Gar Knutson

[Foreign Affairs, February 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we are deeply concerned about the escalation of the conflict and we condemn the violence and terrorist acts. We offer condolences to the victims and families on both sides of this tragic conflict.

We call upon Chairman Arafat to take all necessary action to prevent further attacks. We believe that Israel should refrain from actions that result in civilian casualties and destruction of civilian infrastructure and could inflame the situation further.

We remain in touch with the leaders of the region. Canada stands ready to assist the cause of peace in any way it can. To that end we will ensure that the G-8 foreign ministers review the situation in the Middle East when they meet in Canada in June.

[Foreign Affairs, February 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I was warmly welcomed on the tenth anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Canada and the Ukraine. As my hon. colleague knows, there are one million Canadians of Ukraine heritage who call Canada home and they form a vital and valued part of Canadian society.

I met with foreign minister Zlenko and other senior members of the Ukrainian government where I strongly emphasized Canada's commitment to the conduct of free and fair parliamentary elections and I strongly reiterated Canada's support for Ukraine's efforts in the area of political and economic reform. The federal government will continue to call for closer ties with Ukraine.

[The Budget, December 12th, 2001]

If the member looks at how other dollars and currencies of other countries have done in the world, he will see that Canada is not doing so bad.

[The Budget, December 12th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I again invite the member to take a first year economics course. The value of the Canadian dollar is based on the demand for Canadian goods by outside economies. That is level 101 economics.

There has been a drop in commodity prices, whether it is grain prices or oil prices. As one of the countries that are commodity based in terms of their exports, we will see a drop in the Canadian dollar.

[The Budget, December 12th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, certainly I do not have enough time to debate the member on the issue of moral determinism.

Let me say that I agree with the member's basic point that fundamentally people make choices. At the end of the day it is my view that the 18 skyjackers are responsible as individuals. They made the choices. We cannot blame what they did on their upbringing.

I also point out that people make individual choices in a context. The context we live in today quite clearly is that many people enjoy a very high standard of living while the vast majority of people do not. While those 18 people may have come from well to do families, I think the conflict of east versus west is at least to some degree rooted in a difference in standard of living. We can debate to what degree it is but I think it is part of the problem. Unless we deal with the fact that we live in a relatively prosperous part of the world and enjoy very prosperous conditions while others do not, we are going to give people reasons to hate us. How it will actualize itself is very difficult to predict.

On the issue of the tax cuts, the fact is that our plan will put $100 billion in people's pockets that they otherwise would not have had. Whether it is in the form of an actual cut that could have been made or whether it is in the form of indexing the tax system against inflation so that people are no longer paying taxes on inflated dollars that are not real, it is still a tax cut.

As for the issue of CPP, I do not think an increase in the contribution to CPP benefits can be considered a tax increase. It goes into a separate fund. It is financed in the market. It is to do one particular thing, which is to pay for people's retirement plans. If people were putting money into an RRSP, that would not be considered a tax increase, nor should a contribution into the CPP fund be considered one.

[The Budget, December 12th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to rise to participate in this debate on budget 2001.

Let me begin by saying from the outset that I hope many of the initiatives in this week's budget will in fact be judged by history to be unnecessary and, in a certain sense, a waste. It may sound strange to hear me say that I hope much of the money spent in this budget proves to be a waste, but we live in a strange world these days, a world that became a whole lot smaller on September 11, a world that while not at war, at least in the usual sense, is experiencing many warlike factors. Everyone who gets in a plane, goes across the U.S. border or even visits Parliament Hill can experience in a small way how the world has changed. We are in a great battle right now against an enemy whom we do not know. We do not even know where the enemy is and we do not know how numerous our enemies might be.

Having pointed out the obvious, I will say let us all hope that these extra precautions we are taking, which I think are necessary in today's context, in a historical context will prove to be unnecessary. I am one of many people who believe that the ultimate solution to our problem in terms of international conflict will not be found in more money for guards and guns. That will not solve the problem.

We need to step outside the box. We need to ask ourselves why it is that certain groups of people who perhaps live far away in some other part of the world hate the west. Why is there is so much conflict in other parts of the world and how will it affect us both in the near term and the long term? As well, what can Canada do to make a contribution to solving those underlying conflicts?

I am one who believes that we must deal with the underlying problems, such as abject poverty in many places in the world where people are living in refugee camps, have grown up in refugee camps, have lived there for 20, 30 or 40 years and have no hope of ever getting out of those camps. Unless we deal with some of those problems, we will not deal with the issue of violence that is now affecting us, as we saw on September 11.

Let me turn for a minute to the economic issues that were in this week's budget and talk a bit about the context. Currently the economy is sending us mixed signals. On the one hand, there is job loss and rising unemployment, which I think all of us would agree is worrisome. We may be in a recession. It is somewhat of an academic distinction, but certainly the economy is slowing down and we do not have the same sense of optimism that we did six months or a year ago. However, at the same time many sectors of the economy are actually doing quite well. For example, housing starts are very strong. The automobile manufacturing industry, while experiencing a slowdown from last year, is still forecasting its second or third best year ever. On a more macro level, interest rates are low and continuing to fall, which will increase consumer demand. Also of note is the low world price of oil, which translates into low gas prices at the pumps. Again, that puts more money in people's pockets which in turn will spur consumer demand.

My point in bringing these factors to the House's attention is to state that I am an optimist. I am with those who think that the economy will turn around in the second part of next year. I believe the government has made wise assumptions in terms of its forecasting and that one thing we do not want to do is overreact to this downturn and make what is a worrisome or a bad situation even worse.

Having spelled out a bit of the context of this unusual budget for an unusual time, let me talk about what I think is worth noting. Certainly the $2.2 billion over the next five years for security for airports, as I have mentioned, I think is a necessary expenditure but in a certain sense it is a necessary evil. It is a choice that was made between trying to deal with the lesser of two evils. Do we do nothing? Then when an airplane is blown up or something worse, perhaps, would we realize that we should have done something? Or do we do something in the hope that the money we spend will prove to have been unnecessary? I think this money has to be spent. Like others have said, I think all of us wish it did not have to be spent, but the fact is that it does.

Our enhanced border infrastructure is an example of a good thing that may come out of a bad situation. We are investing a lot of time, energy and resources into making the border more passable, for example, for trucks carrying automobile parts. That would have a big impact on my community. With or without the crisis of September 11, it may prove to be one thing that is worth spending money on. I am hopeful we will look back and say that for this it was money well spent.

Certainly our investment in strategic infrastructure will be money well spent. It is probably something that we should have done even without September 11. It is something that makes sense to do in terms of stimulating the economy in light of a slowdown. For my own community, a small item in the budget is one that can have a big impact on some communities and that is the extra money for fishing harbours. In Elgin county there is a major fishing harbour in the town of Port Stanley. I am hopeful that some of the money announced in the budget can find its way to my own community.

Our commitment for research and innovation should be applauded. A member opposite was speaking earlier about the Kyoto accord, about competition and about paying a price for environmental regulation. Fundamentally all of us would agree that ultimately this country competes on our general level of knowledge and the general level of skills and training of our population. Money spent on research and innovation would allow us to do things, whether it is paying for social programs or incurring more environmental regulation, without suffering a drop in our standard of living.

Also of note is the increased funding for international assistance or foreign aid. As I said earlier in describing the context in which we are living in terms of September 11, I think this money could prove to be part of the solution. It is not the total solution because there is no silver bullet for dealing with the issue of international conflict. If the money is spent wisely, in bringing people together, in education, in alleviating some of the horrendous hardships people are living with in today's world while they see other people living in tremendous luxury, if it is spent in order to bring the rest of the world up to the standard of living that we enjoy, there are reasons to be hopeful that the levels of hatred and conflict would drop and I think all members should applaud it.

Last, I also commend the government for spending more money on environmental initiatives. Wind power may not seem like a big deal, but it is the cleanest known source of energy in the world today. It is a technology that Canada has been relatively late in adopting. The Europeans have been way out in front of us on this. It is just one small example of Canada catching up.

In closing, I would also like to commend the government for keeping its commitment to the $100 billion tax decrease that we announced last year. Things like the low interest rates, the drop in taxes and low gasoline prices will stimulate the economy and make it reasonable to expect that the economy will turn around in the second half of next year and we will be back on an agenda of innovation, prosperity and growth. People who may have just recently lost their jobs have a lot of reasons to be optimistic that the economy will turn around. They should not give up hope. Canada is on a very strong track right now and will continue to be.

[Armenia, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to speak today in the House of Commons. Let me say from the beginning, whether we use the words calamity or genocide, we should acknowledge that the government does take this issue extremely seriously.

I want to thank the hon. member for expressing his views on the events that took place affecting the Armenian people from 1914 to 1925. I congratulate the hon. member for Brampton Centre on bringing this matter to the attention of the House.

Canada acknowledges and deplores the fact that many Armenians and others lost their lives in wars that marked the end of the Ottoman Empire. Millions were forcefully displaced under terrible conditions, a situation that led to a large number of deaths and caused indescribable suffering.

We sympathize with these Armenian victims and with their descendants, many of whom have chosen to make a new life in Canada. Canada opened its doors to many displaced people during and after that period. We will continue our traditional practice of giving humanitarian assistance to victims of conflicts in this new century.

Following extensive consultation, the Government of Canada's position on these events was articulated by the hon. member for Halton on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs in a June 10, 1999 statement to this Chamber. At that time the hon. member for Halton said:

—we remember the calamity afflicted on the Armenian people in 1915. This tragedy was committed with the intent to destroy a national group in which hundreds of thousands of Armenians were subject to atrocities which included massive deportations and massacres.

May the memory of this period contribute to healing wounds as well as to reconciliation of present day nations and communities and remind us all of our collective duty to work together toward world peace—

Our remembrance of this calamity and the suffering of the Armenian people has not, and will not, change.

The theme of reconciliation mentioned in the hon. member's statement is one that bears repeating. The world looks to Canada as a nation where people from diverse backgrounds can live together in peace. Individuals from every conceivable nation and ethnic group make up our country, and we have learned to respect each other's culture, religion, race and ethnicity. We are therefore able to empathize with the pain of those Canadians who have at one time been victimized by bigotry and oppression.

Our experience as a nation of many peoples also enables us to understand the importance of moving forward, while remembering the lessons of the past. At home this means joining together, no matter what our background, to ensure that bigotry and prejudice are not tolerated.

Every jurisdiction in Canada has enforceable human rights legislation designed to combat discrimination in areas such as employment, accommodation and the provision of goods and services. This legislation is important, but legislation alone is not enough. It must go hand in hand with a respect for the unique human dignity of every individual.

Our diversity is also one of the country's greatest assets. The strong foundation it provides has allowed us to build a Canada that is vigorous and dynamic, a Canada which has been rated consistently by the United Nations as one of the best places to live in the world.

Internationally, our heritage allows us to help lead the way toward a safer and more peaceful world. We can speak with credibility on the need to protect people from threats to their rights, their safety and their lives. We can fight for the creation of an international criminal court and know we will be listened to. We can sponsor a campaign to fight the scourge of land mines and feel confident that we will be heard. We can stand up in international fora, such as the United Nations, and talk about the need for people from different backgrounds to live together in peace with the knowledge that we speak from experience.

[Petitions, May 4th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is my honour to present two identical petitions signed by over 200 constituents.

The petitioners are requesting that parliament enact the necessary legislation to make it mandatory for all products containing genetically altered foods to be clearly labelled as such, regardless of percentage of content, that may prove harmful to consumers.

[Supply, April 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I could not disagree more. The questions have all been asked and in fact have been answered.

He raises the issue of the bill of sale. It is normal routine that cash does not always transfer or payment does not always transfer at the time something is bought. I go to the store every day and sometimes I make purchases on credit. There is a wonderful thing called credit. Do I still have a bill of sale when I walk out of the store even though I have not paid for it? I may have bought it on credit but I have not paid my MasterCard yet or whatever. That is a normal part of business.

He talked about the bank manager being fired and raising it in the courts. I will remind the hon. member that this fellow obviously thinks he has a grievance. He was a Mulroney appointment. He was not our appointment. The gentleman thinks he has a grievance in terms of wrongful dismissal, so of course he will whip up as many problems as he possibly can to try to paint himself as a victim of something negative that happened.

Perhaps he was fired for perfectly legitimate reasons. I do not know, but that still does not affect the basic issue. The details of this fellow being fired do not go to the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter has been fully discussed. It has been fully answered. It was fully discussed in the midst of a campaign and Canadians have indicated that they are satisfied with the answer.

[Supply, April 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the member is asking if we need a code of conduct. I appreciate that and perhaps there is a good argument that we should have a code of conduct.

The member was not an MP between 1993 and 1997, but there was a committee that studied the issue of a joint parliamentary code of conduct for private members and members of the Senate. It dealt with issues like accepting money for travelling and a variety of other issues.

The issue we are debating today is not a code of conduct for parliamentarians. It is a code of conduct for the Prime Minister himself.

I remind the hon. member that the Prime Minister, in order to remain as Prime Minister, must enjoy the confidence of the House. He is the one who is ultimately responsible for making sure that his government maintains an ethical standard. As first minister he is the one responsible for that. He is not one of my equals. He is the Prime Minister, and as such he is the one responsible.

If he does not live up to the standards expected of him then presumably he would lose the confidence of the House, and there would be consequences that would flow from that.