating. We should not be criticizing all the time, but we should be celebrating. We should also celebrate the fact that our government financed the people's summit.

I hope everyone in the Chamber thinks he or she is a member of civil society. As a member of parliament and as a member of civil society, which I think I am, I do not feel I am being left out of the process. I recognize that there are problems, that we can be better engaged and that we can change things. As the post mortem at which I participated on Sunday with our NGOs took place, everybody said they had an extraordinary experience. They said we could improve it.

Why do we not engage ourselves in the House in the process of approaching it from that constructive point of view? Why do we not seek to improve the process rather than constantly criticize it, as I hear from opposition members? They say that nothing good was achieved and that nothing is happening. However the average citizen looks out, sees improvements and wants us to work together to make it an even better system, not to sit here and carp and complain about the problems we have had to live with.