John Reynolds

[The Environment, February 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I did not misrepresent anything. I quoted a minister of the government who is responsible for British Columbia.

The Alberta government estimates that Kyoto would cost the Canadian economy $25 billion to $40 billion per year, disproportionately hurting Alberta and the west. The federal government still has not tabled its figures and yesterday Canada's top business groups, including the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, demanded that the government give its cost estimates.

Will the government table the full costs of Kyoto and a detailed implementation plan before the deal is ratified?

[The Environment, February 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources, who is the Prime Minister's close confidante and political minister of British Columbia, said:

Some important details have to be worked out before Canada ratifies the Kyoto protocol...It makes no sense to sign a contract before we understand its full impacts.

He said that he would not sign a contract in business unless he knew exactly what it meant.

Does the Minister of the Environment believe that we should ratify Kyoto without understanding its full impact, or does he expect Canadians to buy a pig in a poke?

[National Defence, February 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister talked about money for defence, but this year in the budget he got $250 million and the auditor general said $1.2 billion just to break even.

Ambassador Cellucci put it pretty bluntly yesterday when he said that some people, including Liberal backbenchers, see further defence co-operation with the U.S. as a threat to Canadian sovereignty but find it perfectly acceptable to rely on the U.S. to provide lift to deploy Canadian troops.

We should not have to rely on the U.S. air force or commercial airlines to get our troops abroad or repeat the GTS Katie fiasco in trying to move our tanks and equipment.

Like our U.S., British and European allies, will Canada finally develop its own strategic airlift capacity?

[National Defence, February 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, they are doing such a great job he did not want to tell us for over a week when they did something.

The minister today hinted at a new defence white paper. A review of our military may be a good idea if only so that defence planning can be taken out of the hands of the minister and given to people who know what they are doing.

Many of our forces fear that a new defence white paper would simply be a way to justify reducing the size and the scope of the Canadian forces.

Will the minister commit that any new defence white paper will not reduce Canada's commitment to any of the objectives of the last white paper?

[National Defence, February 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence is too busy defending himself to focus on defending Canada.

Douglas Bland, a leading military expert at Queen's University, released a report today warning that our lack of defence spending is reducing our sovereignty and our clout on the world stage. He calls this another wake-up call for the government. The auditor general says that DND needs at least $1.2 billion just to keep its equipment in order.

When will the minister commit to giving our forces the support that they need?

[Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, February 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege today to stand in the House to say something about Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I think the member for Davenport and myself are the only two members of the House who spent some time with the prime minister, myself in the 1972 election and in 1974 and maybe the Minister of the Environment and the House leaders from 1974-77.

It is interesting that in the last couple of minutes I have had three notes from my people in the back that the media wants me for the scrum. I would think Sacha's father would be smiling in heaven saying “Ah, we got the opposition again”.

We are pleased that the Minister of Industry has come forward with a specific application of his innovation strategy. The one thing we can all say about Pierre Elliott Trudeau, whether we are on this side or that side of the House, we never questioned his integrity and certainly we never questioned his love for Canada. It was a great time to be here even, if one was on the other side and in the 1972 election we darn near beat him. However, he was a great Canadian and we should honour great Canadians and that is why I am pleased to stand here today.

I welcome Sacha Trudeau and the involvement of his family in higher education in Canada.

The Canadian Alliance is on record supporting increases to the federal research granting agencies. We are happy that the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council will be involved in the Trudeau fellowship. The social themes named by the minister for this fellowship are good ones. I am sure the former prime minister would not mind my making some suggestions from this side as to what should be done. With his stubbornness he always wanted to be sure he got his ideas across.

The Canadian Alliance would also like to see greater emphasis placed on all sciences, mathematics, engineering, chemistry, physics, biology to name a few disciplines, by the federal government. In studying impacts on our natural environment as a theme for this fellowship, perhaps the Trudeau Foundation might consider at some point expanding this fellowship to include the applied sciences. For instance, the Sydney tar ponds could be studied not only because of the impact they have had on the families living around the ponds but also the impact the pollution has had on the ecosystem and the food chain. The granting councils have a good track record in science and technology investments and we applaud their work.

On a personal note, I would like to offer my best wishes to Sacha and his family. I am very pleased that they are involved in this project. Their father was not only a man of integrity, a decisive leader and a humanist, but more important, he loved his family and he loved his sons. I have seven children and eight grandchildren. For me, there is nothing more important in life than the family and Sacha's father put the family first. Even with all the important things he had to do in this world, his family was always first. I appreciate that as a father and as a grandfather.

We welcome this initiative by the government. We believe great Canadians should be honoured. This is a great way to honour a great Canadian.

[Privilege, February 20th, 2002]

Talk to Mr. Kinsella. He's threatening your guys. I am talking about here.

The question of privilege is resulting from an incident involving yesterday's election of the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance. The first vote for the chair of the committee was nullified because of a counting error by the committee clerk. Before the second vote was taken, the chief government whip approached our whip's staffer and uttered the following “We phoned R.J. and told him who we wanted. If one of your guys doesn't vote for Sue there will be consequences”.

This sort of goonish misconduct displayed by the chief government whip cannot be tolerated in any venue, let alone the Parliament of Canada. Page 84 of Marleau and Montpetit states:

Speakers have consistently upheld the right of the House to the services of its Members free from intimidation, obstruction and interference.

On September 19, 1973, Otto Jelinek, the member for High Park--Humber Valley, rose on a question of privilege claiming that an employee of the CBC, in telephone conversations with the member, had advised Mr. Jelinek to stop asking questions about television coverage of the Olympic games during question period or else it would be alleged that the member had a contract with CTV and it was a conflict of interest. Mr. Jelinek claimed it was an attempt to intimidate him. As the member did not know the name of the caller no specific charge could be made and therefore there was no prima facie question of privilege. While there was no prima facie case of privilege, Speaker Lamoureux had, and I quote him:

...no hesitation in reaffirming the principle that parliamentary privilege includes the right of a member to discharge his responsibilities as a member of the House free from threats or attempts at intimidation.

While the chief government whip may feel free to threaten and co-opt government members in such a way, I will not accept her threatening opposition members or their staff in such a way. This staffer works on behalf of the official opposition whip and performs valuable functions that could affect the votable status of opposition members. This intimidation occurred while our staffer was attempting to perform a parliamentary function on behalf of the opposition whip.

Parliament must send a clear message to all members by using its powers to condemn such conduct and call it contempt like it is.

Mr. Speaker, should you rule that there exists a prima facie question of privilege, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Privilege, February 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to charge the chief government whip with contempt of the House for intimidation and harassment of our members through a staff member of the official opposition whip.

While it troubles me to bring this issue forward, I feel I must do so in order to protect the right of members and their staff to work in an environment free from the threat of intimidation.

[National Defence, February 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I could probably get a better answer from Warren Kinsella. It may not be as polite, but I would probably get a better answer.

Military experts are alarmed by the use of JTF2 as a secret army. I quote the director of the Royal Canadian Military Institute. He said:

When you have secret deals with the chief of the defence staff and the deputy minister, that seems to be a smack in the face of parliament. I would think that after the whole outcry over Somalia there would be a clear-cut chain of command with clear-cut reporting.

Will the minister table the JTF2 chain of command to allow the House to know how this vital element of our military is accountable to civilian authorities and to parliament?

[National Defence, February 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, that is what the minister says today. On February 4 the minister said also in the House that for reasons of national security he would not table the chain of command for JTF2. But apparently national security was not compromised by a self-serving leak to the media.

Yesterday it was reported from a leaked document that the JTF2 chain of command has been changed by a secret memo signed by the Minister of National Defence.

Will the minister confirm the existence of this document which changes the briefing policy on JTF2 to exclude civilian agencies of the government?