Lost his last election, in 1997, with 38% of the vote.
Raw Milk Cheese April 15th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked a very important question relating to raw milk cheese. Evidence has come from my department which suggests that there may be an increased risk of illness or disease.
As a result a regulation has been gazetted and for 75 days there will be a period of consultation. After that consultation period we will be in a position to evaluate the evidence which has been put forward to see whether the evidence of the department is accurate.
Health Care March 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, as the member and the House will know, when we signed NAFTA there was protection, particularly annex II.
However, due to the fact that Canadians had some anxieties and due to the fact that we as a government wished to reassure those Canadians that medicare in this country is protected, we have been able to negotiate an agreement in principle with the United States, Mexico and us which will further give assurances to Canadians that our health care system, which is the best in the world, will be protected for Canadians for generations to come.
Tobacco Products Control Act March 22nd, 1996
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-24, entitled an act to amend the Tobacco Products Control Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Tobacco Advertising March 19th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. The government is very concerned about the increasing number of young people who are smoking.
The Supreme Court of Canada has made a decision, some of which is very positive for the government in that it confirms some of the government's statistical background data. However, the government has some concerns with that decision.
We do have a blueprint which is being circulated across the country. Consultations are taking place as we now speak. We hope they will be completed by the end of the month.
I hope to come back to Parliament with a package which will address not only the concerns of teenagers and young people, in terms of their smoking habits, but the country as a whole, to put a comprehensive package before parliamentarians.
Supply March 15th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that his is the party that has consistently and repeatedly railed against economic development in Canada for two and a half years. Now, all of a sudden, because there is a byelection in Newfoundland, the people in that part of the country are now going to accept that the members opposite are compassionate. We will not be fooled by that hypocrisy.
Supply March 15th, 1996
The hon. member says: "You would not need these those things". He knows that there is a legally binding contract, affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. The hon. member's reaction opposite is to throw his hands in the air and say, so what?
I am afraid that members on this side of the House and people across the country respect the law and it is high time that the hon. member opposite showed some respect for the law as well.
The hon. member is somewhat agitated and I can understand why. His party has gone down to 13 per cent nationally and it is going to go down the tubes in Newfoundland and Labrador.
The hon. member is making a false case. If he thinks that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are going to buy this new found concern and compassion during an election campaign when you have stood in this House and repeatedly faulted this government for putting money into regional economic development, for putting money into Goose Bay, for putting money into various economic development agreements, for putting money into various institutions in that part of the country, you are the party that have opposed all that.
Supply March 15th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, let me reply to the hon. member's intervention when he said: "I did not speak to the motion". I spoke to his motion. He said: "That the House condemns the government for its neglect of Labrador". The things I have outlined are exactly the things that the government has done for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the things we intend to do in the future. Therefore the first issue is false.
Second, the hon. member says that we are satisfied with the status quo. We are not satisfied with the status quo but we are certainly not satisfied with the approach of the Reform Party. It wishes to cut transfer payments even further. It wants to do away with regional and economic development.
Supply March 15th, 1996
Nervous? Mr. Speaker, I will pay the hon. member $15,000 or $20,000 if he would only run against me. I will hold fundraisers for him if he would only come down and run against me. Run anywhere in Atlantic Canada. I will pay the member $25,000. We will have a fundraiser just for the Reform Party so it can find a candidate.
If the hon. member wishes to take me up on the offer he has to put something on the table also such as a little bit of integrity, a little bit of honesty, a little bit of compassion, as opposed to being this anti-institution, anti-government, anti-individual, anti-Quebec, anti-democracy, anti-everything.
Their ranks are starting to grow, Mr. Speaker. They are like earwigs, they multiply when a little issue comes to the forefront.
One of their caucus members said about their own leader and their own party: "I have had enough of labouring under the image of a party that is downright scary". That does not come from us. That comes from the members opposite which adds to the thesis. This group of Canadians in the Reform Party are not concerned about Newfoundland. They are not concerned about the economic interests in that part of the country. They are not concerned about the economic interests of the people of Quebec or indeed elsewhere. They are playing an old game of cheap, sleazy politics.
This was the politics that the leader of the Reform Party said he was not going to be involved in. He is doing it. That is exactly what he is doing. I find, and I am sure Canadians will find, this kind of conduct very disgusting and will vote accordingly.
I do not need notes to debate the hon. member. I would debate the hon. member anywhere on any subject that he chooses to debate. The problem is that it is very difficult to debate with anyone who uses false and erroneous information and who tries to use poor people and poor regions of the country to his own political advantage.
I say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that the Reform Party has absolutely nothing to offer them in this election, absolutely nothing. The hon. member opposite asks me: "What do you have to offer?". We have lots to offer the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The work that the hon. member who was the member for Labrador for 24 years will continue when we elect a Liberal member of Parliament from that constituency.
In closing, let me challenge the Reform Party. Instead of being anti-poor regions of this country, instead of being anti-Quebec, instead of being anti-those who are less fortunate than you are, stand in your place and put constructive ideas before the House of Commons. Support measures which will help people who are less fortunate than you are as opposed to playing cheap political games.
Supply March 15th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, he just said it all. It proves the point that the hon. member for Fraser Valley East is trying to play politics with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The Vancouver Province of March 14, 1996 described hon. members opposite as: ``Wacko Reform''. In Newfoundland people do not have to be reminded by Vancouver newspapers; they know the Reform Party is wacko reform when it comes to protecting and enhancing their economic interests.
Through ACOA the province of Newfoundland, in co-operation with the Government of Canada, has some of the best economic educational programs in North America. It build not only physical infrastructure but, just as important if not more so, human infrastructure. ACOA has added to that to assist in developing and in diversifying its economy.
The hon. member opposite has not stood in his place during question period over the last two and a half years supporting those efforts. He has criticized them; again my thesis that the hon. member opposite is playing cheap, nasty, dirty politics, which is typical of the leader of the Reform Party.
Perhaps the hon. member should state on the floor of the House of Commons whether he supports the leader of the Reform Party. We know the hon. member for Macleod, the bellhop for the party, does not support his leader. Perhaps I should correct that. The leader of the Reform Party does not support the hon. member for Macleod.
I raise this issue because this is the same member who stood up Thursday after the budget and said we were not putting enough into transfer payments. He had the byelections in Quebec and in Newfoundland in mind when he was saying those things.
What did his leader say this week? His leader cut him off, as he should have cut him off, and said: "I am sorry, there have to be more cuts to transfer payments".
At some point in time some will think it is a flip-flop on the part of Reform members in terms of their interests. They consistently say one thing in one part of Canada and another thing in another part of Canada.
When they go to Quebec they ease up and they are goozy, teary eyed, and they want to be friends to the people of Quebec. When they go to Newfoundland the handkerchiefs come out and they want to ooze up to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; also when they go to Nova Scotia.
Canadians are not fooled by that. They have rejected Reform overwhelmingly and that is why members of its caucus are desperately seeking headlines in the byelection in Newfoundland in terms of misinformation, erroneous information, false information. Newfoundlanders have told me time and time again that the Reform Party is pretty careless with the truth.
The hon. member has not made one sentence in terms of the comprehensive Labrador co-operation agreement of $67.2 million., He has said nothing about the $100 million economic renewal program which will also benefit Labrador. He has said nothing with regard to the Atlantic ground fishery program which will benefit the people of Labrador.
He made reference to one contract consummated by the Supreme Court of Canada which cannot be changed. The only reason he does that, as I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, is he knows it cannot be changed. He is doing it for political purposes. I would have thought the hon. member opposite would have a different view from that of his leader and some of his caucus members and that he would have come here today with constructive suggestions in terms of how the economy in one of the poorest regions of the country could be improved. No, he sets up a straw man, knowing full well what the Supreme Court of Canada has decided.
There is language to describe such conduct. I think the language will be best demonstrated to the hon. member, to the hon. member for McLeod and of course to the famous leader of the Reform Party clearly and unequivocally on election day when the people of Newfoundland and Labrador make their decision and reject overwhelmingly the hypocrisy of this member opposite and of the Reform Party in general.
Supply March 15th, 1996
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues opposite know this will not wash with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I assure them of that.
If they really wanted to debate something that could be resolved quite easily they would have put some other subject matters on. They chose a particular contract, duly consummated between the Government of Quebec and the Government of Newfoundland. This has been adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Canada as being a binding, legal contract on the parties. What does the Reform Party do? It says it should be broken up. To hell with the Supreme Court of Canada.
What hypocrisy. What stupidity. What unbelievable arrogance on the part of the Reform Party to tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that the way to go is to break legally binding contracts.
The hon. member shakes his head. He says: "We are just looking for a new way to resolve this dispute", but he has not given one shred of evidence, one piece of constructive advice.
He disputes the government's position in dealing with this through the provision of internal trade agreements, which negotiations are being led by my very able colleague, the Minister of Industry, as well as the Minister of Natural Resources.
What is taking place here is nothing more than a sham by the Reform Party of Canada.
I thought its members might have talked about certain projects in the province of Newfoundland such as Hibernia, in which the Government of Canada has been involved. No, we have not heard from them on that initiative. They are probably against Hibernia, if the truth were known. If they are in favour of Hibernia, I would think the hon. member opposite would want to stand up to say he fully supports it.
Where are they on CFB Goose Bay? Where is the Reform Party on that issue? Silent. Not a word. Not a reference. No interventions relate to that. The base in Goose Bay, Labrador contributes about $128 million to the province's GDP. That was in 1992. It has probably increased substantially in recent years. It is a significant boost to the economy.
The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is working with community groups intending to foster economic development in that region. Has the hon. member stood in his place and said we need more of that kind of assistance and intervention by the state? No. His colleague stands in the House to criticize minister after minister who is trying to make money available for the purposes of economic development.