John Reynolds

[Grants and Contributions, March 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, where is the report? He has all the surrounding documents but the report has gone missing. How can the government stand in front of the Canadian people and say it gave someone half a million dollars to produce a report and now it has lost it, conveniently lost it maybe?

Forget about all the documents around it. We want to see the real document and we want to see it in the House now.

[Grants and Contributions, March 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is funny how one day it is missing and now they can find it. Tax dollars were frittered away on a report and other deals with the firm that gives thousands of dollars to the Liberal Party. Contracting and tendering rules are stretched or even broken.

At the same time the auditor general says there is $16 billion of waste that the government could cut. Could the Prime Minister explain to hardworking taxpayers that it is all right to send billions of dollars to its friends and produce reports the government does not even bother to keep or conveniently loses for a while?

[Grants and Contributions, March 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, when will the government's waste and mismanagement end? After losing a half million dollar report from Groupaction the government gave the same firm another $575,000 for a second report that consisted of a single trivial list of cultural events that the government wants to throw money at. Then we learned that Groupaction received $62 million in contracts during the last five years in violation of its own contracting rules.

In light of the waste perhaps the Prime Minister could explain how he could not find any wasteful spending in the last budget to cut. Could he not have started with Groupaction?

[Softwood Lumber, March 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, they can make fun of us in British Columbia but I do not like it. I am here to try to work with the government. We are all here to try to help him solve this serious problem for over 20,000 people who are unemployed.

Will the minister guarantee that he will make sure we have this agreement, the one we are working together to have? We will back him up if he will tell us yes, that is what he is going after.

[Softwood Lumber, March 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I was elected in 1972. I have been representing British Columbia for an awfully long time. It is the first time I can remember that over 30 people--

[Softwood Lumber, March 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we are pleased that Minister de Jong is here with the other representatives. We are also pleased that we have met all the members from British Columbia, most in the House today.

However we would also like an answer from the minister. Will he guarantee that he will fight for a binding binational panel when he goes to Washington? That is what we are all asking. We are trying to work together as good Canadians to make sure we all go there with one issue and fight together to let the Americans know this is one issue we will not back down on.

[Softwood Lumber, March 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in Ottawa today we have over 30 people from British Columbia: the minister of forests from the government of British Columbia, MLAs from British Columbia, mayors from British Columbia, industry leaders from British Columbia and the first nations from British Columbia. They are all as concerned about the softwood file as we are in the House.

There is one question they would all like to ask the government. Will the government assure the House and Canadians that any deal Canada reaches will include the establishment of a binding binational panel for softwood dispute resolutions?

[The Environment, February 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is just great at picking out his quotes.

Let us talk about a letter he wrote to his cabinet colleagues, urging them to use electrical or natural gas powered vehicles as their ministerial cars to set an example for Canadians on Kyoto.

I understand that none of them have acted on his request. The Liberal government talks the talk but will not drive the drive.

How can the Prime Minister or the Minister of the Environment expect Canadians to sacrifice so much for the sake of Kyoto when their own ministers will not even trade in their taxpayer funded cars for environmentally friendly vehicles?

[The Environment, February 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate he calls the Canadian Manufacturers' Association scare-mongers, but let me quote from the government's own reports, Industry Canada's reports that state Kyoto will cost Canadians up to $75 billion in lost revenue and tens of thousands of jobs. That is the government, yet the government has no detailed plan for implementation, no proof it will work and no guarantee the U.S. will enact it.

The natural resources minister, the minister's colleague, said “I wouldn't sign a contract in business unless I knew exactly what it meant”, but that is exactly what the government is doing.

Will the environment minister still insist on ratifying the Kyoto treaty if it means losing hundreds of thousands of jobs in Canada and forgoing millions and billions in lost revenue?

[The Environment, February 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government is blindly heading toward implementing the Kyoto treaty without any concern about what it will cost Canadian families in their everyday lives. In addition to the 450,000 job loss Canadian manufacturers warn that implementing Kyoto would cost the average Canadian double for electricity, 80% more for gasoline and 60% more for natural gas.

How much more does the Deputy Prime Minister expect Canadians to pay to finance an agreement that will do little to improve our environment?