Bryon Wilfert

[Canada Elections Act, September 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, saying it does not make it so.

I support the principle of fixed election dates, however the hon. member has said that snap election dates are out and that a government cannot manipulate the process. There is absolutely nothing in the legislation that prevents the government or any future government from manipulating the process. It does not define what votes of confidence are.

Later today we are going to have a vote on the softwood lumber deal. The government, which just the other day and over the summer, said that if in the vote did not go its way, it would be a vote of confidence, the government would fall and we would have an election. At the same time it has Bill C-16 before the House. To me, that is inconsistent and indeed almost hypocritical to suggest on the one hand that we are bringing in fixed election dates, but still not dealing with the process.

How does the legislation prevent the government from manipulating election dates when in fact it is silent on it?

Unless there is an amendment, which clearly defines what votes of confidence would be, we will be subject to future manipulation by the government. I suggest that the real target is to tell the public to feel good, that we will have a fixed election date in four years, when the reality is get ready, we will have one either later this year or early next.

[Canada Elections Act, September 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about the election dates being fixed and how governments have at the moment discretionary power in order to call an election at their whim for political purposes. I certainly agree with that, except that in the beginning of the bill it states that the Governor General still has discretionary power to dissolve Parliament.

The government of course can go to the Governor General and say that this was a vote of confidence. The bill does not define what is a vote of confidence. Is it only going to be, as I suggest it should be, on the Speech from the Throne and on the budget?

Governments still have the power to dissolve Parliament based on what they perceive to be a vote of confidence. If the government is really serious about fixed election dates it will define that. Otherwise, by saying that in fact we are going to have a fixed election date four years from now does not prohibit in the interim this government or any government in the future from calling an election based on a perceived vote of confidence.

That is the weakness I see in the bill. Neither the government House leader nor members of the government have been able to address that, which to me is window dressing and not dealing with the real issue. The real issue is how to prevent an election from happening either by accident or still by design by a government, which the member claims she does not support.

[Canada Elections Act, September 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, historically on the issue of fixed election dates, the government when it was in opposition talked about the fact that the previous government was threatening to have votes of confidence on various issues. The government said then that it should be narrowed down to only a few issues.

I would suggest that the Speech from the Throne and the budget are the only two areas where votes of confidence should occur. Obviously the Speech from the Throne outlines the program of government and the budget gives government the fiscal tools to implement that Speech from the Throne.

In its legislation, the government talks about fixed election dates on the one hand, but on the other hand the government is constantly throwing up straw men by suggesting that the vote on softwood lumber, on Afghanistan or something else could be a vote of confidence.

Does the hon. member agree with my view that the votes on the Speech from the Throne and the budget should really be the only votes of confidence because they test whether the government in fact has the will of the House on these two critical issues? Or does he believe that there should be others? Again, does the member believe that there should be a very prescribed approach rather than this knee-jerk reaction, which we have often heard from the government now that it is in power, that every time it feels threatened it will call an election because the government is obviously looking for an excuse to go to the people?

[Foreign Affairs, June 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Aung San Suu Kyi, the pro-democracy leader in Burma, spent 10 of the last 16 years under house arrest. She was due to be released on May 27, but her detention was extended. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan appealed to the head of Burma's military junta to free her.

I believe the time has come to demonstrate leadership on this issue and work with fellow member states to embrace the report of former Archbishop Desmond Tutu and former Czech President Václav Havel.

Is the Minister of Foreign Affairs prepared to endorse this initiative and take appropriate steps to free Aung San Suu Kyi?

[Iran, June 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Baha'is of Iran have been persecuted throughout their history. With the triumph of the Islamic revolution in 1979, the persecution has been systematized. More than 200 Baha'is have been executed or killed, hundreds more have been imprisoned and tens of thousands have been deprived of jobs, pensions, businesses and educational opportunities.

The approximate 300,000 member Baha'i community is the largest religious minority in Iran. The Baha'is have been oppressed solely because of religious intolerance. The progressive stands of the Baha'is on women's issues, education have particularly infuriated Muslim clerics.

This problem however has crossed borders. A group of Baha'is in my riding are concerned that their relatives in Iran are at risk from the increasingly aggressive Islamic regime.

In recent months I have written the Minister of Foreign Affairs regarding a series of short term arrests of Baha'is on undeclared charges. The pattern of actions by the Iranian authorities is threatening. It is essential that Canada play a role in promoting human rights for Baha'is around the world.

[Foreign Affairs, June 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the security situation in Dili has deteriorated significantly. Recently 600 soldiers were dismissed because there were complaints of discrimination, which has triggered the current crisis. On May 30, the president declared a 30 day state of emergency in Timor-Leste.

In light of the recent developments, there are concerns that the country could descend into civil war. In recent years Canada has provided security assistance and election monitoring.

It is clear that Canada has shown a leadership role in Timor-Leste in the past. Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell the House how Canada is responding to the present crisis?

[Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, June 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, June is ALS month. The ALS Society of Canada, founded in 1977, is the only national voluntary health organization dedicated solely to the fight against ALS, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease.

The ALS Society is the leading not for profit health organization working nationwide to fund ALS research and work to improve the quality of life for Canadians affected by the disease.

I have a friend, Ben Lindberg, who has ALS. Imagine not being able to walk, write, smile, talk, eat and sometimes breathe on one's own, and yet one's mind usually remains intact and one's senses unaffected. This is what ALS is like for Ben and the 3,000 Canadians who live with the disease.

There is no effective treatment for ALS and no known cure yet. Eighty per cent of people diagnosed with ALS die within two to five years. Two to three Canadians with ALS die every day. Two to three Canadians are diagnosed with ALS every day.

Volunteers and staff of the ALS Society participate in annual fundraising events, including Walk for ALS, Hike4ALS and the Concert of Hope.

I urge all Canadians to donate to their provincial ALS societies.

[The Environment, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this party knows where we stand on the environment. That party is still trying to make it up and figure out where they stand.

The Climate Institute recently published its findings on the Asia-Pacific partnership and it paints a very grim picture. The institute said that the AP6 modelling showed emissions would more than double worldwide by 2050.

Why does the Minister of the Environment want to convince Canadians and the House we should join something which the U.S. Congress clearly sees is a failure?

[The Environment, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of the Environment was in Bonn for a nine minute speech to tell the world that Canada was abandoning the Kyoto accord, she was hyping the U.S. Asia-Pacific partnership. Just last week, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to kill all U.S. funding for the Asia-Pacific partnership. Not one congressman, Democrat or Republican, tried to save the money: $46 million of funding for climate change, 30% of the entire partnership's budget gone.

Would the minister tell us why Canada should join a partnership whose biggest contributor has just walked away?

[Interparliamentary Delegations, May 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-Japan Interparliamentary Group respecting its participation at the 14th annual meeting of the Asian-Pacific Parliamentarians Forum held in Jakarta, Indonesia, from January 15 to January 19.