House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 64% of the vote.
Ethics October 3rd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister continues to avoid withdrawing his own proposal for a double standard between MPs and cabinet ministers.
The Prime Minister is proposing an independent ethics counsellor for backbenchers and their spouses, but a carefully chosen duty counsel for himself and his cabinet.
Will the Prime Minister pledge to withdraw this proposal and propose instead an independent ethics commissioner for all parliamentarians?
Ethics October 3rd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I guess we will see if he intends to proceed with it.
We all know what he is trying to do. He is not fooling anyone. He has scandals and conflict of interest problems with his cabinet and instead of dealing with those he is trying to insist that somehow there are ethics problems with ordinary members of Parliament, and there is not.
If an independent ethics commissioner is good enough for backbench MPs, it should be good enough for the Prime Minister and his cabinet. Will the Prime Minister commit to introducing a truly independent ethics commissioner for all parliamentarians?
Ethics October 3rd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister about his new ethics package coming out of the throne speech. This package sets a new standard for double standards, an independent ethics counsellor for MPs and their spouses but the current lapdog arrangement for cabinet ministers. What the Prime Minister wants to do is have control over people who do not make the decisions around here and have no control over the people who do make the decisions.
Will the Prime Minister agree to withdraw this proposal?
Iraq October 2nd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, in all of that the Prime Minister failed to say whether he is working with our allies or not, so let me ask the question a different way.
Yesterday evening in the House the defence minister suggested that U.S. policy in Iraq has not been rules based or consistent with international law. Specifically he compared American policy to “the law of the jungle”. To be clear, is this the government's evaluation of the American approach to Iraq?
Iraq October 2nd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister has come a ways from saying that he needed proof.
There are also mixed signals from the government on its willingness to act on Iraq. So, to be clear, is the government now saying that it is standing with the allied coalition, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and others, demanding that there be clear consequences for Saddam Hussein for failure to comply with the United Nations resolutions?
Iraq October 2nd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, over the past few weeks the government's position on Iraq has been unclear and shifting. So to be clear now on the Iraqi threat, does the government now accept reports from security agencies in the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries, including CSIS, that Saddam Hussein represents a significant international security threat, that he has been developing weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological and nuclear, and that he would be willing to use these against his neighbours?
Iraq October 1st, 2002
Mr. Speaker, in the few moments I have left it is probably too difficult to deal with all the questions that have been raised by the hon. member. Let us just say that we have an immediate problem in front of us and that problem must be resolved obviously through, I think, a wide range of means.
All of us here in all parties would agree that we would like to see Iraq return to the family of nations and we would like to see the people of that country enjoy all of the benefits of the international community.
This obviously goes far beyond. It raises many hypothetical questions about how that could be achieved and whether it could ever in fact be achieved under the current regime. Some of us here are very skeptical about that but I do not think we can answer all those questions today. I think the task before us is to make absolutely clear that we have some security objectives that must be attained if any of this is to move forward in a positive manner.
Iraq October 1st, 2002
Mr. Speaker, in answer to that question, I would like to quote, if I may, the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
True, there are issues with the resolutions dealing with Israel and with the money owed by the United States and other countries.
I think such comments are not useful to the much more serious debate we are having here. I also think it is important, in particular, not to make any comparison with Israel and the United States, which are our allies, our friends, but also members of the democratic family of nations. It is totally pointless to make any comparison between these countries and Irak under the regime of Mr. Hussein.
Iraq October 1st, 2002
Mr. Speaker, doing nothing will not exempt us from the possibility of those kinds of actions in the future. It always amazes me that the Liberals fail to see these kinds of problems.
One of the reasons our party insists that we work closely with our allies on these kinds of matters, particularly the United States, is that we share, not just an economy, a continent, a history and geography with the United States, but in particular that we do share geography. An attack on the United States of a biological, chemical or nuclear nature, particularly if that nature is widespread, would be an attack on this country. We cannot, through the morally neutralist positions of the Liberal Party, exempt ourselves from potentially being hit with those kinds of attacks. Therefore I would urge the hon. member against that kind of thinking.
Obviously I would repeat that we should pursue every means possible with obviously minimal violence to achieve our objectives but we cannot rule out any measures necessary to achieve what was sought in the gulf war and what is being sought in existing United Nations resolutions.
Iraq October 1st, 2002
Mr. Speaker, obviously, with or without war, we are talking about extremely high and almost incalculable risks and cost. None of us should be fooled by that.
The hon. member did not listen carefully to my speech. I said in my speech that Canada should be party. I praised Britain and the United States for pursuing further diplomatic resolutions through the United Nations. I complimented the government for supporting those diplomatic actions.
What I am suggesting is that these steps and, frankly, the efficacy of these steps cannot end in mere diplomacy. There must be a willingness to apply real capabilities to ensure and to make sure Saddam Hussein understands that our desires and the resolutions previously adopted by the United Nations will be adopted.
I will also scold the hon. member. As I said in my remarks, the situation we have today is a continuation of the gulf war and the ceasefire situation that was left over from that war.
Brian Mulroney, the then Prime Minister and leader of his party, did not hesitate to do the right thing. He did not quibble about cost. He did not quibble about diplomacy. He did not quibble with these intermediate positions the member is now taking. The position Mr. Mulroney took in 1991 was correct. This party is prepared to pursue and fulfil the conditions of that position through today.