House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 61% of the vote.
Canada Post January 29th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, there you have it, more Liberal bulwark.
It is no accident that Canada Post, without notice, chose to purchase that particular courier company. Intelcom was owned by Liberal Party fundraisers connected to André Ouellet, a former Liberal cabinet minister and now Canada Post president, and the present justice minister who is the political minister for Quebec.
Is Canada Post's mandate to deliver the mail or deliver these lucrative opportunities to Liberal Party hacks? Which is it?
Canada Post January 29th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, to most Canadians, Canada Post sells stamps and delivers the mail. To courier companies in Canada, it has another role. It has become a Liberally connected monopoly using its market dominance to stamp them out of business.
The couriers charge that Canada Post's new partner, Intelcom, run by Liberal Party fundraisers, is using insider knowledge and strong arm tactics to capture business from Canada Post suppliers.
Will the minister responsible investigate these questionable tactics or does he believe that Canada Post has the mandate to bankrupt these other couriers?
Government of Canada January 28th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister struggles to finish off his political career on a positive note, his so-called friends in cabinet insist on making it a bumpy road home. Every time he pretends to rein in the largesse of his ministers, especially his former finance minister, another one jumps up and proves again that the Liberal government is rotten beyond repair.
The heritage minister is now taking her turn at proving the Liberals just do not get it. She said recently “Obviously, there's a link between corporate donations and government policy...”. This is quite an admission from a minister of the crown who sits at the cabinet table cooking up the thin gruel that passes for government policy under these Liberals.
We have also learned that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is not above strong-arming her own corporate connections at Heritage Canada to keep her sputtering leadership ambitions funded. She will never have the high priced connections of the member for LaSalle--Émard, but then again she will never have to register any ships offshore either.
Government Contracts December 11th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, we have seen inquiry after inquiry sanitized to the point that there is nothing left in them, far from the truth, anyway. Canadians cannot trust the same ministers who approved the system of rewarding Liberal friends to investigate it. They just will not go for it.
We know the Liberals hate public inquiries. Somalia, APEC and Krever all gave Canadians a glimpse into the Liberal government's incompetence.
Is not the real reason the minister refuses to call a public inquiry that he knows it will lead directly into the Prime Minister's Office again?
Government Contracts December 11th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance called repeatedly last spring for a public inquiry into the Liberal sponsorship scandals.
The public outcry for such a forum continues to build. Canadians now know that several on the frontbench over there are overly friendly with companies that receive millions of dollars in questionable contracts followed by the prerequisite campaign donations.
Now we learn that the Prime Minister gave the green light for his buddy, Jacques Corriveau, a campaign fellow, to belly up to the same trough.
What is stopping the minister from calling a public inquiry? Fear of the truth getting out?
Member for LaSalle-Émard December 10th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, much has been said lately about the Liberal leadership coronation of the member for LaSalle—Émard. If I could offer a little advice: “Be careful what you wish for”. As long as he is only a potential prime minister he can be all things to all people, but when the honeymoon is over he will be on the hot seat: his speeches become public policy, his musings must be taken seriously.
This leads to the second problem. In order to get into the hot seat, he is going to have to get off the fence. He cannot say, as he did recently, that Kyoto should be ratified but is not any good, that he will vote for Kyoto today but the vote should be delayed, that we should go ahead but renege when we find out it is a mistake, and that the provinces should be brought on side but only when it is too late for them to have any influence.
Let us not forget that the former finance minister controlled the purse as $40 billion disappeared from the EI fund, $1 billion poured out through a failed gun registry, another $1 billion leaked out of HRDC and billions evaporated from the CHST health care transfer.
Maybe I should direct my advice to Canadians: “Be careful what you wish for”.
Government Contracts December 9th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the final year was 2001, but in 2002-03 it got another $3.5 million pledged to it, so the problem is that the Liberals have created a system that funnels tax money through their friends' ad firms and then back to the Liberal Party.
Why will the minister not just stand today and say that all of these self-serving programs are gone forever, not delayed, not set aside, not under review, but gone once and for all?
Government Contracts December 9th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, we have a brand new trend here: an actual answer in question period. Will wonders never cease?
In 1997, Public Works endorsed a proposal from Claude Boulay, owner of Groupe Everest, to create Attractions Canada. Taxpayers were already on the hook for the Canadian Tourism Commission. Its former president said, “...there's no real reason to have Attractions Canada up and running”, none at all.
The minister is clearly dragging his feet on cleaning up this abuse of $27 million in taxpayers' money. Is the job too big for him or do these programs simply serve the Liberal Party too well?
Kyoto Protocol December 6th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent point. We rail in this place about our sovereignty and how we need to be in charge of our own destiny, yet we sign it away in a situation like this where we cannot begin to maintain it.
I know the Deputy Prime Minister said that we would ratify it and just never do it but that damages the leadership capability of the country in the rest of the world. We would be a welsher. We cannot do that. If we decide we are going to go on something like this we had better damned well be there. We cannot turn our back on it, make this thing happen, foist it on other countries and then not implement it. God help us if we do.
The biggest problem we will have is ratifying it. The penalties include another 30% in emissions tacked on and no more emissions trading credits. Again we are hamstrung.
Kyoto Protocol December 6th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I guess it comes down to what can we enforce on other countries if it is government to government? Certainly we can show leadership. The Americans have not backed away from the thrust of what Kyoto is all about. They have set their own targets. They are doing a made in U.S.A. plan that targets 18%, virtually what they had agree to in Kyoto. We could do the same thing, and I do not disagree with that, but let us have something that is Canada friendly, that is taxpayer friendly and that at the end of the day we have results we can measure.
The problem with Kyoto is that we have six billion people living on the planet. One billion out of six billion are under the Kyoto protocol. It is doomed to fail. I talked about us being the only industrialized country in the western hemisphere that is hamstrung with a deal that will limit us. We will have jobs and industry leave to Kyoto friendly climates. Rightly or wrongly they are going to do that. They will take the path of least resistance.
I watched a documentary the other night. There are 100 manufacturing companies in southern Ontario that are now setting up businesses, counterparts, in China. There are several reasons they are doing that. There is a large, cheap workforce. They need the products they develop right there so they get close to the market but it is also not covered by Kyoto. They can do what they need to do to make a buck at the end of the day and create those jobs.
In my mind Kyoto is totally the wrong target. We spend all of the time, energy and money chasing the rainbow of CO
2
, the nasty thing it is, and we forget about the 1,200 toxic sites that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has outlined for us. It catalogued them, including the Sydney tar ponds. We spent $60 million studying that green guck out there and have not come up with a solution.
We are targeting Kyoto. We have a straw man who we are chasing, just like gun control. We are chasing guns instead of the bad guys. Here we are chasing CO
2
instead of the really noxious stuff that we need to so that we have a healthy climate and so that we have an economy that can afford to do some handouts for the third world and show some leadership in whatever area they want us to lead.