Dale Johnston

[Iraq, February 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister said in the House:

...if the opposition believes that the government is not doing its job properly, it can always vote non-confidence.

The motion before us today gives the House the opportunity to express its confidence in the government by voting on any decision it might take before sending our military into a war with Iraq.

Here is a chance for the Prime Minister to back his words with action. Will he support the motion before the House today?

[Supply, February 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and I think you would find there is unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That at the conclusion of today's opposition day debate all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put, a recorded division demanded and deferred until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, February 11, 2003.

[Specific Claims Resolution Act, February 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members will vote no to the motion.

[Canada Pension Plan, January 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members oppose this motion.

[Agriculture, December 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, remember those 13 western farmers who served jail time for driving across the Canada-U.S. border to sell their own wheat? All 13 are now back home with their families trying to eke out a living on farms that were plagued by another summer of drought. If this double whammy were not enough, Canada Customs is still holding their vehicles.

These farmers were part of a protest that took place in 1996 against the unfair treatment of grain farmers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta by the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian government.

Prairie farmers just want equal treatment with their counterparts in the rest of the country, but since their actions contravened the Canadian Wheat Board policy, they were sent to jail and their vehicles impounded. Now, six and a half years later, the legality of the vehicle seizure has yet to be established.

It is high time that these farmers are given the opportunity to defend themselves and get their vehicles back before they become antiques.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today the Prime Minister confirmed his legacy. Was it a cure for Canada's ailing health care woes, a solution perhaps for the problems plaguing the firearms registry, or a bold initiative to bring about peace in the Middle East? No, it was none of these. It was the stifling of the free and open debate on the Kyoto accord.

Earlier today the Prime Minister closed off debate on this important issue. If used on occasion closure is a distasteful practice but this Prime Minister has taken this undemocratic tactic to a whole new level. Today, as a matter of fact, marks the 81st time that the Prime Minister has muzzled debate in the House, a total that would make even the previous record holder, Brian Mulroney, blush.

Through actions such as this there can be no doubt that the Prime Minister will go down in history as the most dictatorial and arrogant Prime Minister of all times. Now that is a legacy.

[Supply, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members will vote nay.

[Supply, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members will vote in opposition to this motion.

[The Environment, November 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it was far from an answer, but we on this side are not used to getting answers from them anyway.

The whole concept of ratifying Kyoto before we know what is in it and implementing it is absolutely bizarre in the extreme. The only plan the government seems to have is to ratify and then not implement.

Given that there is no guarantee that projects like the oil sands will have any protection, could the Minister of Health confirm that she will be voting against the Kyoto accord?

[The Environment, November 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I was asking the Minister of--