Stockwell Day

[Trans Fats, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, today NDP members are asking us to vote to protect Canadians, especially children.

Are they voting today to support our motion to protect children from exploitation of pedophiles by raising the age of consent from 14 to 16? No. Are they joining us to close Liberal loopholes in the kiddie porn law? No. Are they voting against Liberal legislation which makes marijuana more accessible? No. They figure marijuana is not bad for our health.

What evil would they ban? Why, it is none other than the malicious trans fats which presently lurk on Tim Hortons shelves, in cracker boxes in grocery stores, and in grandma's Christmas baking. Trans fats do affect cholesterol levels. But the NDP's usual approach to massive government intervention in our lives will assault the entire food industry, food costs, and all exports and imports. It is not a thoughtful way to address the issue.

Are they suggesting the system of labelling and education we have for riskier products, like tobacco and alcohol? No. Do they abstain from trans fats themselves? No. I watch them at coffee breaks, inhaling cookies and doughnuts faster than anyone. This is not the road to better health.

[Terrorism, November 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the member said that he would call on them but it does not sound like the government has actually made that call yet. It is important that it does so.

On a similar note, four years ago the Privy Council warned the government about organizations that were raising funds in Canada for Palestinian terrorist groups. One of those organizations was the Jerusalem fund, now called IRFAN, and that group still raises money for Palestinian terror groups today.

Even Saudi Arabia has announced that it will shut down those types of organizations within its country. When will our country at least rise to Saudi Arabia's standard and shut down these groups that are raising money for Palestinian terror groups?

[Ukraine, November 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, disturbing reports are coming out of Ukraine today following yesterday's election. It appears that anti-democratic forces are threatening to resist the results of the election if it does not go in favour of the existing regime.

Other countries have already sent diplomatic warnings that if this is the case there will be severe implications on diplomatic policy.

Has Canada sent a similar warning to the existing regime in Ukraine that we will not countenance and we will be very concerned if there is a resisting of the democratic outcome in that election?

[Middle East, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, protecting people from terrorism is not a notion. It is a necessity. The member probably does not realize that Canada is not one of the four nations at the table negotiating a road map to peace in the Middle East. The very least we could be doing is ensuring that Canadian taxpayer dollars are going to Palestinians in need, not to terrorists who are determined to wreck the process.

Why is the government afraid to demand accountability from these agencies that we fund?

[Middle East, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the government has made a decision to fund the UN Relief and Works Agency despite the fact that there is clear evidence that this UN agency has on its payroll agents of the terrorist group Hamas.

Why is the government taking such a casual attitude toward the security of Palestinians while it has terrorists in its midst?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we would like to see some smart MPs along with those smart borders.

While the Prime Minister begs his MPs to hide their prejudices, they continue to defy him. Yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs said not to worry about these harmful statements, they come from “obscure MPs”.

As these MPs continue these harmful statements, what specific steps is the Prime Minister prepared to take to accelerate their obscurity?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister hinted today that he does not agree with the Liberal statement that Americans are psychologically messed up.

Will he disavow any of these other Liberal statements like the one comparing U.S. policy to “Nazi aggression in Europe”; this Liberal foreign policy gem, “We will have to rewrite history so that Pearl Harbor is no longer described as an atrocity”; or a minister comparing American trade groups to cancer and another minister saying, “We are surrounded with a certain menace, starting with the United States”?

Will the Prime Minister help us understand which of these are actual Liberal positions and should be supported, and which are not and should be disciplined?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, November 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as usual, the minister did not answer the question. Critical issues such as mad cow, softwood lumber and the missile defence shield are very important to Canada. Why did the Prime Minister allow his ministers and MPs to establish our position through their ill-advised indiscretions? Why?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, November 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's approach to dealing with strategic Canadian interests is to allow his MPs to continue this volley of toxic verbal missiles across the border to Americans.

Would he make a commitment today that in the future he will change his strategy and publicly discipline or reprimand his ministers or his MPs when they damage Canadian interests? Would he be willing to do that?

[Terrorism, November 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we have been asking for some time for that to happen. In a rare moment, I want to say thank you for finally following through.

It still brings us down to this point: that these things happened long after the United States and our allies named this group. This group was a threat to the United States, a threat to Great Britain, a threat to Israel, and long after we continued to have this policy of going slow.

We want to know if there will be a change to that. Who is it that these people are afraid of offending, our allies or the terrorists?