Dale Johnston

[Committees of the House, March 21st, 2003]

Madam Speaker, there may have been a change of heart. I would ask once again, due to the unavoidable absence of my colleagues, that you seek unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That the member for Wetaskiwin be permitted to introduce the private member's bills on behalf of the members for Calgary—Nose Hill and Macleod.

[Committees of the House, March 21st, 2003]

Madam Speaker, as a result of the unavoidable absences of those two members I would seek unanimous consent for me to introduce those bills on their behalf.

[Committees of the House, March 21st, 2003]

Madam Speaker, there have been consultations between parties and in order to facilitate and conduct private members' business under the new rules adopted last Monday, my colleagues from Calgary—Nose Hill and Macleod have two bills on notice today. I believe, Madam Speaker, if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent for these bills to be introduced today.

[Petitions, March 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by a number of my constituents. They call upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities be outlawed.

[Petitions, March 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting two petitions today.

The first petition is signed by a group of my constituents who support ethical stem cell research. They support research for such diseases as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, cancer, muscular dystrophy, spinal cord injury and so forth. Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find cures for the foregoing illnesses and therapies.

[Specific Claims Resolution Act, March 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on the two motions now before the House, Canadian Alliance members will vote nay.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, March 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members will oppose the motion. I would like to add the member for Calgary—Nose Hill to our ranks.

[Ethics, February 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the minister can count on us making a presentation to that committee.

The former finance minister's proposal for avoiding conflicts of interest, though, is to simply excuse himself from cabinet. When his businesses and personal holdings are directly affected by almost every government department, he will certainly be spending a lot of time in the hallways. Will the government commit to ethics guidelines that prohibit the Prime Minister from having personal control over his holdings? Yes or no.

[Ethics, February 28th, 2003]

Maybe he followed all the rules, but the rules should be changed, Mr. Speaker.

The former finance minister is not covered by a blind trust but by a one of a kind supervisory agreement, whatever that is. That allows him to have direct input into his company. He now says that as Prime Minister he would change that and make an even better deal for himself.

Ethics should apply to all cabinet ministers, including the Prime Minister. Why should the government ethics package allow a special deal for this Prime Minister wannabe?

[Ethics, February 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Parker report has clearly stated that ministers should not operate family businesses under blind management agreements. The transport minister has conceded that changes to the government's ethics code may be necessary.

Will the government now admit that ministers should not be able to personally manage their holdings and be in cabinet at the same time?