House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 70% of the vote.
Health February 15th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, this is not too tough for the Deputy Prime Minister. Here is a conference supported by Health Canada. This conference is free for youth. A 14 year old goes to that conference and is presented with a workshop on safer sado-masochism.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister support that use of taxpayer funds? Yes or no.
Health February 15th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, just last week a young mother in Barrie, Ontario, found a free youth conference on the Internet that was supported by Health Canada.
Let us imagine her surprise when she sent her 14 year old daughter there and found that one of the workshops was on safer sado-masochism. Do the Liberals think that is a good use of Canadian taxpayer funds?
Grants And Contributions February 14th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said very clearly that the shares were in a blind trust back in 1993. We now know that those shares were in his hands in 1996. They were in his possession; they were his shares in 1996.
Is it not true that the only blind trust here is Liberal blind trust in a Prime Minister on unethical grounds?
Grants And Contributions February 14th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister again today said that the province of Quebec administered the investor immigration fund.
What he failed to mention was that the province of Quebec had nothing to do with where those funds went. That responsibility was in the hands of brokers who met with the Prime Minister just days before millions of dollars started to flow to Shawinigan. How is it that the Deputy Prime Minister cannot see this as a conflict of interest?
Supply February 8th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, there is one compelling argument for changing the system as it exists. The compelling argument was a document that the member campaigned on in 1993. He knows that he campaigned on the document. He knows that he campaigned on this principle.
We are asking him and his colleagues to keep their word on what they said they would do. It surprises me how they can talk around the issue and say there is no compelling reason to keep their word.
If there has been a change in circumstances I would like to have the member tell me what is that change in circumstances, because a change in circumstances would mean that the promise was null and void. If there is no change in circumstances from 1993 when he campaigned on the red book and this issue, I would ask him to vote for the principle because he campaigned on it. I ask him to tell me how he could do otherwise.
Supply February 8th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, if the official opposition House leader read the speech of the House leader who sits across the way today, he would probably be able to read to us most of the things that he has just finished saying.
In opposition it is pretty easy to say these things, and I imagine the House leader will stand and say something like that. What possible assurance would the Canadian public have that we in opposition would not just say these things but would actually carry them out when we form a government?
The Family February 7th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, last week in New York, the United Nations held a special session on children. This was designed in part to monitor progress of the convention on the rights of the child, which came into force some 10 years ago.
Many citizens have been dismayed by language and practices supported by some delegations to the UN that have diminished the role of the family.
What a treat to read U.S. Ambassador E. Michael Southwick's release in which he stated that we need to be “emphasizing the vital role the family plays in the upbringing of children”. This was good common sense, spoken clearly so no one could misunderstand.
I applaud the U.S. position on the family. This statement is accurate and significant and, in my view, is supported by the vast majority of Canadians. I hope it will be reflected in future UN documents on the rights of the child.
Speech From The Throne February 1st, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister on her discourse. I listened carefully to her specific words, that she would like to eradicate child poverty in Canada. It is a very noble goal.
To help me to celebrate and to monitor the course of that noble goal, I wonder if the minister could define child poverty for me. This is something that I earnestly would like her to do.
I listened to a couple of speeches today that talked about 42% and 52% rates of child poverty in Winnipeg. If the minister could give me a definition so that I could monitor with her the noble goal, it would help me to cheer for the government as it reaches that goal.
Speech From The Throne February 1st, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. The two years that have transpired between the law being struck down in the court in B.C. allowed pedophiles to escape justice. Many of them carried on with these activities. Their cases were not brought before the court. That gave them an opportunity to practise a craft that I will never understand.
Would the hon. member comment on the two years the law was not being enforced in Canada, thereby allowing pedophiles to conduct their craft?
Speech From The Throne February 1st, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I have always found the member opposite to be reasonable and balanced in his approach. I congratulate him on his re-election.
There is quite a debate on justice issues. One that I thought gave the member opposite an opportunity to show his colours was the issue of child pornography. As the member will remember, that law was struck down in B.C. Many of my colleagues opposite asked the Prime Minister and the government to take all necessary steps to have that law reinstated, even if it meant something as drastic as the notwithstanding clause. If my memory serves me well, the hon. member opposite signed a petition to the Prime Minister asking for that step to be taken.
When that very motion was put before the House, I do not recall the member voting for it. The wording was similar. Maybe he could explain to me why the rights of children did not take precedence over the rights of the pedophile and the rights of the true criminal.
We have not had a chance to go over it privately, so I will give him the opportunity in the House to explain why he would not vote for the motion when it came before the House.