House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 64% of the vote.
Kyoto Protocol December 2nd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the revelation that the Prime Minister had a report from the Investment Dealers Association of Canada saying that implementing the Kyoto accord will harm the Canadian economy, is disturbing because the government has been spending oodles of taxpayer dollars only on propaganda for the accord.
It is time for the government to come clean with Canadians on the accord. What other reports does the government have which show that harm will occur if the Kyoto accord is implemented?
Kyoto Protocol December 2nd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, it is time for the Member of Parliament for Edmonton West to stand up and state clearly where she stands on the Kyoto accord.
She has publicly stated that she would not support this accord if there was no implementation plan. She knows that the government's PowerPoint presentation is not an implementation plan. She knows that the implementation of this accord will damage our economy from coast to coast and do nothing to improve the environment. She knows the effects this accord will have on the economy of Alberta, particularly on the energy sector.
She knows that the Minister of the Environment has alienated almost every province and has gone out of his way to alienate her own. She knows that the Prime Minister completely ignored her, the senior minister from Alberta, when he went to Johannesburg and publicly stated that the government will ratify Kyoto by the end of this year.
It is time for the Minister of Health, the MP for Edmonton West, to do the right thing, to stand up for her province, her constituents, and vote against the ratification of this accord.
Kyoto Protocol November 18th, 2002
We would like to see that tabled, Mr. Speaker. Convention, from past Canadian governments and from the Vienna convention, is that ratification requires all implementation to be passed beforehand.
The government House leader confirmed last week the legislation to implement the Kyoto accord would not be tabled until next year.
Why is the government not following the standard practice of treaty ratification with respect to the Kyoto accord?
Kyoto Protocol November 18th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the Vienna convention and the standard practice of past Canadian governments requires that the government introduce and pass all implementation legislation before moving to formal ratification of an international treaty.
Will the government follow customary procedure and not ratify the Kyoto accord until all federal and provincial implementation legislation is passed?
Kids for A Cure October 29th, 2002
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and honour the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation's first Kids for a Cure Day here on Parliament Hill.
Today 40 children from across Canada living with Type I juvenile diabetes will meet with members of Parliament to share their experiences as well as their hopes for a cure. These youngsters will explain how their reliance upon insulin affects their lives and will stress the need for decision makers to support innovative research advances, allowing the opportunity for research that could potentially lead to a cure.
Diabetes is a very serious disease, as we all know, and a leading cause of death in Canada. Juvenile diabetes affects more than 200,000 Canadians who require daily insulin injections just to live.
I ask all members to join with me and the Kids for a Cure in calling upon Parliament to support research such as the Edmonton protocol and beta cell replacement, so that we may finally vanquish this disease.
Supply October 29th, 2002
Madam Speaker, I would like to pose a question to the member. Aside from the appointments that are listed in the Bloc motion, we know the Prime Minister, regardless of who the Prime Minister is, appoints the Senate, the cabinet and Supreme Court justices. The three branches of government are almost, indirectly or directly, appointed by the Prime Minister. Is the member comfortable, again regardless of which party is in power, with one person having so many powers of appointment in a democratic nation?
Supply October 29th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his usual insightful speech. At the beginning of his speech he touched on the issue of the power of appointment and the need to curb the Prime Minister's power of appointment. He touched on an important point and I would like him to expand on it.
Looking at classical political theory, there are three branches of government in a democracy: the executive, the legislative and the judiciary. The Prime Minister today has power over the legislative branch because he appoints the entire Senate. He appoints committee chairs so he has a lot of control over the House of Commons, particularly through party line votes. He has entire control over the executive branch, the cabinet. As well, but to a lesser extent, he has power over the judiciary through appointments which are not vetted through a parliamentary process.
The three important functions of government are all directly controlled by one person. Regardless of who the Prime Minister is, that is something that should definitely be changed in a democracy. Would my hon. colleague care to comment on that?
Government Loans October 25th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, government documents revealed at the end of January that only 2% of the loans up until that point had been repaid. Now the government's own internal documents projected out to 2020 show that at best only one-third of the loans, investments or whatever we want to call it, will be repaid.
Is that acceptable to Canadian taxpayers, the cabinet of this House and to the government to continue this corporate welfare scheme?
Government Loans October 25th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, three industry ministers have assured the House that the loans made by Technology Partnerships Canada would be repaid. Now we learn that Industry Canada's own documents reveal that, at best, only one-third of the loans will be recovered.
Will the government finally come clean with taxpayers on this corporate welfare scheme?
Lobbyists Registration Act October 25th, 2002
In June 2001, the unanimous second recommendation of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology was that:
--the Act be amended to create a new office, which shall have the exclusive responsibility of investigating and reporting to Parliament on alleged violations of the Lobbyists Code of Conduct
The member says it is nonsense that the ethics counsellor is perceived as not being independent. Then why did government members agree to that unanimous recommendation as well? Why is that not acted on in this piece of legislation.
I know some government members will say that the creation of the new independent ethics commissioner will address that. That remains to be seen. I will keep an open mind on that. However when I read through the bill itself I got the impression that it was referring very much to the old ethics counsellor and was not taking into account the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister proposed somewhat of a more independent ethics commissioner. At least the Liberals should look at making the legislation compare with each other.
My second main point is that we have all these regulations forcing lobbyists to register. That is fine. We have no problem with that, but we need to ensure that there is an effective mechanism in place. Democracy Watch is one group that points to many examples in which that effective mechanism is not in place, and we need to have that.
The final issue I want to raise is the fact that the bill should really be a separate bill dealing with lobbyist registration. It should not be part of the ethics package because the bill simply does not address the ethical issues and problems raised by the situations of the former solicitor general, the former defence minister and the two past public works ministers. If government members believe that this legislation will deal with those ethical situations, I would like them to explain it, because when I go through the bill, those situations do not seem to be addressed at all. It is incumbent upon the current government to address those current ethical problems. Beyond that, the bill and the entire ethics package does not address what I see as a systemic problem with ethics and with the government.
In a society in which politicians will determine who will succeed in business and who will fail, to me corruption is inevitable and endemic. There is just no way to escape that. We have to snip the tie there between government and corporations.
As long as governments are involved in all major economic decisions and active players in the management of the economy, there will be tremendous pressures upon legitimate businesses to curry favour with key players in the government. That is simply a reality to ensure their success or their survival.
I would like to finish up with a quote from someone whom I think has written very astutely on the ethics problems of the government in a very responsible way, Andrew Coyne. In an article in National Post , he said:
--the whole system is one big conflict of interest--a political conflict of interest. It is not necessary to show that any specific act of government was made in exchange for any specific political contribution. It is enough that a reasonable person might suspect the two were linked
He went on to say:
Hence the case for a...model of reform...that does not seek merely to police the relationship between government and private interests, but to disentangle them altogether--to “snip the wires” of money and influence that lead between them, in both directions.
Therefore we are obviously supportive of the government's intent to move this to committee before second reading, because we look forward to proposing a lot of substantive amendments there. We appreciate some of the amendments made and some of the responses to the committee, but we do want Canadians to know that we very much see this as incomplete. We very much see the ethics package as a whole as incomplete. We do not want this seen as part of a new ethics package. We want this seen as what it is. It is a response to the committee report of June 2001.
Most of all we want to ensure that we deal with the ethical situations that have been presented to us in the last year and a half. However we also want to see, particularly with regard to this legislation, an effective mechanism to deal with the registration of lobbyists. It is fine to have all sorts of regulations stipulating that lobbyists must register but we need to ensure that there is an effective mechanism in place to ensure compliance with the system.