House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 58% of the vote.
Trade April 5th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, it is the Prime Minister himself who has raised the spectre of linkage on this issue.
Yesterday the Prime Minister referred to President Bush as “a naive cowboy”. Insulting the president of the United States is not the best strategy for ensuring future co-operation between our two countries. By musing about linking softwood lumber with energy exports he raises many questions.
Here is a question for him. Will he now impose a national energy style program export tax on energy?
Trade April 5th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and his international trade minister are fundamentally at odds regarding the linkage of energy with softwood lumber.
The Prime Minister is now musing that he wants to put a tax on oil and gas sold to the United States. The international trade minister says that the two issues should be treated separately.
Who is speaking for the government on this issue?
Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act March 30th, 2001
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It seems as though the Minister of Justice would like to ask a few more questions of the opposition. I am wondering if we could have unanimous consent to extend the question period so the Minister of Justice may ask my hon. colleague one or two more questions.
Prime Minister March 30th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, it is his responsibility to uphold the law. I will ask him the question again. He says the information is coming. We want to know the answer to the question. He should have the information already. Did the Grand-Mère Golf Club break the law?
Prime Minister March 30th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, for two days we have asked the Minister of Industry, who is responsible to the House to uphold the Canada Business Corporations Act, to tell us whether the Grand-Mère Golf Club complied with all applicable laws.
The letter from the head of his corporations branch said that the registry did not comply with the requirements of the act. Will the minister stop evading the question and tell us whether or not the Grand-Mère Golf Club broke the law?
Prime Minister March 29th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, that is another non-answer from the industry minister. Let us try again.
The minister is responsible for the Canadian Business Corporations Act. For over a week we have been asking him whether the Grand-Mère Golf Club followed the rules, but he has been dancing and evading that question. The letter from the head of his corporations branch says that the corporate records will have to be altered retroactively to be brought into compliance with the act.
Will the minister simply answer my question? With regard to the corporate registry of these shares, did the Grand-Mère Golf Club break the law?
Prime Minister March 29th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told the House on Tuesday that his lawyer, Debbie Weinstein, was “my trustee with another person because we all have two trustees for managing our assets”.
Will the government tell us the name of the second trustee and what his or her role was in the Grand-Mère golf club deal?
Summit Of The Americas March 27th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I would submit that there are probably many cabinet ministers who are still not wholeheartedly behind the notion of free trade.
It would seem that within cabinet, within the leadership of the governing party, that at this particular point those who are committed to the principle of free trade, must be outweighing, within the internal divisions that are a part of any group, those who are not free traders at heart.
I would balance those comments by saying that when we have a group like that moving forward on this kind of issue, there is always a possibility, if changes occur within the party, that the balance could be tipped in favour of going back to a protectionist type of attitude when it comes to the economy, and that would be a negative.
Canadians are innovative, creative, flexible, intelligent and can compete in any field not only within our nation but globally because we have as our most tremendous resource skilled individuals who have a big picture in mind. With that we have the world in our hands and we need an environment that will be able to foster it.
That is why the Alliance has supported the notion of free trade for so long. We can do even better with government policy that encourages freer trade in all sectors of the economy, taking into consideration the concerns which I mentioned earlier. I would hope that the current governing group for the short period of time it will have left in its mandate before we become the government will stay committed to the principles of free trade.
Summit Of The Americas March 27th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to join in the debate tonight on a very important issue. I commend my colleagues for bringing the issue forward. I hope we can work together in a reasoned way to talk about the free trade agreement of the Americas.
Let me state unequivocally that the Alliance is in support of free trade. We have heard that throughout this evening and we are four square behind the principle of free trade.
I want to focus my comments on a few areas. I want to speak first to the way free trade agreements are arrived at and how the process has at times given rise to some of the current concerns that individuals have had with regard to free trade, such as the groups my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands mentioned which are going to protest. All citizens have the right to do so and should do so in a peaceful way. Many people are concerned about this issue, as are many of my own constituents who have consulted me on this topic. They are concerned about the environment, health care, natural resources, water and culture.
When free trade agreements are entered into, people become concerned when information on very important topics is not forthcoming. The government should be providing Canadians as much information as possible on these kinds of agreements. It should communicate to Canadians that they will have the opportunity to voice their concerns on important issues like this. If the government would, through reasoned debate, explain why free trade would be good, it could then win the hearts and minds of Canadians.
We know that the Liberal government many years ago fought an election against free trade. Things can change. I know most of my colleagues on the Liberal side would support notions such as free trade, although there are ministers of the crown who we have questions about in terms of their sincere commitment to the principle of free trade.
It was refreshing in the debate earlier tonight to hear the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for International Trade speak in a sincere way from their hearts as to why they believe free trade is a good thing. That was encouraging. I think those two ministers will have to contend with their colleagues in cabinet who in many ways have demonstrated in the past that they do not believe in the principles of free trade as strongly as they do. I think of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Minister of Industry, and several other members of cabinet.
We hope that voices, words and beliefs uttered by those ministers carry the day in the cabinet because this is a very important issue.
I want to touch on some of the words said earlier in debate about how trade can help to develop economic prosperity and how it can be a key to helping people, not only here in our country but in other nations where we enter into these kinds of trade agreements. It can be the engine of prosperity. It can help to develop better economies in countries where there is not a strong, stable economy through the free trade of goods and services, and even ideas and intellectual property, where individuals can be rewarded for ideas and initiatives.
We believe that is a good thing. We believe that is a way for individuals to grow in their prosperity, to get ahead and to have better lives for themselves and their families no matter what nation they are in.
I believe we need to clearly establish our sovereignty in any deals in areas such as health and culture. We need to make sure that natural resources are taken care of. Water is a big issue that we need to be very clear on in any agreement we enter into.
I want to quote a world leader who was visiting here in our Chamber in February. Tony Blair, the prime minister of Great Britain said:
Finally on trade I just want to say this last point. It is time I think that we started to argue vigorously and clearly as to why free trade is right. It is the key to jobs for our people, to prosperity and actually to development in the poorest parts of the world. The case against it is misguided and, worse, unfair. However sincere the protests, they cannot be allowed to stand in the way of rational argument. We should start to make this case with force and determination.
We certainly agree with the prime minister. We would hope that our colleagues from all parties would look seriously at the implications of arguing against freer trade and what the end result of that would be, because for the people who we say we want to help who are at the lower end of the economic scale, when we take free trade out of the equation, what is the alternative answer by those who would advocate for a tariff based economy or a protectionist approach to our economy and our trading relationship? What is the answer?
The answers I have heard coming back are ones that are not strong. They are not steeped in logic. In many ways they have become red herring arguments, such as the argument that we cannot enter into free trade agreements because it will attack our own sovereignty, our own democracy.
I believe that by informing people on the topic, we can build in to that process answers to the concerns that individuals would have in a particular area. We can do that when we work together and when we give people information and the opportunity to openly look at all the possible solutions. We believe that is the best way to go when there are concerns.
It is like having a vision. If we know there is a better place to go and that where we end up will be a better place for our citizens, our trading partners and the citizens of other nations with which we deal, will it be worth it to get there? Will it be worth it to put in the work? Will it be worth it to negotiate and spend hours putting together a rules based method of trade or will it not? Those are fundamental questions that our citizens need to debate. In the past the majority have accepted moving forward on those issues but they have also wanted other solutions.
Free trade has been a positive economic reality for our country and for our trading partners. It has provided an opportunity for people who need help. If we demonstrate and lead through our actions on these issues, taking into consideration the concerns of the people and move forward, we will end up going to a better place. It will lead to prosperity for many people.
A worthwhile goal is for us to work together and to put aside our differences. Obviously we will not agree on everything but we can move together toward a bigger vision and because where we end will be a better place than we were when we started.
Youth Criminal Justice Act March 26th, 2001
I congratulate my colleague from Crowfoot for his excellent speech in which he mentioned diversion programs that may be applicable to helping young offenders.
I know of one such program in my own riding, a young diversion program, in which the member for Surrey North even as a sitting member is still involved and shows great commitment to. Could he indicate how youth diversion programs could be implemented?