House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 71% of the vote.
Firearms Registry October 29th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, last Sunday in Toronto a gunman opened fire in crowds, killing four men and wounding five others in less than 90 minutes. Violent gun crimes continue to escalate across Canada.
When will the government admit that the $1 billion wasted on the gun registry could have been better spent by putting more police officers on the street and more criminals behind bars?
Petitions October 28th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table two petitions in the House today under Standing Order 36. These petitions condemn the use of child pornography and the inadequate application of our child pornography laws by the courts. The petitioners call upon the government to take all necessary steps to protect Canadian children against pedophiles, child pornographers and others who exploit them.
These petitions have been signed by over 4,000 concerned citizens, mainly from my riding of Provencher. Unfortunately, since the rules of the House of Commons do not permit me to express my support for these petitions, I wonder whether I could have the unanimous consent of the House to allow me to provide that expression of support.
Kyoto Protocol October 28th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, after five years of negotiations the government has effectively alienated every province in the country. The Prime Minister has stated that Canadians should have a full understanding of how Kyoto will affect their lives before ratification.
With ratification less than two months away, Canadians still do not know how Kyoto will affect them or more important, how it will protect our global environment.
When will the government provide a full cost benefit analysis as requested by the Government of Manitoba?
Kyoto Protocol October 28th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the environment minister stated that emissions, and therefore Kyoto, are entirely and solely under federal jurisdiction. The environment minister in Saskatchewan stated, “We cannot accept unilateral action that has the potential to seriously impact our economy”.
Why is it more important to the federal government to transfer wealth to foreign countries through Kyoto rather than protect the economy of one of our provinces like Saskatchewan?
Supply October 24th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the poll somewhat surprises me given that about a month ago the support in Manitoba was over 80% and then the Ipsos-Reid poll indicated support at 74%. Now the support is at 65%.
What the polling indicates is not only an overall lack of confidence in the accord and that support is beginning to drop, but the Ipsos-Reid poll indicates that 78% of Manitobans want the government to investigate the cost of implementing the accord and the impact of implementing the accord.
I support what my constituents are saying. They want to know the facts and they want to know the costs. If we had those facts and those costs before us here then we would be able to debate this in an intelligent manner. However we cannot debate it without the availability of those facts.
Supply October 24th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, those are in fact good questions. What are the costs of not signing? I think that is central to the entire issue. What are the costs of the accord? We simply do not know. We cannot answer that question without having some indication from the government as to what its implementation plan is.
I think Canadians are good stewards of the environment and that is why there is this initial indication of support for the Kyoto environment. However there is a great concern about the cost of the accord and the cost of not supporting it.
In terms of not supporting it, I have tried to actually figure out what would be the benefits of the accord. If this is simply a transfer of wealth to other countries that do not need to comply with the requirements, then, on a global basis, there would be no benefit and as a result it would be an unfair cost to Canadian taxpayers.
I would encourage the member, as a member of the Liberal caucus in the House, to encourage the Minister of the Environment to think carefully before he proceeds with this commitment to an artificial deadline imposed by a lame duck Prime Minister who wants to leave a legacy beyond the corruption and graft that we have seen over the last number of months. Let us forget about that deadline. Let us get the facts on the table. I think Canadians are prepared, as the polls indicate, to wait to see what the costs are and indeed what the benefits are.
As indicated, my home province of Manitoba indicates support but its support is based on an assumption that simply does not appear in the accord.
Supply October 24th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the Kyoto accord has been a matter that has divided both ordinary Canadians and the elected officials who represent them.
At the beginning of public debate on this accord the issues were simplified and indeed oversimplified by the proponents of Kyoto. Pro-Kyoto was thought to mean equal to pro-environment. Being anti-Kyoto meant that one did not care about the environment. However, as the weeks and months have gone on, it has become clear that this false and simplistic dichotomy does not reflect reality.
Canadians have begun to realize that their elected representatives are being asked to support an international accord that, if ratified, would have significant ramifications on our economy, our industry and our way of life without having any indication of how the accord would be implemented. There is no clear plan, there are no details and there is no price tag.
Canadians clearly believe that this is an unreasonable request for the government to make of the elected representatives in the House. This belief is indicated in the recent poll showing that while 74% of Canadians support Kyoto and its implementation, the same poll shows that 78% say that the government needs to spend more time investigating the cost and impact of the Kyoto accord before implementing it.
The Liberal government's draft plan that was hastily released this morning just before the debate began is no plan at all. It is a weak outline that still does not report the costs of implementing Kyoto and contains no comprehensive details.
This so-called draft plan in fact simply indicates what we already knew, which is that the government has no plan at all. Clearly the government decided for political reasons to push Kyoto through without consulting Canadians, without consulting the provinces and without consulting its own staff about the development of an implementation plan. Apparently the government thought it could simply figure out the details after the fact.
Although most provinces initially express support for the accord, that support has dropped recently to only one province, my home province of Manitoba.
Manitoba hopes that credits for its hydroelectric power will prove to be an economic benefit for its economy. The provincial government has estimated that it can achieve at least a quarter of its greenhouse gas reductions through credits through the export of hydroelectricity.
Unfortunately for Manitoba, its plan to receive credits for hydroelectricity is opposed by the European countries which state that such a change means renegotiating the entire accord.
Although the draft plan released this morning assumes that these kinds of credits will be approved, there are no guarantees that Canada will be able to convince other ratifying countries to accept them.
Manitoba officials are also banking on the federal government providing “clear evidence of significant environmental health benefits” as well as “reasonable economic assumptions and a cost benefit analysis”. I have a feeling that once our provincial officials find out that the federal government has not got its facts straight, has not got a plan, has not got any details and has not got a price tag for this accord, they will think very seriously about withdrawing support for this accord.
The economic forecasts of Kyoto's impact vary greatly. It is clear that it would be considerable. Even taking into account the perceived benefits, the cost would be well over $1,000 per year for every man, woman and child in Canada. Recent studies indicate that Canadians would pay up to 100% more for electricity, up to 60% more for natural gas and up to 80% more for gasoline if the accord is implemented. The average Canadian household would face costs of about $30,000 just to refurbish their homes to meet Kyoto's stringent restrictions.
Specifically in Manitoba, the average cost to every household has been estimated to be almost $500 every single month. In some lower income families that would be up to one-third or more of their entire household earnings.
The government is asking for a blank cheque from citizens without anyone, including the elected representatives in the House, having any idea how much the cheque will be written for.
I would also like to touch briefly on the issues of provincial--federal jurisdiction.
In many areas of government, Liberal ministers have demonstrated their habit of failing to cooperate or consult with the provinces. We have seen it over the years with health care, and I have seen it personally through the development of the Youth Criminal Justice Act which replaced the Young Offenders Act. The lack of consultations with the provinces and the refusal of the federal government to shoulder its share of the financial burden has resulted in a great deal of lost faith between the two levels of government.
Now we see the same pattern emerge with respect to the Kyoto accord.
The Prime Minister had promised that Kyoto would not be signed without the support of all the provinces. He had promised that no one region would be left with the burden of Kyoto. However, by committing to ratify Kyoto by the end of the year, it is obvious to Canadians that the Prime Minister will do none of these things.
The regulation of emissions effects many areas of provincial jurisdiction. These include laws regarding property and civil rights and the use and conservation of non-renewable natural resources.
The Prime Minister has shown his disregard for the provinces by failing to consult with the premiers who want to see a better plan with open, transparent consultations.
Under this accord our provincial governments may be forced to shoulder increased taxes and new fines in addition to the hardships caused to the individual citizens who pay the taxes. It is only fair that they know what to expect before buying on to this agreement.
The Liberal government has failed to meet the standards of public debate and public disclosure on Kyoto. These were provided for both the free trade agreement and the Charlottetown accord, but somehow the government does not think the standard applies in the case of Kyoto.
The continual failure of the federal government to provide important details of an implementation plan does not serve the interests of democracy, it does not serve our economic security and, above all, it does not serve the search for effective measures to protect our precious environment.
Child Pornography October 24th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, if children are a priority, why has this Liberal government consistently tolerated sexual brutality against children on the basis of artistic merit? Despite repeated promises to impose a national sex offender registry, it has done nothing of the sort. It has broken every promise in that respect.
Why does the government continue to place the interests of child predators ahead of the rights of children?
Child Pornography October 24th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, first the government ignored the disabled and now it ignores children again.
Recently the Manitoba Court of Appeal overturned the jail sentence of Leonard Elder, a child pornographer. In imposing home arrest, the court again ignored the dangerous role of child pornography in the abuse of Canadian children.
Why has the minister not closed this legal loophole in our Criminal Code by eliminating this get out of jail free card?
Justice October 23rd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, in Canada child abuse is fueled by child pornography. The violent sexual exploitation of children in Canada is protected by legislation that justifies this brutality on the basis of artistic merit.
How many more children need be brutalized before the Minister of Justice takes the appropriate steps to act on this serious problem?