House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2015, with 28% of the vote.
Agriculture June 13th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the U.S. farm bill took three years to draft and it attacks Canadian farm families. The Liberals did nothing to stop these attacks and have no effective plan to offset the trade injury. The government expects the provinces to pay for its failures.
Agricultural trade injury was not caused by provincial mistakes. The provinces have zero per cent of the of the responsibility for this disaster, so why should they pay 40% for federal failures?
Petitions June 12th, 2002
I have a petition signed by more than 50 individuals from my riding of Vancouver Island North. The petitioners are asking parliament to ensure all necessary steps are taken to protect our children from any material promoting child pornography and to make it clear that any such exploitation of children will be met with swift punishment.
National Memorial June 12th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the Manitoba government is planning to mark the anniversary of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center with a memorial cairn at the International Peace Garden located on the Canada-U.S. border.
On December 12 I asked the federal government to erect a national memorial to the 24 Canadian victims of the attack. The Minister of Canadian Heritage confirmed that she had no plans to do this.
Canadians were attacked on September 11 and would like an opportunity to express their remembrances at a national memorial, a simple symbol of caring. Britain is planning such a memorial and Canadians expect Canada to do no less than our friends and allies to honour Canadian victims.
Once again I urge the government to raise a permanent national memorial. It should not be left to a provincial government to take the initiative to do what the federal government has yet to do and should have done a long time ago.
Pest Control Products Act June 10th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the member from Vancouver South is absent for the present vote but was here for the previous vote.
Supply June 6th, 2002
Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to give his opinion on the fact that in January we had the former Ontario finance minister talk about this very situation, the so-called overpayment to the provinces by the federal government. He was quoted as saying “There's no way that this series of mistakes by the federal government is going to be visited on the backs of the taxpayers of Ontario.” He also said “We can also terminate the tax collection agreement with Ottawa and collect our own income taxes in Ontario”.
In the following month we have a quote from the British Columbia finance minister who said, “If we are going to keep re-opening these things 10 years back, there is absolutely no way the provinces can continue to work with the federal government on a tax arrangement”.
This all relates of course to the common federal and provincial tax collection system administered by the federal government.
Does my colleague from Surrey Central believe that the efficiency of one tax collection system is at risk if the federal government takes unilateral action to make the provinces pay for the federal government's mistake?
Supply June 6th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the last speaker that this was not a one time mistake. It was a multi-year mistake. At the same time as this mistake was being made the federal government was off-loading health care onto the provinces. The government got rid of 99% of its deficit by off-loading it onto the provinces and through tax increases.
The government took those actions unilaterally. Now it does not want unilateral accountability for this overpayment. What it wants is for the provinces to be accountable for the federal overpayment. Why?
Government Contracts June 6th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the auditor general referred the Groupaction contracts to the police. She found their work to be deficient. Here is what she said:
In summary, we saw very little evidence in the report that all significant contract requirements were met.
Groupaction did not meet contract requirements. Why are we still giving it contracts? We fully expect the minister to give us an unequivocal answer. Will he cut them off now entirely?
Supply June 6th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to talk about the $3.3 billion without also talking about equalization and the impact it has on the provinces. We all know that the equalization formula is changed from time to time and that there is a lot of controversy involved every time that occurs.
It also occurs to me that when the government changes those equalization formulas it is well aware of the financial status of the provinces that are being impacted. Obviously the financial status of those provinces was impacted in some way by the $3.3 billion account. Given that is what must have occurred, is that not another complicating factor that would lead one to the conclusion that this should be forgiven?
Supply May 28th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the Minister of Natural Resources. I was at the same meeting as the minister in Vancouver on April 29 at the premiers summit. I took away something entirely different from that meeting. People were not asking for all of the measures the minister was talking about, the self-justifying $90 million announcements over the last week and a half which are a smokescreen for government inaction on this file. They were looking for what the government would do to address those very real issues that are addressed in today's opposition motion which calls for, among other things, implementing offsetting trade injury measures for the agriculture and lumber sectors. The lumber sector was obviously the subject of that meeting.
Multiple government speakers have all avoided that substantive part of the discussion. Another phenomena has been at work, which is that all those Liberal members of parliament from forest dependent ridings are tending not to speak to the motion. This concerns me very much.
Why is the government continuing to avoid entering into dialogue and discussion on putting in place programs to assist workers and programs to deal with the tariffs, particularly when the minister endorsed such a program as recently as March 29?
Supply May 28th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I must say that I appreciated the comments by the member for Lotbinière--L'Érable and the speaker before that, the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
I have an important question that relates to a couple of things. We had firm statements saying that maintaining resolve on the Canadian side in the fight for free trade required a couple of things. The first one was to support companies.
The Minister for International Trade told the B.C. producers last week that if they wanted support they should see the Minister of Industry. About a week and a half ago the trade minister said that there were no job losses due to the softwood dispute, that rather it was a restructuring issue.
I wonder if the members from the province of Quebec are getting the same message as British Columbians are receiving, which is essentially that the Liberal government does not care about the agriculture and softwood lumber issues.