Lost his last election, in 2011, with 25% of the vote.
Free Trade Area Of The Americas November 5th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that Canada was the first country in these meetings to push hard for civil society to be involved. In fact, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, which held hearings across the country over the past couple of years, met with civil society and made strong representations to the Government of Canada, which listened.
Supply November 4th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the record for the hon. member, who obviously reads
Frank
magazine. I do not.
He talked about Mr. Weekes coming back on contract with the Government of Canada. The hon. member should know that is totally false. In fact, we are happy that Mr. Weekes has taken a contract with another company, which has no relations with the Government of Canada or that office. The story is totally false.
Supply November 4th, 1999
Obviously that hit a chord because they are continuing to yell at me.
Supply November 4th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member not aware that prior to drafting these recommendations the standing committee met with some 138-odd representatives from across the country? In fact it travelled to different parts of the country to seek the views of farmers and of people involved in the cultural industries. The recommendations in the report reflect very clearly what the representations were.
The hon. member claims that somehow I spoke out against free trade. This party spoke out against the American-style free trade agreement that members of his government were bringing in at the time. We spoke out against the fact that we did not have the access into the American market that they were claiming.
Supply November 4th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult that the hon. member would attack me in that way, given the fact that he only showed up to two of the 38 meetings and would—
Supply November 4th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to what the hon. member was saying about the standing committee report, the future of the World Trade Organization, and how he felt he was handled unjustly in terms of putting recommendations forward which I think were very strong recommendations that the government is taking very seriously.
The recommendations go to the fundamental issues of trade in this country. They draw on some of the issues, as the hon. member said, such as culture and agriculture. They reflect the 120 or 130 representations before the standing committee. The hon. member knows the standing committee had 38 meetings and met with over 138 or 139 different groups. Could the hon. member tell me how many of those 38 meetings he showed up to?
Had the member spent more time in committee he would have known that the committee debated all the issues he talked about. The rest of the committee members came together and discussed the issues. The hon. member could have learned a lot about what Canadians were saying on this issue if he had shown up to the committee meetings where we drew on the recommendations rather than write a dissenting report stating that there was no debate in committee in this regard.
Supply November 4th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises an interesting point. He tries to suggest that because we do not have a number of seats in western Canada that we are not going to stand up for the interests of western farmers. That is totally ludicrous.
We are elected not only as members of parliament representing our constituents here but we are nation builders. We are people who represent all of Canada. As a person from a rural riding in southwestern Ontario that has a number of farmers, I can assure the hon. member that we on this side of the House speak for all Canadians.
Supply November 4th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's comments. Once again, as many of the speakers from the New Democratic Party did, he came out right at the end with wild accusations of what is going to happen. All of a sudden we are going to go in there and get rid of the wheat board. Then it is supply management that is going to go.
Surely the hon. member must be aware that the Government of Canada consulted. Prior to putting forward what I and most members on this side of the House and many on the other side consider to be a very strong position on agriculture going into Seattle, the government consulted widely with those in western Canada who are most concerned, particularly on the western Canadian side of agriculture. It also met with agricultural groups throughout Canada.
The hon. member should read some of the reports of the agricultural meetings where farmers from across the country came together to talk about a position for Seattle. Then he would agree that the Government of Canada has almost mirrored what these farmers came up with. In fact, the Government of Canada, before putting forward that position on agriculture, sought the advice of not only farming groups and communities, but also the agriculture ministers of all the provinces and territories.
When the hon. member makes wild accusations of what is going to happen, he must first understand that the position we are putting forward is very strongly supported within the agricultural community.
The hon. member also talked about the hardship in western Canada and that many farmers are having a difficult time. I do want to make this one point because it is important. The hon. member should know that hardship is not totally a direct result of foreign export subsidies. Many other factors have come into play.
What we can do for Seattle is to make sure that we take a strong position and that we maintain this to get rid of foreign export subsidies and to get rid of the domestic subsidies that other countries are using that inadvertently come back and hurt Canadian farmers. Certainly the hon. member must be aware of the Canadian position.
Supply November 4th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I too commend the hon. member for her support of the cultural community.
She spoke about the FTAA and the fact that in the FTAA there was no guarantee of a carve out or the fact that culture would be protected. She must know that in these agreements traditionally Canada has taken a position that it will protect culture. It has done that very strongly. In these negotiations of the WTO, until such times as these issues are negotiated Canada still stands by the principle that it will maintain its right to legislate in the area of culture and it will protect its rights in culture.
Is the hon. member aware that yesterday in Toronto at the trade ministers meeting of the FTAA the Prime Minister came out very strongly in favour of Canadian culture and very strongly in support of doing something around that area in the free trade of the Americas to support our cultural industries?
Supply November 4th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I have a case in point.
The hon. member says the Government of Canada's position on the education portion is that it has deleted that word. The hon. member should know that the Government of Canada has not put forward its position. It will be putting forward its position on November 16. I cannot understand what the hon. member could be talking about.
That is how these rumours start. That is how Canadians have been taken to the cleaners by groups that put out all this misinformation, and spread all these rumours that the Canadian government will be doing that.
I am not quite sure what the hon. member was reading from. There might have been documentation put out by the department in order to extend this debate.