John Harvard

[Privilege, February 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I did not catch the essence of the question. Would the member just take 10 seconds to repeat the essence of the question?

[Privilege, February 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I would like to quote the hon. Deputy Prime Minister. This morning in question period he said that this was not a capital offence, that this was not a hanging offence.

This is exactly what the hon. member who just asked the question wants: He wants to have the hanging even before there is any case heard. That is what he wants. He wants the minister to be hanged. He wants the minister out of the way even before the committee has a chance to work. If that is not putting the cart before the horse, there is something awfully wrong here.

It is quite straightforward. We have had a motion that is being supported by both sides of the House. The House already has indicated that this matter should go to committee. It is the committee that is qualified to deal with many of the questions that the hon. members from the opposition already have raised. These questions cannot be answered in this particular forum in this particular debate.

The opposition members are dragging it out. They are going over the same ground again and again. If the hon. members from the opposition had a chance to listen to themselves they would be embarrassed, because they are sounding very silly. They know there is no argument here. We all accept that this matter goes to committee and it should go immediately.

[Privilege, February 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has asked some relevant and very good questions. Those questions should be raised at committee. I have absolute faith in the committee. The questions of the hon. member cannot be answered in this forum and in this debate

That is why we have indicated on this side of the House that the matter should go to committee. That is what I have been arguing for for the last five or ten minutes. Because the committee is well manned and has good personnel, I am sure it will decide what is relevant and what is not. I have complete faith in that committee and that is where this motion should go immediately.

[Privilege, February 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I will try to make my presentation quite short. One really has to wonder the about the motivation of the opposition in the debate. I listened to the hon. Leader of the Opposition a moment ago. He said this matter should go to committee immediately. We all agree with that.

The hon. House leader on the government side indicated well before eleven o'clock, more than two hours ago, that the government was prepared to support this matter going to committee. Yet we are talking about this motion. It should have gone to a committee two to three hours ago.

I listened to the hon. member for Fraser Valley about an hour ago. He said that we needed to know the facts of this case. We all agree, but who is going to establish the facts of the case? It would be the committee. It is not the House in this debate. Why are we not sending the motion to the committee?

It makes us wonder about the motivation of the members of the opposition in this debate. They are going over the same ground over and over again.

The member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough was concerned about the reputation of parliament. We are all concerned about the reputation of parliament. Listen to what the opposition members have said for the last two to three hours: Everything they have said has brought down the reputation of parliament.

Anybody with a sane mind would understand that this is a very straightforward motion. The Speaker has accepted that this is a matter acceptable to the House. We have indicated on both sides of the House that it should go to the committee. The committee is the proper body to deal with this matter

I wonder whether the opposition members have faith in the committee. Does the kind of presentation they are giving mean that they have contempt for the committee? Do opposition members have faith in the committee? I suspect the committee is well equipped to deal with this matter.

I appeal to the opposition members to give it a rest; let it go. We have listened to these spurious arguments for two to three hours. I think that viewers across Canada who have been watching the debate must be sick by now.

We have established the parameters of the argument. Let the debate end and let the motion go to committee immediately.

[Privilege, February 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, one really has to wonder--

[Baldur Stefansson, January 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on January 3 last Manitoba lost an agricultural mastermind. Baldur Stefansson, otherwise known as the Father of Canola, passed away at the age of 84.

Mr. Stefansson, a plant breeder, developed canola oil, one of the most nutritious edible oils used in the world today, from rapeseed, an industrial oil. Before the invention of canola only a few hundred thousand acres of rapeseed was grown in Canada per year. Today thanks to Stefansson's genius approximately 10 million to 12 million acres of canola is grown annually in western Canada.

Stefansson's innovation created hundreds of jobs at processing plants on the prairies. Furthermore, his crop development is now the dominant crop traded by the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange. In fact, 85% of the exchange's trade consists of trade in canola.

Mr. Stefansson never profited from his innovation which has provided much economic stimulus for western Canada, about $2 billion worth annually, but he did however receive numerous awards including the Order of Canada, the Order of Manitoba and the Order of the Falcon.

[The Budget, December 12th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, the budget has been dubbed a security budget. I think it is true that it is a superb security budget, but it is a lot more than just a security budget.

Let us take, for example, a couple of the major infrastructure provisions: $2 billion for a strategic infrastructure foundation; and another $600 million over five years for new border infrastructure items, which is very important. I will ask the member for Yukon about that in a moment.

There is a lot more to the budget than I think a lot of the speakers this afternoon realize, particularly the speakers from the opposition side. They gloss over or totally ignore the other things in this budget: $1 billion over the next three years to promote leading edge research and sustain Canada's innovative use of the Internet; a $200 million investment to help Canadian universities; a 7% increase in the annual budget of the granting councils; a $25 million investment over five years to sustain and enhance the research program of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research; $24 million over two years to support sector councils. I could go on and on.

There is a lot more to the budget than security. I think the reason this budget, as the other ones have been in the past, has been so well received and popular with Canadians is that it is fair, it is balanced and it contains a lot for most Canadians.

On the item of infrastructure, does the hon. member for Yukon not find it important that infrastructure has been included this way in the budget? It is important to his territory, I am sure.

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Children and Youth. Would the minister inform the House on what the government is doing to ensure that aboriginal people have the training and skills development they need to participate in the labour market?

[Committees of the House, November 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 23, your committee has considered Bill C-35, an act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, and has agreed to report it with two amendments.

[Trade, November 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade.

The final report from the WTO on the Air Wisconsin transaction is expected soon. If the ruling is not in favour of Canada, what would happen to the financing commitment that convinced Air Wisconsin to buy 150 regional jets from the Canadian company, Bombardier? After all, the parliamentary secretary knows that many aerospace jobs are at stake.