Lost his last election, in 2008, with 16% of the vote.
Kosovo June 8th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, so far, we know, and there is evidence to back this up, that the Canadian government's position with respect to the KLA has always been complete disarmament. However, we know that the United States and the G-8 nations have now decided to talk about demilitarizing the KLA.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Can he tell us the difference between demilitarizing and disarming the KLA and what the Canadian government's position is today?
Kosovo June 4th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the conflict in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, one element that existed prior to it were the sanctions imposed on Yugoslavia. During the conflict the economic and military sanctions were applied once again.
I would like to know the position of the Government of Canada with respect to an immediate lifting of the economic sanctions in order to permit the people of Yugoslavia, including those of Kosovo, to rebuild their country as quickly as possible. What is Canada's position on the removal of economic sanctions?
Preclearance Act June 4th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the position of the party I represent is very clear. I know that other members wish to take part in the debate. So with great generosity—one big difference between us and certain other parties is our great generosity—I am going to turn the floor over to other parliamentarians. I think that all parliamentarians and the people in the other place should have this positive and open attitude toward the Chair and toward the Canadian public. I will therefore leave my time for other parliamentarians.
Preclearance Act June 4th, 1999
Indeed, it is flying very low.
Having international travellers make a stopover in Canada would have a significant economic impact.
Earlier we talked about free trade. Thank God we signed free trade agreements that opened doors for us.
As I said at second reading of this bill, let us not forget that this does a service to Americans. We must not overlook this fact. For quite some time now we have been telling Americans “Let us facilitate the movement of people from this country”. We have been telling them “If ever undesirables want to enter the United States”—very few of them Canadians, of course, but people from elsewhere—“they will be arrested before they even set foot on U.S. territory”.
This is another thing preclearance does. It has advantages for Canada and advantages for the United States. They tell us “Before entering the United States, travellers from all over will be stopping over in your country. You will have the economic advantage, but we will have an advantage too. If they do not suit us, we will just hand them back over to you”. Then the Canadian justice system will deal with them. They will be protected by the charter. The Americans wash their hands of all this.
It has to be said that this is to their advantage. They will have far less trouble dealing with a possibly undesirable international clientele, because now it is Canada that will deal with it all. They will be returned to their country of origin at Canadian expense, or be processed through the Canadian legal system.
My colleague from the New Democratic Party said “Yes, but the Americans are going to apply their own legislation very strictly”. That may be the case, but they will not do it very often. Someone undesirable will simply be turned over to the Canadian authorities. We will be the ones stuck with dealing with them and expelling them from the country.
We are familiar with the problems often encountered with illegal immigrants involved in crime, and how difficult it is to get rid of them with all the appeal processes there are here. They will come under Canadian jurisdiction.
That said, there is one interesting aspect for this country. This bill casts some light on practices that were already in place. It is a bill that comes to us from the other place and I must draw attention to the work that was done there.
It is often said that in that other place they do not have much to do. If that is so, it is because there is not much happening in this place as far as legislation is concerned. Where is the government's vision on legislation? There is none.
The main work of the other place is to review, analyse, re-examine and possibly amend bills before returning them to us. If they have nothing to do in the other place, it is because there is nothing much doing here.
There are some top-notch people in the other place, as there are many in this House. There are some so-so people in the other place, as there are here too perhaps. Not many, of course, but there are some.
Let us try to focus the energies and strengths that exist in this parliament. Let us also try to improve what is being done and how it is being done. It is not by running down the other place that we will improve things.
If Quebecers and Canadians were asked who they trusted least, the answer might well be this country's politicians, with the exception of yourself, Mr. Speaker, perhaps. That does not mean we should all go out and commit hara-kiri. We must continue to work at improving our credibility and showing that we can make a difference. All members of the House are motivated by one thing: to make a difference for those we represent.
Bill S-22 can also make a difference for those we represent by simplifying business and pleasure travel toward destinations in the United States.
Once again, it is not because the bill comes from the other place that it is bad. I would even say that it is not because an idea comes from the Reform Party that it is bad. Absolutely not. Nor does this mean that all their ideas are always sensible and well thought out. However, the fact remains that we cannot be running each other down. We must get one thing straight, which is that each time we say something bad about the other place in the House, we are saying something bad about ourselves as well.
I am therefore pleased to support Bill S-22, and I wish to congratulate the people in the other place, as well as members of this House, for the very fine work that was done.
Preclearance Act June 4th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise a second time to speak to Bill S-22.
Our party supports this bill. We do not share the criticism of some of our colleagues in the House that the bill comes from the other place.
I listened to Reform members, among others, speaking of the other place. They announced that next week our Reform friends are to have a social event outside the Senate. We wonder whether they will be wearing sombreros. Perhaps they will be in bikinis. Who knows. Next week Reform members will be made fun of once again in the Senate, so the invitation is open to everyone.
They are also saying that people in the country want a complete reform of the Senate, even its abolition. It is true that the Senate must be reformed. It is also true, I think, that we must look at all parliamentary institutions. They quote figures. They say that 45% of people in Canada would like the Senate to be reformed. Why not? They say that 41% of the people in Canada would like the Senate to be abolished.
There may be other polls, but they fail to cite them. If we asked Quebecers and Canadians what they think about their politicians, I am not sure that the rating would be very good. Does that mean that we should commit hara-kiri? There must be a minimum of credibility.
A credible poll was taken in Ontario—a Reform member was speaking of Ontario earlier—not too long ago, which revealed that 91% of Ontarians would not vote for the Reform Party. This was the latest Gallup poll. In Ontario, 91% would not vote for the Reform Party. Does that mean that the Reform Party should disappear or be reformed? Perhaps.
We have to be careful with figures. What I say is that the Senate needs not to be dumped on, but co-operation with this House and a look at how the system could be improved.
This week there was a report on the reduction in the numbers of French speaking Quebecers. There are political safeguards in the Constitution. The fact that 24% or 25% of senators come from Quebec is protection. The fact that one-third of the justices of the supreme court come from Quebec is protection.
We must first respect the Constitution, not denigrate it. We can make disparaging remarks about the other place, but are we not at the same time criticizing this House? We should be very careful.
We do not have a problem with the fact that the bill originated in the other place. On the contrary, people in the other place, particularly those who belong to my party, proposed amendments to Bill S-22, thus making it a very interesting piece of legislation. They are asking, among other things, that the bill be reviewed in five years. Now this is interesting.
After the five-year pilot project, it would be proper and timely to review the preclearance system in terms of its effectiveness. This system could be very beneficial to the whole country, and particularly to Quebec and Canadian travellers, by facilitating transportation and trips to the United States.
There is also an economic issue involved. It is said that Canada is becoming a gateway to the United States. As members know, one of the Canadian carriers is currently experiencing serious problems.
National Defence June 2nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has just told us that he himself spoke today with the U.S. defence secretary, Mr. Cohen.
Can the minister tell us if they discussed the Bonn meeting? Is he now aware of what went on last week? Could he inform the House a bit?
Did the U.S. defence secretary also inform the minister of the agreement that now reflects Russian participation in a military force in Kosovo?
National Defence June 2nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Minister of National Defence of some interesting facts.
A month ago the NATO secretary general asked General Wesley Clark, NATO chief of staff, to prepare a plan for the deployment of ground troops. Last week in Bonn a plan was provided and a call was issued for a meeting of NATO members, to which Canada was not invited.
How are we to be credible in the military action if Canada is not even included in the military planning?
Bill C-55 May 26th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, if that is what we have to show for cultural protection and exemption on the eve of WTO negotiations, it is very dangerous.
The minister has used parliament and the other place to negotiate with the Americans.
Will she at least have the decency to recall Bill C-55 so that we can have a full debate in this place? Otherwise, she should kiss her cabinet colleagues goodbye.
Bill C-55 May 26th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Where in this agreement are the cultural protection and exemption she has mentioned so often? With the agreement announced this morning, the spirit and the letter of Bill C-55 have died.
Will the minister promise to recall Bill C-55 from the Senate and introduce a completely new bill in the House?
National Defence May 25th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the minister has just told us that, whenever a premier or a province does not do what the federal government wants, the government will take exceptional measures, such as expropriating crown land.
This is unacceptable. This is one of the rare occasions on which the federal government will expropriate provincial lands. Is that the new way of negotiating with provincial governments?