Lost his last election, in 2000, with 42% of the vote.
Points Of Order April 23rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, perhaps for clarification, you indicated that what I was told was accurate with respect to referring the creation of parliamentary associations to the interparliamentary committee. I am wondering if that is indeed what will happen, or will it go directly to the Board of Internal Economy.
Privilege April 23rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
With respect to establishing parliamentary associations, I am the whip for the NDP. We were in a meeting last night with one of the deputy speakers and the clerks. We were told at that time on an issue unrelated to this one that if a new parliamentary association is to be formed, it has to come from the members of the House to the interparliamentary committee, the committee which I am a member of, requesting funding therefor. If we did not have the funds we would then forward it to the Board of Internal Economy.
With respect to my independent colleague, he does make a point which I think is important, and that is that if it is sent to an interparliamentary committee or to the Standing Committee on Procedures and House Affairs there is an opportunity for consideration of all circumstances around the particular question.
I am not saying we should do one thing or another, but I was informed yesterday the procedure was that it should go before the interparliamentary committee first and before the Board of Internal Economy second.
Judges Act April 21st, 1998
Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present vote no on this motion.
Nunavut Act April 20th, 1998
Madam Speaker, on March 17 I asked why the government would not agree to full parliamentary hearings on the multilateral agreement on investment and the negotiations surrounding the MAI when the very ability of our governments to make sovereign laws about the economic future of our country was at stake.
In particular I asked whether the Liberal government would agree to the recommendations of the Saskatchewan government that there be a full impact analysis of the MAI, a full parliamentary debate and a vote. All we are asking for is that Parliament be allowed a say on the matter while we can still make a difference. Why? Because the scope of the MAI goes well beyond legislation that MPs will ever see in Parliament. The MAI limits the future ability of the federal, provincial and municipal governments in this country to make laws in the public interest of Canadians.
The Saskatchewan NDP minister responsible for trade agreements, Bernie Wiens, wrote to the Minister of International Trade in February “Virtually every aspect of provincial jurisdiction over local economic and social management will be directly affected by an MAI. No such agreement should apply to Saskatchewan without its explicit consent”.
Signing the MAI would mean that foreign corporations and investors must be treated the same as Canadian corporations, but when foreign corporations think they have been hard done by they could sue the Government of Canada or other jurisdictions or go to arbitration. Canadian corporations would not be extended the same right.
Foreign investors and corporations would be protected from any future laws that tried to protect or create jobs or laws to strengthen Canadian environmental standards or compliance with Canadian research and development objectives. If forced to comply, they could be compensated by Canadians. It is ironic that the Liberals will bend over backward to compensate foreign companies but not the sick and innocent victims now afflicted with hepatitis C.
Members of the Reform Party cannot wait for the MAI. Showing their true colours as nothing more than shillers for big foreign business, Reform's main criticism of the Liberals is that they are negotiating in secret rather than spending huge amounts of taxpayer dollars to tell everyone how great the MAI will be for big foreign corporations.
The Reform member for North Vancouver slipped and gave away the real reason they love the MAI. It would protect and accelerate moves toward private health care. That is what Reform wants to see in Canada, private, for profit health care, a two tier health care system, one for the rich and one for the rest of Canadians. The MAI would deliver a two tier health care system.
The campaign being led by the Council of Canadians and by the NDP in Parliament for public debate on this issue is finally starting to click with people. Toronto Star columnist Rosemary Spiers said last Thursday:
—the Council of Canadians and the NDP['s]—successful campaign against the MAI—has forced the Liberals into retreat—
Canada will not sign the MAI this month, we are told, in Paris. It may later, but this delay shows that public pressure can sometimes make a difference. It is a lesson the government better have learned for the next time because there are more national negotiations coming down the pipe. One example is the financial services agreement which is almost finalized without even coming before the House of Commons. This would provide for example, a 100% foreign ownership of Canadian banks.
The Government of Saskatchewan has outlined reasonable fair guidelines for good international trade agreements: the protection of health care; labour and environmental standards, among others, which I and the NDP support.
I would call on the Liberal government to express support for these principles as well as for public hearings and a vote on the MAI before proceeding any further on our children's future.
Division No. 117 March 25th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP in the House tonight vote no to this motion.
Division No. 116 March 25th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present vote yes to this motion.
Division No. 115 March 25th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, NDP members present in the House tonight vote yes.
Petitions March 25th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure, on behalf of many Canadians in Saskatchewan and Edmonton, Alberta, to present a petition in opposition to the current negotiations on the multilateral agreement on investment. They believe that this agreement is flawed. They believe it will hurt Canadians and Canadian businesses and, in particular, our independence.
They are calling upon Parliament to reject the current framework of the MAI negotiations and are asking the government to seek an entirely different agreement by which the world might achieve a rules based, global trading regime that protects workers, the environment and the ability of governments to act in the public interest.
Energy Price Commission Act March 24th, 1998
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-384, an act respecting the Energy Price Commission.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce in the House today a bill to establish the Energy Price Commission. This bill will establish a commission to regulate the wholesale and retail price of gasoline. The purpose of price regulation is to avoid unreasonable increases which affect the cost of living and depress business activity.
The bill will facilitate reasonable consistency in prices from province to province, allowing for production and distribution costs.
The regulations will further minimize the risk of collusion in pricing and will prevent dominant suppliers from setting unreasonable prices.
The bill links the issue of price control to competition. Any investigation of an alleged offence under the Competition Act which is related to gasoline pricing will be remitted by the competition tribunal to the commission for investigation, and the commission will report to the tribunal before it makes a determination or order on the matter.
Many Canadians are looking for this bill so that gasoline and oil companies will stop the gouging of consumers, business people and farmers in Canada.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Competition Act March 17th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, NDP members present tonight vote no on this motion.