Health  Speaker, tomorrow the first ministers conference on health care begins. Canadians have been clear they want the federal government to work with the provinces, not to bicker with the provinces. Instead, the Prime Minister fired off a take it or leave it letter to the premiers in which he said most federal money would only be available for new health care initiatives.

Iraq  Mr. Chairman, I think we have found not dissimilar things. It is clear, as I said in my speech, that Canadians do not want war. On the other hand Canadians do not want Saddam Hussein to continue programs of weapons of mass destruction, to ignore United Nations resolutions, and to be able to continue as if United Nations resolutions simply did not exist.

Iraq  Speaker, we continue to head toward a serious international situation, and this government needs to have a clear plan of action. We have looked at the responses provided by the Prime Minister yesterday, and I would ask him the following in order to allow him the opportunity to clarify his position: does the government feel that resolution 1441 is sufficient on its own to give the international community the assurance that Saddam Hussein is disarming his country?

Kyoto Protocol  Speaker, today the Prime Minister is recklessly pushing forward with ratification of his Kyoto legacy. He will be committing Canada to massive CO 2 reductions without a clear and complete plan for these made in Japan targets. The Prime Minister said that he will retire in February 2004. I have a very straightforward question. Could the Prime Minister tell the House, by February 2004, what interim targets will the government have met for Kyoto and how much will those measures cost?

Kyoto Protocol  Speaker, I asked the Prime Minister what he would achieve in a year and, typically, he has a grand scheme. He has no plan on issue after issue. That is his real legacy to this country. He has no clear plan and no real targets for his reckless made in Japan commitments, but nevertheless, the Kyoto protocol itself requires an interim progress report to the United Nations panel on climate change by 2005.

Kyoto Protocol  They are suggesting that one can be for Kyoto but against this particular part of the accord. To be clear, when the government ratifies Kyoto does it intend to ratify the whole accord including sections dealing with international emissions trading?

Points of Order  My point is that the House can place restrictions upon itself and, in the case of the motion adopted on October 29, those restrictions are clear. Even if a motion is adopted that only calls on the government to take some sort of action, there is an expectation and obligation on the part of the government to comply. If the government fails to comply, I think our reaction to its inaction depends on the circumstances.

Justice  Speaker, there is not a single person who is not sitting over there who thinks the government has a plan. The government has known about the clear need for certain criminal justice reform and yet again it has done absolutely nothing. The government has allowed the artistic merit escape clause for child porn to stand for months, and by its silence it appears to endorse voting rights for hardened criminals.

Parliamentary Reform  Mr. Speaker, the street fighter never knows when to give up. It is clear that a majority of members of the House support certain additional measures. Let me give some examples: making all private members' business votable, parliamentary scrutiny over senior order in council appointments, and adoption of the all-party Catterall-Williams report on accountability and scrutiny of government spending.

Kyoto Protocol  Speaker, the government did nothing for five years on the Kyoto accord. It can now take the time to do things right. After five years the government has no clear targets, no specific actions, and no comprehensive set of cost estimates. This accord will also have an impact on provincial jurisdiction. Without a first ministers' conference there will be no provincial cooperation.

Kyoto Protocol  There is now a unanimous coalition demanding that ratification of the Kyoto protocol be delayed. This government refuses to give the provinces a clear implementation plan, an estimate of the costs relating to an accord that affects their jurisdictions. Again, is the government prepared to call a first ministers' conference before the vote in the House on the ratification of the Kyoto protocol?

Ethics  Speaker, so that I can complete my comments without all this heckling, I have never accused a member of the House of being a criminal or a member of a criminal conspiracy. Let us be clear about that so that we can move on. Let us talk about the serious concerns that this package raises. The recommendation here is not a truly independent ethics commissioner, appointed with the agreement of all parties as all four opposition leaders have recommended.

Agriculture  A well functioning process would not only save the agricultural industry money, but it would foster a greater level of trade unity between Canada and the United States. All of this would improve the income of our struggling farmers. There is a clear and current example of why this is needed. The U.S. is threatening to impose a tariff on Canadian wheat. This is the last thing our farmers need right now. The issue could have been resolved months ago if there was a forum for resolving disputes.

Government Contracts  We expect a half answer to an intelligent question He said earlier that he was aware of this contract. We can get the details later and we will get them. Why does he not just come clear with us and tell us when he became aware of this contract?

Iraq  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?