James Rajotte

[Points of Order, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During question period the minister stated that there was not a letter and a report from the Investment Dealers Association of Canada. I have a copy here in my hands which, in the interests of openness and transparency for all members of the House, I would like to table a copy of at this time.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have the report right here. Perhaps I could table the report for the hon. member. I do not know exactly what he is talking about.

I would like to ask him again, what other reports does he have and will he state again that the report, which I have in my very hand, does not exist?

[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?