Paul Bonwick

[Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, October 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for CCRA. Since becoming an agency, Revenue Canada has effectively become judge, jury and executioner, with virtually no accountability to the Government of Canada.

In the last three years, we have witnessed CCRA officials aggressively pursue outstanding penalties on elderly widows, terminally ill people and large families.

The collection tactics used in any other realm would be inappropriate and unfair. What is the minister going to do to correct this totally unacceptable action before more families are ruined?

[Merchant Navy Veterans Day, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe if you seek it you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That this House pass at all stages my private member's bill, Bill C-411, an act to establish Merchant Navy Veterans Day, by way of unanimous consent.

As members are aware, I brought this forward about four weeks ago and I had the consent of all parties except one. I have had negotiations with the critic for that party and that critic has assured me there is agreement to go forward at this point in time.

[Canada Elections Act, June 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this is one of those rare occasions in Parliament when we have an opportunity to debate proposed legislation that is somewhat radical in nature, somewhat of a reform, somewhat far reaching. I think the vast majority of Canadians would agree it is for the very betterment of our political system and this House.

I cannot express in words the level of support I have for this piece of legislation. It provides for greater transparency. It provides an opportunity to address any perceived conflicts that may come in the future. It provides a clean slate for this Parliament and for future parliaments for generations to come. For those reasons, I suggest that this is one of those rare occasions when Parliament should be united. Parliament should be united behind a vision and a principle which Canadians by and large all across the country support.

There has been some disinformation brought out about this piece of legislation. I would like to take an opportunity to address that disinformation.

Suggestions have been made by people outside Parliament as well as by some people inside that this is creating a mechanism whereby the taxpayer will simply be subsidizing the political system, the democratic system in this great land of ours. While that is true, it has been true for generations.

Most people do not realize that in our federal political system we issue substantial tax receipts, tax credits if I may, for significant donations or contributions from individual citizens, unions and corporations. What that does on a contribution of up to $500 for example, is it effectively subsidizes that contribution to the tune of $350.

That subsidy by way of lack of revenue is the same as a direct subsidy. Whether we are effecting the revenue in the form of giving more, or cutting off the revenue that we have coming in, either way it equates to the same thing. The taxpayers in this country subsidize our political system, and I think rightly so.

The situation in this country is somewhat unique to the rest of the world. We have a good system in this country right now and this will only make it better, and I would suggest much better.

Canadians do not expect, they deserve to have an independent Parliament. They deserve to have a Parliament that is independent from corporate influence. One of the ways to establish corporate or union influence is by having massive contributions. Certainly there is a perceived conflict at the very least and over the years and decades, we have seen those types of perceived conflicts hit the floor of this House and have had significant debates over them.

That is why I suggest that this is not only a good piece of legislation for today's Parliament. It is a good piece of legislation for tomorrow's parliament and for the next generation's parliament and the parliament for the generation beyond that.

When I talk about perceived conflicts, when I look at large corporations that are able to deliver significant funding to individual members of Parliament and parties, I suggest that the system is not so bad that there is conflict. I am suggesting that there is the potential for conflict.

One only needs to look to our neighbours to the south to see why this is such a critical piece of legislation. When one looks at the system in the United States, effectively what has been created is the ability for large corporations to have massive influence within congress and the senate. I would suggest that we never want to get into a situation where we allow that to take place in this country. This piece of legislation would eliminate that possibility once and for all.

I read in the newspaper today that Senator Clinton has released her book. It was interesting to note that in her senate district, when what she spent in U.S. dollars is converted to Canadian dollars, she spent the same, if not more, for one senate seat than all 301 of us in the House spent in the last federal election. That was for one senate district.

We do not want to see our country move into that domain. We want a system that is clear and transparent. We want a system that is independent of corporate and union influence. We want a system that is driven by Canadians. That is exactly what this legislation will do.

There will be an opportunity, as I understand it based on the amendment brought forward by the government House leader, for a review to see what impact this has had within our political system. The review will be mandatory. It will be a statutory review. Parliament can count on the fact that the Chief Electoral Officer will do an in-depth and detailed review of this legislation after the next election to determine the impact not only on individual members of Parliament but on the parties as well.

That is an absolutely brilliant move. I say that because I believe with some of these far-reaching pieces of legislation we have an obligation not only to ourselves, but to future parliaments and to Canadians to make sure that we review how these things impact. This will provide us with that opportunity.

I was in the U.S. in 1999 for a bilateral negotiation with the standing committee on agriculture from congress. Back in 1999 we were having a pork crisis in Canada. Hence there was the need for parliamentarians to travel down to Washington to meet with their counterparts in the U.S.

It was interesting to note at that time the level of contribution made by, I believe it was, the Pork Producers Association of America. The level of funding that organization gave to members of the committee, more specifically the chairperson, was unimaginable, something that the majority party in the House could even dream about by way of a contribution. I could be wrong, but I believe the figure was $300,000. Imagine, and that was one contribution. When I told them the maximum spending in my riding was $67,000, they kind of chuckled and suggested that would be considered a mediocre fundraiser for them.

When I sit here in the House and I see that the maximum spending is approximately $67,000 and that the bill is moving in the direction of eliminating any perceived or real outside influence by corporations or larger unions, I say it is a good thing. It is not simply a good thing for me. It is a good thing for my children and my children's children. It is a good thing for this Parliament and it is a good thing for parliaments to come. If Canadians deserve anything out of this political system, it is to make sure we are representing the people of the country and not simply some large corporation or large financial institution that is able to make a whopping contribution as is done in the U.S. and in many other countries for that matter.

I am not saying that our system is perfect and that the U.S. one is broken. The Americans have some models within their democratic system that we could certainly borrow, not only in the House of Commons but by way of our parliamentary system.

In closing, this legislation deserves the support of every member in the House because Canadians deserve it and future parliaments deserve it.

[Privilege, June 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, under no circumstances am I debating the hon. member's position. In fact, I agree wholeheartedly with almost his entire remarks.

In my humble opinion, as a member of the House of Commons, a majority of members of a committee are the protectors of my rights. A majority of the members of a committee should not be able to restrict my access anymore so than they should be able to restrict theirs. Mr. Speaker, if you create one rule everybody must abide by it. You cannot be selective in saying that we will accept opposition reports, but we will not accept reports submitted by members of the governing party.

Mr. Speaker, you are the protector of my rights as a parliamentarian. You are the protector of my privileges, and not simply mine, but the hundred and twenty odd thousand people back in my riding, and for that matter, the 30 million Canadians in our country. I believe most of them would be insulted if I cannot be treated by the same rules and conditions as people across the floor.

[Privilege, June 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, what I am rising on today, with somewhat of a heavy heart, is a question of privilege on which I would ask you to rule.

After a two year review of the state of the Canadian broadcasting industry, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage has just finalized a report that will be presented to the House shortly. At the conclusion of our hearings, I determined that although I agreed with much of the report and certainly recognized the incredible efforts on behalf of the members of that committee, there were a few specific areas that I felt needed to be expanded upon.

Despite my efforts at committee to incorporate those perspectives within the report, I was not successful. Having spent a year and a half sitting at that table, I felt it was important that those views, which I have collected by way of witnesses and people who have met with me, be presented as part of the overall report. I therefore explored what other options were available to me.

I was informed that as a parliamentarian and a member of the committee, I was entitled to submit a supplementary opinion if I wished to do so. I did. I did so in such a way that I believe it was actually complementary to the committee report. It expanded on some of the issues.

From a timeline perspective, the committee determined that the last day to file the supplementary opinions was on May 12, 2003. Due to extenuating circumstances, two of the opposition parties informed the clerk that they were having challenges finishing their supplementary dissenting opinions by the May 12 deadline and asked if they could explore an extension of time. The clerk, as I understand it, then contacted the printing department, because timeliness is an issue here, to find out if there would be an opportunity to extend the time and not impact the production timelines of the report itself. It is my understanding that she was informed that May 16 would be an acceptable date.

The clerk then informed members of the committee that the date was going to be extended until May 16. Therefore, like my colleagues in the opposition, I worked under the timelines provided by the clerk of the committee. I met those timelines. My report is recognized by the clerk of the committee as being received on May 16 at approximately 10:45 a.m., not indifferent to the opposition reports.

The chair realized that the extension had been granted by the clerk without the authority of the committee and, after hearing that I was putting forward a supplementary opinion, recognized that the clerk did not have the authority to grant that extension without the consent or support of the committee and asked the opposition members to bring forward a notice of motion to extend, sort of retroactively if I may, the filing dates.

It is going to take me a couple of minutes and I apologize, but this is absolutely critical for Parliament. This hits on the very basic rights and privileges as a parliamentarian.

The chair then realized that the clerk did not have the authority and asked for a retroactive notice of motion to come from the opposition members to extend the date by four days. They did so. Sadly enough, I was notified, and in fairness to the chair due to challenges of him travelling and leaving messages on my cell phone, I was notified 24 hours before the committee was meeting, so clearly it would be difficult to give 48 hours notice.

I asked for unanimous consent to present my supplementary motion along with the two from the opposition and was not successful in securing that. I then notified the clerk in writing on Tuesday that it was my intention to bring forward a motion on Thursday, being this morning, asking that my report be included in the same way as the opposition members' reports were included. Sadly enough, although I cannot give details of an in camera meeting, obviously by virtue of the fact that I am here, I was not successful in securing the support.

The reason I ran for Parliament, the reason people have fought and died for this country, is so that we can express our opinions. Just because some people at committee failed to agree with those opinions, or think I am going beyond my purview as a member of the governing party or the Liberals, too bad.

Mr. Speaker, what I am asking you to do, not only on behalf of myself and the 300 other people who sit in the House, but on behalf of 30-odd million Canadians, is to protect my rights as a parliamentarian, give me the same rights as those people across the aisle have. To do otherwise, in my opinion, would be nothing more than putting a gag order on backbench Liberal members of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for your timely and wise ruling on this issue. I certainly ask for your positive consideration. To do otherwise, would be, in my opinion, a slight on democracy.

[Foreign Affairs, June 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on April 22, I was privileged to have the opportunity to host a foreign policy round table with constituents in my riding. Twenty individuals from all walks of life, including business representatives, local politicians, representatives from churches and the media, educators, students and artists gathered to discuss Canada's place in the world.

In brief, here are some of the highlights from this energetic dialogue. Participants wanted to encourage multiculturalism without sacrificing their own traditions and beliefs. Participants felt that our nation must continue to focus on fostering friendships with countries through peacekeeping, education and foreign aid. They felt that Canada is well respected globally and said it is vital that we remain distinct in the field of globalization.

In short, irrespective of their views, they had one thing in common: an overwhelming sense of pride in our great land.

I would like to publicly thank everyone who participated in this insightful discussion. It was indeed an excellent opportunity presented by this government to involve all Canadians in addressing long term foreign policy issues.

[Don Stuart, April 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize Mr. Don Stuart of Midhurst, Ontario, a constituent in my riding.

Mr. Stuart has participated as a volunteer in a number of assignments with the Canadian Executive Service Organization. Most recently he travelled to Davao City in the Philippines with CESO to assist a handloom crafts company operated by women in that community.

Mr. Stuart provided training in new weaving techniques and redesigned the looms to make work less tiring for the employees. The result will be a better working environment for the employees, an increase in production and employment of local women. Don has participated in at least six assignments with CESO and calls it an incredible program that sets Canada apart from the rest of the world.

I would like to acknowledge Don's commitment of skill and time and to thank him for his continued dedication to others in need around the world.

[Famine for World Vision, March 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize a group of students from Stayner Collegiate Institute in my riding who will be taking part in a 30 hour famine for World Vision next month.

For the past six months these high school students have been raising funds and have been sponsoring a World Vision child who lives in Bangladesh. This young boy, Rubel, now has access to education, food, health care and fresh drinking water, necessities that we in Canada sometimes take for granted.

Last year during the 30 hour famine for World Vision, Canadian teenagers raised close to $4 million. Hundreds of thousands of Canadian teens participated. I am proud to say that several schools in my riding participated as well.

In Stayner on April 11 and 12, students will fast for 30 hours and collect pledges for their World Vision child. They will be making a remarkable difference for this youngster.

These young people are earnest in their compassion for others. I would like to recognize and commend these students from Stayner Collegiate Institute who have pledged support through World Vision.

[Committees of the House, March 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure which part of that to address considering the absolutely incredible number of inaccurate statements that the hon. member has made.

I should start with addressing the one that Canada has done nothing to address the potential breach of these UN conventions. That is simply not true. There is no country in this world that has been more aggressive in trying to get the allies together through the United Nations and the Security Council to address this means in a peaceful manner. That is the word that is escaping the Alliance. It is incumbent upon political leaders of this world and this country to pursue peace at all costs and exhaust all possibilities until such time as those possibilities have been fully exhausted.

Just as recently as today Dr. Blix made the statement that he felt he was making progress. Why would we not have let him for a few more weeks? The Prime Minister clearly showed leadership not only here in Canada on foreign policy but all around the world. When we talk about flip-flopping and inflammatory statements, one only needs to look at the Alliance.

I am sitting here looking at some of this stuff. I remember the last leader of the opposition talking about governing by consensus, governing by referendum or governing by plebiscite. Not only the majority of Canadians but the majority of people in the world have said to give peace a chance, not the warmongers across the way. Once again we see the official opposition flip-flop, whether it was the Reform, the United Alternative or the Alliance, whatever the case might be.

Obviously, Canadians recognize at face value the comments that are coming from across the floor. We have the Leader of the Opposition making statements that are erroneous and inaccurate. We have the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla make a statement that “we now find ourselves in the company of communist China, Libya, Iran and other tyrannies who oppose the liberation of Iraq”. Can we even tolerate such absolutely ridiculous comments from the opposition?

It boils down to one thing. The majority of members of Parliament in this House, the majority of people across this country, and the majority of people in the world want to source out a peaceful solution if at all possible. If that means a few more weeks, then by God it is incumbent upon us to exercise that option and pursue it, explore all other possibilities and support Dr. Blix. Dr. Blix was clearly indicating that he was making progress and if he required double, triple, quadruple the manpower or the resources, why not give it to him? Why not allow him to do what he was sent there to do?

I cannot help but feel a certain amount of shame for the members of Parliament from the official opposition.

[Supply, March 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address this critically important topic. I wish to thank my hon. colleague from Mississauga West for splitting his time with me. As I sat here and listened to his relevant remarks regarding this crisis situation we are facing internationally right now, I cannot help but take a certain amount of pride in many of the members who are sitting on this side of the House.

Many of these comments may be repetitive in nature, whether they are coming from this side or from some of the parties on the other side of the House, but the real issue here is that members like myself from Simcoe—Grey feel a responsibility to voice their support for the government and the Prime Minister's position. If that means repeating some of the facts that are out there, I think it does us well to do so.

I would like to take the time to congratulate the vast majority of my colleagues. The vast majority of my colleagues right up to the Prime Minister have taken a leadership role not only here in Canada, but a leadership role that is being recognized within the international community that is second to none.

We have a long history in this country of making our domestic and foreign policy decisions here in the House. We do not accept economic pressures or the perceived economic pressures to sway us one way or the other. We are a country that has a set of values. We are a society that believes in multiculturalism and multilateral support for various countries. That is exactly what we have been trying to do. I hear from some members on the opposite side as well as read in some of the stories in the media that there is flip-flopping and confusion. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Certainly, my constituents and I have had a clear understanding of where the government is coming from since last year. The Prime Minister could not have been more clear. He said that we want to work through the United Nations. He believes it is important as a representative body of the planet that we work through that organization, that we source out consensus, and that the number one priority must be to exhaust all possibilities prior to going to war.

Hans Blix and his inspection teams were in Afghanistan suggesting that they did not have the unfettered or unencumbered access that they should have had. They reported that back and there was increased pressure put on Iraq. Then they reported back again saying that Iraq was becoming more open and giving them less fettered access to the places that they wanted to go. They were saying to the Security Council and General Assembly that this might work, but to give them more time.

President Bush, and I certainly understand his position based on some of the absolute tragedies the Americans have had to face in the last couple of years, made a comment along the lines that it was difficult to ever secure success because there were small numbers of people inspecting a country about the size of the state of California. Why then did he support these inspection teams going into Iraq in the first place? The international community is thinking that it was window dressing.

What Canada and other members of the international community suggested was that if the inspection teams felt there was an opportunity for success, if they required more resources and we had to double, triple, quadruple whatever the number might be to get the arms inspectors on the ground to pursue that option of success, did we not have a responsibility as political leaders to pursue that avenue prior to war?

The Bloc brings forward a motion by way of opposition day asking that we as a Parliament say we will not engage in war in Iraq. The Prime Minister has said all along that until such time as we are a signatory member of the UN General Assembly we would back whatever the Security Council said. There is rhetoric coming from the other side about how this will have such a massive impact on our relationship, friendship and trade with the United States. That is hogwash.

Let us look at the history. Let us look back and truly appreciate the relationship Canada has with the United States. I must say that I have cousins, aunts and some great friends in the United States and certainly I am there to help them whenever they need that help, but it is not unconditional. Let us look back in time to September 11, when that terrible tragedy and heinous act took place by way of al-Qaeda attacking the United States and the twin towers. What country was there first? It was Canada. What country was recognized by the United States over and over again? Canada. In my own constituency we had a condolences book as well as donations coming in from all across the riding and, for that matter, from all across the country. We had emergency service personnel, fine Canadians who dedicate their lives to the safety of Canada, volunteering their time to go to New York and help their brothers and sisters south of the border.

It was appreciated. I was in Washington this past July. I met with several members of Congress in one on one meetings and had the opportunity to meet with a couple of senators as well. Let me say that Americans do appreciate the relationship that they have with Canada. They do know that we are there for them and they know we have been there for them in the past.

Then we listen to the rhetoric coming from the other side as to how this will have a longstanding impact and longstanding consequences for the Canadian people because we choose a direction on international policy that is different from what the United States chooses. Nothing could be a more foolish statement than that. The United States does not buy from us because we do or do not support their foreign policy. The United States buys from us because we are one of the best manufacturers and one of the best producers in the entire world. We have one of the most competitive workforces in the entire world. That is why they buy from us. That is why so much of our product goes south of the border. Certainly proximity plays a significant role, but we have one of the most competitive workforces in the entire world. That is why the American people buy our product over other products around the world.

If anything has taught us in the House about how small the planet is with regard to accessing products or information, it is the last five years. Why is Canada the single largest purchaser from the United States? Because in turn the Americans make great products. It is not because we consider ourselves a big family. It is not because we consider ourselves best friends. Those things may be true. The reality is that business operates on both sides of the border. We are each other's largest purchaser because it is best for business.

I will say this, having been to Washington and having met with members of Congress. If any members in this House believe that the United States, the executive branch, Senate or Congress, is going to do anything to further disrupt its economy because a country such as Canada has chosen a different direction, I would suggest that they go and spend some time with our friends south of the border, because that is simply not the case.

In closing, I will say that the men and women in our military are playing a role in Afghanistan, and there are few countries as committed to fighting terrorism as Canada, but we have to put things in perspective when we are talking about this war on terrorism.

I mentioned this to my colleagues in Congress when I was in Washington in July. When we announce $5 billion in homeland security spending, it does not necessarily resonate very well down there, but when we start talking about extrapolating that to the tenth, that is $50 billion in the United States by the size of their economy. That is a huge investment on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada to ensure that our country is as safe as it can possibly be.

No party, no government, has a bigger responsibility than the security of its citizens and I am here to tell hon. members that the government, the Prime Minister and my caucus take that very seriously. We have demonstrated it by the significant amount of tax dollars we have invested in homeland security. We have demonstrated it by tightening our ties with the United States to rationalize the services that we will be receiving.

Regardless of the rhetoric that is going to come across from the gun-toting Alliance, I am here to say that the Americans clearly believe we are their best friends.