Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite said, I would point out that it was the Liberals who were opposed to this.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 64% of the vote.
Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act October 21st, 2002
Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite said, I would point out that it was the Liberals who were opposed to this.
Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act October 21st, 2002
Mine is a true point of order, Mr. Speaker. The procedure and House affairs committee will be dealing with the motion to provide for the election of chairs and vice-chairs of committees this very week. Therefore, I believe it is premature to begin committees when the method for electing chairs is under debate.
However I noticed that currently on the order paper there is Motion No. 230 from the opposition House leader which amends the standing orders to provide for secret ballot elections at committees. Secret ballots make sense for the Speaker and make sense for our committee chairmen. Therefore I ask for unanimous consent to adopt Motion No. 230.
If the House adopts Motion No. 230 today, then the official opposition will certainly have no hesitation in agreeing with the member's proposition to concur in the report on committee membership.
Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act October 21st, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I think the member has it confused. It is not a case of either/or. We are talking about the right of human beings to own and enjoy their property, a concept which the Liberals do not understand. That is why at the end of this week farmers on the prairies will be going to jail for selling their own grain. They do not understand this.
I am talking about those people who are abused when in fact they are innocent. There has to be a clause in the bill which says that if there is an investigation and if doors are broken down and safes are destroyed with explosives, there will be compensation for the loss when the people are found not guilty. That is what we are talking about.
I would like the hon. member to respond positively to that, not make those lame Liberal excuses.
Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act October 21st, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words of my colleague. The ideals, the goals and the principles that are being sought after in the approval of this particular bill are laudable.
However, there are some serious flaws. I intend to vote against the bill despite my colleague's plea because I want to ensure the government gets the message that there is one amendment which is mandatory. I am concerned that Canadian companies would be painted with the same brush as those companies in countries which are guilty of the crimes that my colleague spoke about.
There is a clause in the agreement that says that investigators can walk into a place without warrant and basically do it without any recourse for compensation for any damage that they may cause. That is a great concern to me.
I think an investigation is proper. However if there is damage to property such as breaking down doors and other things, and if the investigation shows that nothing has gone awry, then companies should be entitled to compensation for that damage as a basic protection of that search and seizure.
I would like my colleague to comment on that particular issue. Perhaps he can give me some reason to change my mind on being opposed to the bill on that account.
Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act October 21st, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote against the bill at second reading for one reason: it does not respect private property rights.
There is one thing about being guilty of a misdemeanour, but sometimes there is an investigation of people who are innocent. We believe that Canadian firms will be innocent and will still be subject to the section that would allow investigators to come on to their property, do whatever they want without any liability for any damage caused, including breaking down doors and things like that.
I would like to know whether the member has any concerns about that issue.
Points of Order October 8th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, as the others have expressed, I too express the outrage that we as ordinary members of Parliament feel when we are bypassed over and over again.
It is particularly ironic that the Prime Minister, who has now been at the helm of the Liberal Party for three elections and each time, especially in 1993, said that his goal was to make the role of Parliament more meaningful and to give more useful functions to the members of Parliament. Those were the promises in the red book.
In the throne speech we have had similar statements made. Yet what do we get? Nothing but contempt. I have come to the conclusion that to this Prime Minister Parliament is at best an annoyance and at least is of total irrelevance. It is just a hurdle that stands in his way of doing what he absolutely wants to. At every turn we have closure invoked. We have total contempt of the process of Parliament. We have the government controlling committees. This is but another symptom of that.
We should go a step further today. We should name the Prime Minister, as the leader of the cabinet, in contempt of Parliament for the fact that he has continued to behave in this fashion. I believe he should be called in front of the committee and should be asked to answer to that fact. How long has it been since the ministers have used ministerial statements in routine proceedings? I cannot remember the last time. Maybe it is because my memory is short, but I do not remember it. It is really contemptible that this should happen.
I would like to point out that we already raised the issue when we came back in the fall. Still, there is no positive movement on this from that party. I do not know if I can do this, but I would like to move a motion that the Prime Minister be held in contempt for this process.
Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply October 8th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Surely nothing I said indicated that I was mixing them up. I told an accurate story about Prince Edward Island. I do not care where this member is from.
Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply October 8th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I was driving along in my car one day listening to the radio. CBC was reporting that the Prime Minister was visiting Prince Edward Island in order to deliver a cheque. I think it was an HRDC grant to help open up a call centre. I do not remember exactly the location on the island but I remember being really incensed when the person who accepted the cheque, and they actually played the clip on the CBC, said, “Mr. Prime Minister, we are so glad that you came here and brought us this money. You have been here for us when we needed you and now you can count on it that we will be there for you when you need us at the next election”. I remember that because it caught my attention.
Surely the people of Prince Edward Island must be downright annoyed at being held hostage by the Liberal government because of the threat that the money will stop if they do not vote Liberal. What is the member's response to that?
Nobel Peace Prize October 7th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, Craig Kielburger, at the young age of 12, became a defender of the rights of children around the world, especially those who are forced to work in factories in third world countries and are totally deprived of educational opportunities.
The Free the Children organization that Craig founded has grown to now include over 100,000 members. They have built over 300 schools, providing an opportunity for education to almost 20,000 children who otherwise would grow into adulthood with no education at all.
Craig has received a number of international awards and has forcefully given his message on programs like 60 Minutes and Oprah .
Now, at age 19, Craig has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. The fact that he has come this far shows that anyone, even very young people, can be effective in drawing the attention of the world to issues that are important to them. I wish to extend congratulations to Craig and tell him that we are pulling for him.
Committee Business and Reinstatement of Government Bills October 4th, 2002
Madam Speaker, I need to respond to what this member said.
He said we ought not to ignore the work of committees. The House was in session and committees were struck. They were in place. There was as much need for this prorogation as there was for the election in the fall of 2000. It was redundant. Yet the government has called these things.
The member said he did a lot of work in committee and he did not want it to be lost. I recommend to him that if he does not want his work in committee to be lost, then he ought to listen to what the witnesses said. The committee heard witnesses who strongly urged amendments to Bill C-5, which we support and which ought to be done for the good of Canada. If he does not want to waste his time in committee, then let him listen to the witnesses, support the amendments that would correct and improve the bill, and then his time would not be wasted.
Instead, we hear the witnesses saying one thing and the government agenda coming in with something else. The government whips the vote in committee and forces everything through. It comes back to the House and we land up here in debate. We try to amend the legislation but those amendments are turned down. In the end we simply say that it is indeed a waste of time.
What we need to do in this particular place is to work hard in committees, we need to listen to the witnesses, and we need to ensure that our amendments reflect what the witnesses are telling us. The best example that I have is when I was on the finance committee. We had every witness, without exception, unanimously say that the security tax of $24 per round trip would kill small airports and small air service providers. Every witness who came to the committee said that. Yet what did the government do? It did it anyway. That is what I call a waste of committee time.