House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 56% of the vote.
Supply February 20th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe the member for Waterloo—Wellington is steering dramatically far from the issue at hand, which is proportional representation. He is talking about all sorts of issues that have absolutely nothing to do with the motion at hand. Frankly I think it is not showing the due respect that the motion deserves.
Supply February 20th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, that was a truly, legitimate, well thought out and excellent speech as compared to some of the other speeches we heard today. She spoke clearly and honestly. I appreciate that very much and so will Canadians who will be reading this and perhaps viewing this today.
She said the magic word quotas at a certain point in her speech. I am just curious as to why. Having an all-party parliamentary committee looking at some aspects of electoral reform, is it possibly a bridge to the kind of reforms that she is looking at about opening up a system to have more access for women as she described? There is no reason why that could not be included in this exact motion, or that this motion could not be an avenue to precisely that kind of reform that she is concerned about. That could be contained entirely within this motion as well. The fact that she speaks against the motion is unfortunate.
I also notice that, just like some of the previous speakers, she took the issue of proportional representation and grossly oversimplified it. She analysed the issue of proportional representation in the macro level quite well, then tried to apply it vis-a-vis concerns about having more women candidates and a more proportional voice in the House for women. That is fair enough. However, the oversimplification of proportional representation being just this sort of big balloon that she pops from the one angle of having more women in this place does not do this debate justice. It does not do the issue of proportional representation justice.
There are all sorts of models of proportional representation out there. I personally do not happen to be a fan of proportional representation.
I have a couple of questions for the member. She spoke of the need of political parties, maybe her own, to have a quota system for candidates, that 50% of candidates should perhaps be women. Some political parties have that. For example, the NDP in British Columbia has that in its platform.
I am not sure if she thinks that candidacies for political parties should be prorated on some other physical characteristics, for example, income. Should we have candidates of different brackets of income? Some political parties and political scientists have seriously advocated that. Should we have candidates for political parties who represent a wide variety of people with disabilities? Should we have political candidates who represent or are prorated on a wide variety of ages? Different people have advocated that.
If she is willing to bend on this one principle that we ditch equality and prorated candidates based on physical characteristics when it comes to gender, is she willing or interested in doing the same thing with some other characteristics that people have and people are concerned about?
I come to this Chamber having replaced a Liberal member of parliament. Prior to that member of parliament, there was a female candidate who represented my constituency of Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam. Her name is Sharon Hayes. She represented my constituency very well. She is a woman of honour and class.
I asked her what was her greatest frustration as a member of parliament. She said it was her inability to stand up and say what was of concern to her constituents, to have tangible legislative powers at the committee level, to have tangible powers in the House of Commons and to have real reform possibilities in this place. She said those powers are not there because the government, and it is a long entrenched history, does not allow people to stand up for what they believe and that affects everybody, men and women.
Could the member please address the issue of quotas and other aspects? Could she please address the issue of allowing this place to allow more members to have more power and how that affects women?
Foreign Affairs February 16th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the foreign affairs minister said that human rights is intrinsically linked with trade. While that is true, since 1994 and the first team Canada trade mission to China, our trade deficit with China has increased over 300% and human rights abuses in China have become worse, with persecution against the Falun Gong.
He is bragging about this team Canada trade mission to China, but what he is failing to tell the House is that corporate welfare agreements to build the Three Gorges dam is not an avenue to better human rights treatment of the people of China.
Could the foreign affairs minister explain how he will improve human rights abuses in China and ensure that the people there have a better future?
Foreign Affairs February 16th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, economics is one thing and human rights is another.
Mr. Lee is the leader of the democratic party, one of the most important in Hong Kong. He is internationally known as a staunch defender and advocate of democratic rights and is a past winner of the democracy award of the U.S. national endowment for democracy.
How could the Prime Minister overlook such an important democratic ally? What message does this snub send to friends of democracy and human rights in China?
Foreign Affairs February 16th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will spend 62 hours in Hong Kong, the only part of the People's Republic of China with any real experience in democracy. The Prime Minister will not be meeting with Martin Lee, the leader of Hong Kong's largest party and one of Asia's leading Democrats. The Prime Minister said that he could not find a way to fit him into his schedule.
If the Prime Minister wants Canadians to believe that he is promoting democracy and justice in China, how could he explain snubbing Martin Lee?
Human Rights February 12th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I guess the answer is hurry up and wait. In 1999 Canada imported a staggering $8.9 billion worth of products from China. There are reports everywhere from groups such as Amnesty International that some of those products are made by prisoners of conscience in labour camps.
Since 1930 the United States has had a law specifically prohibiting the importation of goods made by prisoners or forced labour. In the mid-1990s the American state department began working aggressively to ensure that goods made by Chinese prison labour were not imported into the United States.
When could Canadians expect a similarly tough attitude in defence of human rights in China?
Human Rights February 12th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has dropped his commitment to justice.
Prior to the team Canada trip news stories were filled with reports of his commitment to human rights in China. Now that he is on the ground there he seems to have changed his tune by saying that Canada is too small of a fry to stand up for what is right.
Canada has endangered species legislation that mandates fines of up to $25,000 or six months in jail for people who knowingly import products from endangered species, so we ban the importation of ivory to protect endangered African elephants. Why is the government prepared to give more protection to African elephants than to Chinese prisoners of conscience?
The Senate February 9th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, today the Prime Minister visits China, in part to promote democracy in that country. On Tuesday, B.C. Senator Ray Perrault retired, giving the Prime Minister a golden opportunity to practise democracy at home.
A replacement senator could easily be elected through B.C.'s senatorial selection act, which encourages the election of senators. This senate vote could be held in conjunction with B.C.'s upcoming provincial election, which must be held by the end of May.
To prove his commitment to democracy, the Prime Minister needs only to tell British Columbians that he will appoint the senator they elect. Respecting democracy at home will clearly make him more worthy to talk about democracy abroad.
With the mechanism in place and an electoral window on the horizon, there seems to be no reason why B.C.'s next senator cannot be elected.
Surely democracy in Canada should come before democracy in China. I hope the Prime Minister takes this chance to show that he agrees.
Supply February 8th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, my first question to the minister has to do with the ethics counsellor. When an ethical blunder that may be worthy of rebuke is reported to the Prime Minister why are the criteria not released to the public?
Second, the minister made constant reference to ethics, policies, great behaviour and integrity. She said that the government has exceeded those expectations. I am curious to know what steps have been taken to rebuke the unethical comments made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration during the election campaign?
Speech From The Throne February 7th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Surrey Central for his excellent speech outlining the grievances of the province of British Columbia.
Could the member comment on a newspaper item I saw just after the federal election campaign? The article quoted a senior minister from Victoria, British Columbia, who said that the results of the November 27 election were not a repudiation of the Liberal government in B.C. and that the Liberals between elections actually eclipsed the Canadian Alliance and Reform Party but that the Alliance seemed to pass the Liberal Party at campaign time. I found this astonishingly arrogant. It speaks exactly to the concerns raised in the member's speech.
Could the member comment on how this might impact on the capacity of the government to appropriately represent our province in the House and to address our grievances, when the senior minister from B.C. on the government bench has this mindset vis-à-vis our province?