House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 48% of the vote.
Auditor General's Report February 27th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, talk about Liberal arrogance.
A series of audits since 1996 have revealed that there were many managerial and ethical breaches in the sponsorship program. Words like incompetency, arrogance and disregard for taxpayer money can be used to describe the management of this program.
Why is there a conspiracy of silence on the front benches?
Auditor General's Report February 27th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, let me quote what the President of the Treasury Board said yesterday. He said “It is doubly possible there was a cover-up”.
Cover-up, cover-up, cover-up. The culture of corruption has to stop. Canadians are demanding it.
We want to know why he said that there was a possibility of a cover-up?
Foreign Affairs February 26th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, let me tell the minister that he has not signed this convention and that, according to Transparency International, Canada has been slipping in terms of its perceptions of the degree of corruption as seen by business people, academics and risk analysts.
The first step toward restoring confidence would be for the political players to accept responsibility for the sponsorship scandal. Where is this accountability? Why is no one owning up to responsibility on the front bench?
Foreign Affairs February 26th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the sponsorship scandal has established without doubt that this Liberal government is now tainted with a culture of corruption.
Next week the Prime Minister is planning to visit Secretary General Kofi Annan at the United Nations Headquarters. Canada has refused to sign the UN convention against corruption, which was adopted on October 31, 2003, at the United Nations General Assembly. Why is Canada refusing to sign this convention? Why?
Customs Tariff February 25th, 2004
Madam Speaker, I would like to now dwell on the point of preferential tariff and the least developed country tariff. We know that in order for developing countries to get out of poverty, it is more important that they engage in fair trade practices where they have access to the markets of developed countries.
I grew up in Tanzania, a country that is classified as a least developed country. We see the poverty over there on our televisions. We see Canadians helping building wells, hospitals and classrooms.
The pictures that we do not see are the people, like my family and other families who used to live over there, engaging in businesses. We never see the developed side of those countries. Now there is a huge element of development in these countries where businesses thrive and succeed.
To help them become an engine of economic growth, they need a market. For a long time the western world market was closed. It used to be one-way trade when I was there. Everything went from here to there, but nothing came from there to Canada. As a matter of fact those countries were just supplying raw products to developed countries. However, that does not create prosperity. Prosperity is when they have products growing over there, when they manufacture and make products in their own country and then they sell them.
Coming out with the general preferential tariff and the least developed country tariffs, where there is almost zero tariffs, gives this country the opportunity to access those markets, where it can help those countries. Of course, the problem now is we have to look at how we can help these countries with investment flows so they can take advantage of these tariffs. If there is no investment flowing to those countries and if they do not have an industrial base, what is the point of having preferential tariffs, if they cannot export anything to other countries?
I know the Prime Minister was appointed by the United Nations to look at private investment flow. As a matter of fact, I wrote to him, not in the his capacity of the Prime Minister, but his capacity as a member of the United Nations panel looking into private investment flow. I gave him my input on what I thought should have been part of his report on how we could assist in sending private investment to these countries so eventually they could enjoy economic growth.
It has become quite evident and all studies suggest that because of globalization almost 200 million people have been lifted out of poverty, both in China and India. There is concrete proof out there, contrary to what my friends in the NDP would say, that globalization has not worked.
In conclusion, we are supporting the bill. Although the bill is for 10 years, there are other venues that we have to look at to ensure that we reach the objective of tariff reduction, which is to help the least developed countries and developing countries.
Customs Tariff February 25th, 2004
Madam Speaker, there has been some confusion and we will not be splitting our time now. He will get his own spot.
Customs Tariff February 25th, 2004
Madam Speaker, I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to split my time with the member for Edmonton--Strathcona.
Customs Tariff February 25th, 2004
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-21, an act to amend the customs tariff.
The minister of state articulated the need to extend this program, which has been in existence for some time and will come to an end on June 30, 2004. He gave his Liberal spin on it, indicating that it would help everybody in the Third World developing countries. He said that we should continue with it.
We in the Conservative Party agree with the minister and will support the bill because of another aspect. If we do not support the bill, then there could be the possibility of no tariffs and this would result in our markets being flooded by uncontrolled goods coming into the country, which would impact Canadian jobs.
We need a regime of controlled access, giving preferential treatment to developing countries and the least developed countries as well as ensuring that our markets open up slowly to foreign goods, while at the same time taking advantage of it.
We are more in line with having what we call free trade agreements. In light of the fact that the WTO talks in Cancun collapsed, it becomes more important for the world trading regime to consider what to do about tariffs. That is critically important because, in globalization, all studies have indicated that a reduction of tariffs in foreign trade is beneficial to everybody, including Canada.
I will be splitting my time, Madam Speaker, with my colleague from Edmonton--Strathcona.
It is important to understand that a country like Canada, which is based on exports and has a GDP of 48%, now close to 45%, has a regime that regulates international trade. We would like to see this being done under the guise of free trade agreements or special agreements with other countries that would benefit our exporters, benefit other consumers and benefit other countries as well as, with lower tariffs thereby giving an advantage to everyone.
As things stand right now, due to the collapse of the WTO talks in Cancun, we do not know where the world trading regime will go. For that reason, we will support this bill because we need a regime that will control the flow of goods until we know the outcome of the WTO talks, should they carry on and what agreements will come into play.
We are talking about two tariffs, the GPT, or the general preferential tariff, and the least developed country tariff.
I think I have articulated the reasons why we will support the bill. In short, until the outcome of the WTO talks and other tariff regimes on controlling the flow of goods come into play, will support the bill.
Supply February 24th, 2004
Madam Speaker, let us say it this way. For those of us who were living in the west during the national energy policy, we know exactly what happened.
The member was living in Toronto. He is from Toronto. What does he know? He was not there to feel the pain of Albertans when his government was taking money out of the province. He should have lived there and then he would have known what the pain was the pain in that part of the world. I lived under that rule. He lives in Toronto. He thinks everything is fine because the money was flowing into his province at that time.
Supply February 24th, 2004
Madam Speaker, that is typical Liberal garbage calling my comments stupid. The sky is falling. Those members are always reporting these things. The only point I can agree on was when the member said that the government was scrupulous.
The member talked about armaments and about the war in Iraq, and about this issue. There are types of treaties. Parliament decides whether to join in war or not. To say that armaments are the responsibility of a company is absolutely class nonsense. It is weak. It is the government that chooses to go to war. It is the government that chooses to fight over there. Under the rules, we have to tell the government whether it goes to war or not. We should not be telling companies what to do.
All we said about the Canada pension plan was for the government to maximize its interest in companies. If there were no war in Iraq and children were not dying, nobody would be selling any of those things. Those companies would not be selling their stocks and we would not be buying their stocks.
That party's usual garbage about the world falling apart is just a typical NDP way of doing business.