Mr. Speaker, NDP members vote yes on this matter.
Lost his last election, in 2000, with 42% of the vote.
Canada Labour Code March 17th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, NDP members vote yes on this matter.
Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act March 17th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote no to this motion.
Small Business Loans Act March 17th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the NDP members present will vote no on this motion.
Interim Supply March 17th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present vote no to this motion.
Division No. 102 March 17th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, NDP members present will vote no to this motion.
Division No. 101 March 17th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats present will vote no but I would like to add two members who have just arrived: the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar and the member for Churchill River. These members will also be recorded as voting no on this issue and on subsequent motions.
Multilateral Agreement On Investment March 17th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The Saskatchewan government has called on the federal government to subject any future consensus draft on the MAI to a full impact analysis, including its impact on federalism; to involve the provinces and the public in its review; and to submit both the impact analysis and the draft treaty to full parliamentary debate before Canada moves to ratify any treaty.
Will the Prime Minister agree to the request from the Government of Saskatchewan for an impact analysis, a full parliamentary debate and a vote before the government endorses an MAI treaty?
Supply March 17th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I continue to be quite shocked at the way the Reform Party attempts to divide the country. What it is doing in this assembly, in this House of Commons, is what a very famous writer by the name of Samuel Johnson once said about actions with respect to so-called patriotism or the flag.
Samuel Johnson, a great political writer of another century, wrote about this kind of action, this kind of party, and said that patriotism was the last act of a scoundrel, a desperate act of a scoundrel.
The Reform Party is exercising hooliganism tactics of former decades which political parties of other countries have used to bully people around this issue.
I love my flag as much as I love my country and as much as I love my family. I wear my flag over my heart, not on my desk.
If the Reform member is so patriotic about the flag, how many Reform members have a flag on their property, on their homes, hanging in front of their houses on poles or in their offices in their ridings? How many have those flags in their houses to show what great patriots they are?
Competition Act March 16th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question.
Everyone knows that the reason the Liberals, the Reform and the Conservatives support the bank merger is because the Liberals, for example, received on average between the two banks, the Montreal and Royal, $150,000 in political contributions, in the last year available to us where we have the records that are public. That is $150,000 from two individual companies to support the Liberals.
The oil companies that support the Reform Party give substantial contributions. Imperial Oil and Shell give substantial contributions to both the Liberals and the Reform. Each of those big companies give the Reform Party about $50,000 or $45,000, depending on the year. Pan Canadian also makes substantial contributions. This should not surprise anybody because lo and behold, all the legislation that we have seen the Reform and the Liberals support has been to reward these particular companies.
The other sector that seems to get rewarded for their generous contributions to both parties is the pharmaceutical industry. Bill C-91 provides monopoly protection for 20 years to the pharmaceutical industry, to charge whatever they want for prescription drugs. Lo and behold, those huge corporations financially support substantially the Liberals, the Reform and the Conservatives Parties.
The Reform and the Conservative Parties get substantial contributions from the banks, the oil companies and the pharmaceuticals. Guess what? In all the legislation, we have a specific bill for the pharmaceuticals that gives them monopoly protection. I wonder what effect the Competition Act, Bill C-20, that we are debating today in this House, will have on Bill C-91? I bet it will not have any affect. It will actually ensure that Bill C-91 is there forever.
Whether it is the banks, the oil companies or the pharmaceuticals, who tend to be gouging consumers and defending only their shareholders outside of Canada rather than Canadian consumers, they are the ones who are always getting the benefit of legislation from these three parties that happen to embrace this legislation with both arms.
Competition Act March 16th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Qu'Appelle for his question.
This reminds me of question period when a Liberal backbencher stands to ask a question of their Liberal colleague. There does not seem to be a lot of opportunity to discuss issues because they are all very busy people. Likewise, the members of my caucus are very busy, so my colleague has asked me a question with respect to how we should enhance this legislation so it can be effective when dealing with bank mergers.
There are a number of ways in which it can be strengthened. The commissioner should have the power to ask these questions when considering a merger: What will be the benefits to Canada if the merger proceeds? How many new jobs in Canada will be created if the merger proceeds? Will the banks commit a percentage of their deposits to reinvest in the communities in which they are operating?
If those three criteria were dealt with, discussed and met, and there was generosity in co-operation with the Canadian Competition Bureau, as there has been with the Bank of Montreal in co-operating with the Chicago Morgan Bank and the U.S. regulations to invest money in their communities, then I believe that Canadians would look at this in a broader way. These are three very quick things off the top of my head in answer to the member for Qu'Appelle. I would be happy to entertain any more questions from my dear colleagues in the House.