House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 78% of the vote.
International Aid March 8th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, while this government dithers, people suffer.
Honest Canadians and NGOs are ready to get on with the reconstruction projects. More than 12 weeks have passed. Not a single matched donation has been paid to the Red Cross or any other Canadian NGO, aside from the initial $3 million promised for tsunami relief.
Canadians know the difference between a lot of hot air and money in the bank. Do the tsunami victims not deserve more than empty promises?
International Aid March 7th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, speaking of promises, after $250 million went missing in the sponsorship scandal, the Liberals promised they would change the way they did business.
In a recent report, the Auditor General revealed that the Liberals still cannot keep track of foreign aid grants. Contrary to repeated recommendations, tsunami aid will be delivered through unaccountable grants, with no money for value oversight.
Do Canadians, who gave generously to the tsunami relief, not deserve better than Liberal promises made and Liberal promises not kept?
International Aid March 7th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has been dogged by reports of cronyism, corruption and cover-ups for years. The Auditor General continually criticizes the financial mismanagement and the lack of accountability in the government's spending.
Media reports today confirm our worst suspicion, that Canada's promised tsunami aid money is still sitting in the Liberal government's coffers and not going to those in need.
Is this yet another Liberal promise made; Liberal promise not kept?
Petitions February 25th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the petition that I wish to present today on behalf of my constituents concerns children suffering from an autism spectrum disorder. It calls upon Parliament to amend the Canada Health Act to include intensive behavioural intervention therapy for children with autism as medically necessary treatment.
It requests that all provinces provide or fund this essential treatment for autism and to contribute to the creation of academic chairs in each province to teach this treatment at an undergraduate level.
Auditor General's Report February 16th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has taken CIDA to task for financial mismanagement yet again. This time she reprimanded the minister for a 25-fold increase in money funnelled through grants that are not audited or accountable. Even worse, seven out of eight audited cases show that CIDA pays out money before work is done, cutting lump sum cheques without proper authorization.
What is the minister hiding, or does she not know what is going on in her department?
Auditor General's Report February 16th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the CIDA budget tops $2 billion annually, but the Liberal government continues to treat taxpayers with disrespect and arrogance.
The Auditor General shocked Canadians yesterday when she revealed that Canada's foreign aid budget is being squandered on goods never received and services never rendered.
Is this a case of simple incompetence or is it another sponsorship scandal in the making?
The Environment February 16th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, sometimes we read the papers for the news and sometimes we read them for the funnies. Today we had both in a National Post article about the environment minister's speech last night.
Students, journalists and policy makers across the country watched in horror as the environment minister twisted himself like a pretzel to link Kyoto to foreign aid. The minister suggested that trading hot air credits with Mexico and Brazil would really show Canadian leadership and boost the fortunes of developing nations.
After listening to his speech, we agree with his comment, “We have a lot to improve”. But he should start by learning the difference between an emerging market and a developing nation.
Canadians know what is really going on. The government has no real plan for meeting Kyoto targets and this wacky scheme is just another way for the Liberal government to turn CIDA into a private slush fund.
Tsunami Relief February 11th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, six weeks after the tsunami tragedy in southeast Asia, the TV cameras have come home and the Liberals can finally have a cabinet meeting in Ottawa.
Reports now reveal that refugee camps in Sri Lanka are still waiting for tents and food. As feared, the conflict between the government and the Tamil Tigers is blocking the flow of aid. The Prime Minister assured Canadians that this would not happen.
Will he admit that he has mismanaged this humanitarian crisis and failed to deliver on another promise?
Middle East February 11th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the foreign affairs minister announced that Canada's role in the Middle East peace process amounted to yet another fact finding mission and paltry $100,000 in aid.
We have seen the appetite for real leadership and generosity by individual Canadians. Yesterday, the Canadian Jewish community announced $750,000 in private contributions to Palestinian medical needs. That is seven and a half times more than the government.
The Conservative Party is listening to the expert advice of Arab and Jewish Canadians that are calling for Canada to play a leading role to establish a viable, independent Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel.
Liberal mismanagement and weak foreign policy is embarrassing for all Canadians. Our neighbours to the south pledged $350 million to support Palestinian reforms. The $100,000 will not make us a major player in the region as promised by the Liberal government.
Will the Liberals follow the Conservative lead and make a substantial financial commitment to institution building in Palestine?
Department of International Trade Act February 9th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Calgary East is very passionate about this issue, as are many of us.
We need to recognize the concerns that we have with the bill. I will be putting my support behind the bill simply because we need some answers and the only way we appear to get answers from the government is by asking witnesses to appear before our committees. We have some tremendously important questions that need answers.
The fundamental question in my mind is why we moved forward to divide the department and then decided we were going to finally have an international policy review. What is the policy review going to tell us? What if it tells us that we should not have divided the department, that it is not for the good of the country to have done this?
I have a rather long history of working with the trade department. I made some good friends in that department. In my former life I represented agrifood exporters and producers across the country. I was president of the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance which represents 90% of the country's agrifood exports, not just products from the farm but products that have had value added to them. Canada is an export dependent country. We can never forget that. It is fundamental to our future and the businesses that fuel our economy.
I have worked with the trade department and also with foreign affairs. In my past life I have had a very good working relationship with the people in the trade department and the people in foreign affairs. I sense some very grave concerns within the Pearson building. I have spoken with good people who work hard for this country. They have been doing dual duty. They have been working for trade and foreign affairs. There are also those who have been working for CIDA. They all fit under this umbrella group. Later we will get into the funding questions.
Those people are very frustrated with the situation. They too are asking, “Who made this decision? Why were we, as participants in this, not asked our opinion?” How many Canadian businesses were actually consulted on this decision before it was made? Was it simply made, as we have heard on many occasions, to create another ministry? That is the question I would like to ask the ministers when they appear before the standing committee. If we do not approve the bill in principle and move it forward to the committee stage, we may never hear those answers.
I would like to see something in writing from the businesses that might have actually requested this. I would suggest there probably are not too many businesses that requested this to happen.
In recent months I have been in consulates in a number of different places: Hong Kong; Seoul, South Korea; Tokyo; Brazil; and Santiago, Chile. I heard the same concerns from the good people in the dual roles in these consulates. They did not know if they had a future and did not know what that future might be. They were concerned about the role they were going to be able to play.
Those people have worked supporting trade and foreign affairs and indeed they have roles within CIDA. They have worked well. It was very obvious they were concerned about their futures. I would be most interested when this bill gets to committee stage to bring some of those people to committee, provided they have whistleblower protection so they can actually make some serious comments about their futures and how their departments have worked in the past.
That is not to say this may not be a good thing for business, but let us sit down and look at it. Let us sit down and question all of the people who are involved. Let us find out the fundamental reason that this is being done.
In 1982 when the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade was formed, industry was part of it. We decided at that time to take industry out of it. In the back of my mind I am still questioning whether or not that was a good thing, because industry still is a big part of trade. We have too many departments and, pardon me for suggesting this, maybe we have too many ministries too. We wonder about all of the different ministers travelling around the world making conflicting statements that do not seem to put forward the agenda that is needed to make this country work better.
Regarding the splitting of the department, it would be very interesting to see the international policy review, if in fact we ever do see it. I am becoming skeptical as to whether we will actually see this in my lifetime, or shall I say in my career here in the House. I believe it was promised in November and there does not seem to be too much indication that it will be coming anytime soon. In fact we are hearing that it has been delayed once more.
The suggestion is that this is a housekeeping bill. It is far beyond a housekeeping bill. It is very critical that this type of discussion take place. It is critical for the future of businesses in this country. I also want to find out if it is simply a bill to divide the two departments to create more jobs for Liberals. I want to find out why there has not been the public consultation that is needed to determine whether or not this is the right way to go. We have some very serious questions and huge concerns about this.
We have other concerns not only about CIDA's role, but also about CIDA's funding. We are very concerned about the reaction to the tsunami. Hopefully this will be addressed in the international policy review process. Certainly we needed to support those people in that disaster as strongly as we could, but we are still uncertain where that money is coming from. Is it coming from the Department of National Defence? Is there money coming from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade through CIDA that is going back to replenish the funds that we have taken out of defence? We have some very serious questions along those lines.
My hon. colleague on the other side of the House, my opponent, spoke about some of the contracts that were negotiated. There is one which I would like to mention once again. He and I have had this discussion. He was very excited about the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board had signed a contract during the last visit to China.
I would remind the hon. member that my terminology of a contract is there has to be a price and a delivery period involved. My understanding is that is not the case. It is more like a memorandum of understanding. The most exciting news I could deliver to my constituents is that we have sold some wheat. Unfortunately, I cannot tell them that at this time.