Rahim Jaffer

[Sponsorship Program, March 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this is completely unacceptable. We are still not seeing the transparency that the Prime Minister promised in the House. He never stands up to answer the questions and we think Canadians want to see this.

The Prime Minister's two top staff were complicit in ensuring that Groupe Everest was able to skim $170,000 for doing nothing. Memos show that the minister had been informed. How can the Prime Minister still stand in this place and claim ignorance?

[Sponsorship Program, March 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, all day we have been asking members of the government about a scam that was the result of them and they have no decency to take any responsibility for it. This is a scam that was perpetuated in the Prime Minister's office by his chief of staff and executive assistant. This is a scam that rewarded the PM's friend $170,000 for doing nothing. How can the Prime Minister still stand in this place and say he knew nothing about this?

[Petitions, March 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition signed by a few hundred people from the Edmonton area.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being the lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Sponsorship Program, March 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, they have no clue what is going on over there, and that is clear from the minister's answer.

The minister now claims he is undertaking a review of 721 sponsorship programs, which ought to have happened years ago. Had the government done so, it would have realized that money intended for organizations such as the Bluenose trust had been highjacked.

How many of these 721 files will be passed on to the police?

[Sponsorship Program, March 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Public Works finally admitted that he did not have a clue as to how many police investigations were being conducted into the ad scam. He said, “It's a little hard to keep up with all the investigations”.

How many police investigations are there into the sponsorship scandal?

[Sponsorship Program, March 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in 1997-98, when the Bluenose contract was issued, only prominent Liberals had access to the Liberal slush fund--a prominent Liberal such as Senator Moore, chair of the Bluenose trust foundation.

Is the real reason that the Bluenose contract is not under criminal investigation because it involves prominent Liberals, such as this senator?

[Sponsorship Program, March 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the President of Bluenose has indicated that $2 million may have disappeared out of the $3 million or more allocated to the Bluenose corporation.

Eighteen criminal investigations are ongoing, but none of them is looking into the role of Lafleur Communications in the Bluenose contracts.

Can the minister explain what it is that justifies investigation in other cases, but not in the case of the Bluenose contracts?

[Epilepsy Awareness Month, February 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, March is Epilepsy Awareness Month. Epilepsy is one of the diseases that affects all too many Canadians, yet is also one of the diseases that Canadians do not like to talk about. It is estimated that one in ten Canadians or 300,000 people will suffer an epileptic seizure in their lifetime.

Many people with epilepsy feel isolated, discriminated against and often ridiculed. Added to the emotional burden are the physical difficulties of having unexpected seizures and dealing with the sometimes devastating side effects of medication.

The Edmonton Epilepsy Association, working in partnership with Epilepsy Canada and the Canadian Epilepsy Alliance, has adopted the lavender ribbon campaign to bring awareness to this horrifying disease.

I am proud that the Edmonton Epilepsy Association is a national leader on the issue. I wish it the best in its endeavours to bring awareness and comfort to those who suffer from the disease.

[Customs Tariff, February 25th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I too want to address Bill C-21, an act to amend the customs tariff.

I want to chat about some of the things specifically to do with where we in the Conservative Party are coming from and maybe take the opportunity to respond to some of the concerns of my colleague from the New Democratic Party. He spoke quite eloquently about the concerns Canada should have in trading with developing countries and some of the concerns we may have with labour standards and those sorts of issues with which I think all Canadians are definitely concerned.

Bill C-21 amends two sections of the customs tariff, just so people are clear on what exactly the bill is doing. Specifically, the general preferential tariff and the least developed country tariff are being proposed to be extended for another 10 years until June 30, 2014. Currently the legislation expires on June 30, 2004.

Some colleagues on all sides of the House have said that one of the challenges if this does expire without being checked is that Canada could be flooded with goods from all around the world. This could really put our own companies and industries at a huge disadvantage, especially when we look at some of the tariffs that are in place outside.

In some areas we have seen the process and the way the legislation works. Orders in council for certain countries can reduce that overall tariff. There are three different sections of countries that Canada recognizes. There is the most favoured nations tariff, the general preferential tariff and the least developed country tariff.

Even though our tariff rate is currently set at 35%, and it should not be any higher, orders in council normally go through the process of reducing those tariffs for specific countries, depending on our trading relationships with those countries or on some of our foreign aid strategies in trying to help stimulate the economies of many of those countries. One of the things that happens is that through the process of orders in council, that tariff is often reduced with regard to some countries.

Clearly from our point of view, this has to be done over a period of time. I do not think we can drop that tariff, especially if there are other countries which have tariffs that are higher with regard to many of the Canadian products being exported to those particular countries. It would really put us at a disadvantage here in Canada if we dropped those tariffs overnight.

The Conservative Party of Canada does support free trade and the engaging of developing countries to encourage their development and, it is hoped, to have an evolution of an economy similar to that of industrialized countries. We want to encourage the ability of those countries to export their products and obviously create more wealth at home in those particular countries. Overall, we would like to see that tariff reduced when it comes to countries around the world, but we clearly understand that it may have to be managed carefully. It is hoped that in the future, as we continue to deal with many of these countries in developing free trade agreements, that we would see that tariff reduced completely with many of those countries, or at least reduced over time.

My colleague from the New Democratic Party spoke quite passionately about the problems in many of the countries we deal with in the third world and what sorts of standards they may have in place. Here in Canada, even though sometimes we have challenges within our own standards for labour and in reaching agreements between companies and workers, overall, people would say the standards in this country are quite high, especially when we compare them to some of the third world countries. I would make the argument that many countries that may have questionable labour practices are going through a process because they are diversifying, they are creating the ability for their economy to evolve, and it takes time before some of these economies evolve as far as those of some of the industrialized countries.

We need to help that process. It does not mean that we support the practice of child labour or that we support the persecution of any group. We need to continue to help those countries develop a middle class and continue to create wealth in those countries so that there can be that evolution of those standards.

We have all gone through that in our history. If we look at the industrial revolution here in the west and at some of the standards that existed and the creation of wealth, we were able to improve those labour standards. We improved the conditions for our workers. As I said, they may not be perfect but they have come a long way when we think back to the time of the industrial revolution.

I can speak from the experience of my own family coming from Africa. My family fled Africa in the early 1970s as refugees and came to this country. The working class in Africa was going through a transformation. Many of the families that lived in those countries, such as my own family, were involved with industrial activities. We were manufacturers, retailers, importers. There was a whole host of opportunities for which many people who emigrated to east Africa took advantage.

At that time there were obvious challenges. Many of the working class were not very well off. They were challenged in trying to look for opportunities for themselves to improve their conditions. Often many of the people who were moving there from India, as my family had generations ago, created working environments and created opportunities for many of the workers to improve their lives. The conditions that they worked in were often quite good. Slowly that changed as competition evolved in those countries and opportunities continued to grow.

It did not happen overnight, and we know it did not happen overnight here, but we cannot close the door on some of these countries that may not have the best practices. In the long run, by creating opportunities and by creating competition and giving them the ability to export some of their products helps to create the middle class and the wealth in those countries that then can change those standards.

It would be highly irresponsible if we went down the road that my NDP colleague suggested, which was to shut the door on many of those countries that are going through those challenges.

We can use that tariff in many cases as leverage. Due to the current process, as I outlined, if we do change any of those particular tariffs that come by orders in council of the government, those countries with which we have problems could be targeted specifically and it could encourage them to improve their conditions. Therefore if we were to reduce those tariffs in their favour, they could continue to build wealth in their home nations.

Overall, the key is to balance the growth and the continuous evolution of our industries here in Canada with the developing world. We know Canadians are very much in tune with foreign aid and trying to help many of these countries around the world. What better way to help them help themselves than by allowing them to produce products at home and then be able to export them to countries that are willing to purchase them, such as Canada.

On this side of the House we do realize the importance of Bill C-21 that is in front of the House. We do understand that the process of extending the tariffs for another 10 years is something that has to happen in order to evolve and to balance the trade of our own industries here in Canada.

However we also want to make sure that in committee, as we continue to discuss the bill, that we look to the future to see how we can perhaps reduce those particular tariffs so that in the end we can help many of these developing countries. Hopefully we would have most of these countries not in these three different categories that we currently recognize them, but as preferential trading partners around the world. That is the direction in which I would prefer to see the bill go. We will be supporting the bill as it stands.

[Business of the House, February 25th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Seeing that it is getting late in the day, I think there is even more spirit of cooperation and I believe that you would find there is unanimous consent for the following:

That the motion standing on the Order Paper for the Conservative opposition day tomorrow, February 26, 2004, be replaced with the following:

That the government reallocate its resources from wasteful and unnecessary programs such as the sponsorship program, or badly managed programs, such as the gun registry, to address the agricultural crisis at the farm gate across Canada.