Grant Hill

[Ethics, February 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, anybody could operate under those rules. I happen to have the conflict of interest guidelines in front of me and there is zero mention of any such supervisory agreement.

Since there is no mention of such an agreement in that conflict of interest guideline, why did the Prime Minister approve an arrangement where the former finance minister looked like he was in a conflict of interest?

[Government Spending, February 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, federal Liberals are famous for waste: the HRDC billion dollar boondoggle, the wasteful firearms registry, advertising contracts that are now being investigated by the RCMP and advertising for Kyoto that totalled $9.7 million.

Now we have another advertising contract that is wasteful: $2.9 million spent on a feel good, full page ad on Canada's new health accord, a full page ad in newspapers all across the country.

What would $2.9 million do if used for patients instead of advertising firms? Frankly, it could buy two new MRI machines that would allow a patient with headaches to reduce her wait for a scan by weeks. When faced with $2.9 million for a big, feel good newspaper ad or the same money for two new MRI machines, that patient's choice is obvious. If you had a brain tumour, which would you choose?

[Border Security, February 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the government is fuzzy on Iraq and also fuzzy on border security.

Since September 11, 2001, the Canadian Alliance has called for a continental border security policy, one that would allow the free flow of people and goods across our border.

Instead, why has the Liberal government not ensured an exemption from the 24 hour advance notice proposal that will hurt Canada?

[Iraq, February 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Australia's position on Iraq is clear. Spain's position is clear. Great Britain's position on Iraq is crystal clear.

The best way to prevent a war is for Saddam Hussein to know that there is an allied coalition that is strong. That is the only thing that he will fully understand.

My question stands: When will Canada's position on Iraq be clear, like our closest allies?

[Iraq, February 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, two years into his mandate President Bush is planning on making his first state visit to what should be his closest ally, Canada.

While many countries have made their position on Iraq clear, Canada's position remains somewhat hazy. When President Bush does arrive here in Canada, will he find an ally with a clear position on Iraq or a fence sitter?

[Iraq, February 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the fence is a precarious perch.

A former prime minister said:

While we can be grateful indeed for the United Nations intervention in this matter, I think we can also be grateful for the action taken by the United States in bringing its action to the United Nations. I think we can support, as the United Kingdom has supported and in every appropriate way, the position of the United States at the United Nations.

That was Lester Pearson again, during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. Is that quote not just as referable today to the situation in Iraq?

[Iraq, February 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1957, Lester Pearson said:

--the predatory state...with power of total destruction, is no more to be tolerated than the predatory individual.

What will it take for the government to get off the fence and join the growing international coalition that says they will no longer tolerate the actions of Saddam Hussein?

[Foreign Affairs, February 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, they all said, very plainly, that Iraq was in material breach. Why will we not?

Canada has a strong democratic tradition. When the decision to deploy troops is made, Canadians expect their representatives to have the opportunity of doing more than just talk.

Will the Prime Minister allow a vote on the action against Iraq, yes or no?

[Foreign Affairs, February 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, here is the evidence that was presented to us: satellite pictures; intercepted phone conversations; and information that there are mobile labs producing anthrax. That information is good enough for our closest allies.

Just what evidence would it take before the government would finally get off the fence?

[Border Security, February 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian ambassador to the U.S. said:

We always have some challenges ahead of us and the border is, among them, the most critical.

Is the minister not a bit embarrassed about getting up in the House and talking about fearmongering when our ambassador to the U.S. says exactly the same thing? This is her opportunity to withdraw those flippant comments.