House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was veterans.

Last in Parliament September 2008, as Liberal MP for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing (Ontario)

Lost his last election, in 2008, with 33% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Firearms Act June 12th, 1995

moved:

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-68, in Clause 12, be amended a ) by replacing line 21, on page 13, with the following:

"February 28, 1995 a registration certificate"; and b ) by replacing line 25, on page 13, with the following: a ) on February 28, 1995''.

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-68, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing line 19, on page 16, with the following:

"12(6) (pre-February 28, 1995 handguns) may".

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-68, in Clause 26, be amended by replacing line 10, on page 19, with the following:

"subsection 12(6) (pre-February 28), 1995".

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-68, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 26, on page 19, with the following:

"12(6) (pre-February 28, 1995 handguns) or".

Motion No. 86

That Bill C-68, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing line 17, on page 30, with the following:

"in subsection 12(6) (pre-February 28, 1995".

Motion No. 94

That Bill C-68, in Clause 63, be amended by replacing line 3, on page 34, with the following:

"12(6) (pre-February 28, 1995 handguns) for".

Motion No. 96

That Bill C-68, in Clause 65, be amended a ) by replacing line 10, on page 35, with the following:

"(pre-February 28, 1995 handguns) a chief"; and b ) by replacing line 26, on page 35, with the following:

"(28, 1995 handguns) that are possessed by an".

Firearms Act June 12th, 1995

moved:

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-68, in Clause 12, be amended a ) by replacing lines 44 to 45, on page 13, with the following:

"1977 if the particular individual is the spouse or a brother, sister, child or descendent of an"; and b ) by adding after line 2, on page 14, the following:

"(7.1) Where the particular handgun referred to in subsection (6) was manufactured between 1945 and 1977, the particular individual referred to in subsection (7) is only eligible for the licence if the individual submits, with the application for the licence, a statutory declaration declaring the handgun to be a family heirloom and stating the reasons for that belief."

Firearms Act June 12th, 1995

moved:

Motion No. 102

That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 19, on page 38, the following new Clause:

"70.1 (1) A chief firearms officer shall not revoke or refuse to renew the licence of an individual to possess a restricted firearm, or a handgun referred to in paragraph 12(6)( a ), where the individual a ) is not eligible to hold the licence or have it renewed by reason only of illness, travel or other valid reason; and b ) lends the firearm or handgun the Her Majesty, a police force or other borrower, in accordance with this Act, for the period of the ineligibility.

(2) The Registrar shall not revoke the registration certificate for a firearm or handgun in the circumstances referred to in subsection (1)."

Firearms Act June 12th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, after many months of discussion and debate we have come to an important point in time as far as Bill C-68 is concerned.

My three motions in this group deal with one of the most fundamental issues I have tried to express over past months both in this place and in my constituency. They concern the need to be respectful toward the legitimate gun owning community in Canada. I am speaking particularly of the many hundreds and thousands of legitimate gun owners in my riding of Algoma who feel strongly with pride about their firearms ownership. They believe as I do that they properly own and use firearms.

My first motion deals with the title. The current title of the bill states:

An act respecting firearms and other weapons.

It is my proposal in this motion that we simply refer to the act as an act respecting firearms and related matters. The inclusion in the title of the word weapons places a negative nuance on the legitimate gun owning community in Canada. In the hands of legal gun owners firearms are not weapons. They are only in the hands of criminals.

It is important to send the right message. In so doing if we could amend the title by simply saying an act respecting firearms and related matters we would send the right message.

My second amendment in this group relates to the purpose clause. I am proposing an amendment to the purpose clause which I should like to read to the House. It states:

(a.1) generally to promote firearm safety and reduce firearm related crime without jeopardizing the reasonable uses for firearms in Canadian society or imposing an undue administrative and financial burden on Canadian taxpayers, including legitimate firearm owners;

The message that I have consistently tried to convey throughout the months leading up to this point is that we have many situations where firearms are misused or are improperly stored. The message the government wants to give is that those who

commit crime and in so doing use a firearm need to be dealt with swiftly and firmly.

The message must also be that those who legitimately own firearms and use them for recreational or sustenance hunting, for target shooting, for collecting or for use in occupations deserve our respect. They represent Canadians across the country who properly own and use firearms.

I would have preferred a preamble to the bill, but that not being possible I believe this statement in the purpose clause would clearly state to Canadians, to the legitimate firearms community, that the bill is not intended to be a punishment for them because they happen to own firearms. The bill is to deal with crime and criminals. The provisions that deal with the legal firearms community are simply part and parcel of a bigger program to deal with crime and firearms abuse.

The final amendment in the group I am putting forward, seconded by my colleague from Parry Sound-Muskoka, is that there should be a periodic review of the legislation by the minister. This is to acknowledge that no piece of legislation can be perfect. It must be our duty in this place and the duty of the minister to look on a regular basis at how effective and how efficient the legislation is operating, on the one hand as it operates in relation to the legal gun owning community, and at on the other hand how it is operating with respect to the criminal abuse and misuse of firearms.

Periodic review is very important. it cannot start tomorrow because the bill has not yet passed. It cannot start on January 1, 1996 because the first stage of the program will just be starting. However I believe a few years after the program is in place there should be a first review. I suggest the following amendment:

112.1 (1) The minister shall periodically conduct a review of this act and the regulations and shall table a report on the review in the House of Commons within 12 months of commencing the review.

(2) The first review must be conducted no later than December 31, 2003-

And every five years thereafter.

I have chosen the year 2003 because it is the end of the first five-year period after the beginning of the registration program.

I am hopeful that this set of amendments, which I encourage my colleagues to support me on, will help to assure the legal firearms community that there will not be reams of red tape involved in what I expect to be a simple and inexpensive system for firearms owners; that it is not a tax grab by government; that it will not be an untoward invasion of privacy; and that it will not lead to the mass confiscation of firearms.

Instead of discouraging young people from entering target shooting sports or recreational hunting, the various provisions in the act will continue to encourage the pursuit of those very legitimate and honourable undertakings.

I encourage the House to look seriously at these amendments and I look forward to the House's support.

Firearms Act June 12th, 1995

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-68 be amended by replacing the words "other weapons" in the long title, on page 1, with the words "related matters".

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-68, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 38, on page 4, the following: a .1) generally to promote firearm safety and reduce firearm-related crime without jeopardising the reasonable uses for firearms in Canadian society or imposing an undue administrative and financial burden on Canadian taxpayers, including legitimate firearm owners;''

Motion No. 158

That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after lines 40, on page 58, with the following new Clause:

"112.1 (1) The Minister shall periodically conduct a review of this Act and the regulations and shall table a report on the review in the House of Commons within twelve months of commencing the review.

(2) The first review must be conducted no later than December 31, 2003, and no more than five years may elapse between the tabling of the report on a review in the House of Commons and the commencement of a subsequent review."

Budget Implementation Act, 1995 June 6th, 1995

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

I appreciate his suggestion that Liberals are more compassionate, although he put it in the form of a question. I would like to answer his question with a resounding yes.

The member fairly asks if it is not more compassionate to deal with the deficit. That is the essence of his question. It is logical to deal with the deficit. It is not an issue of compassion. I submit that if we were to have taken an approach as proposed by the third party, the Reform Party, compassion would have gone out the window.

When we are undertaking an operation as difficult as putting the finances of the country back on track, that is not something we can do overnight. It is like moving a huge ship. They have to have a number of little tugboats that work diligently to get the ship turned around in the harbour.

The finance minister recognizes, if the Reform Party does not, that you cannot do this overnight. With the draconian measures the Reform Party proposed in its own prebudget budget, the numbers frankly did not add up. It is something like the Harris budget plan for Ontario, for which there is a very indecipherable bottom line.

The issue of compassion must be balanced certainly by logic. That logic must lead us to a conclusion that is fair to all Canadians. For example, let us just say we are going to have a massive tax cut and that would be fair. It is more fair to the rich and less fair to the poor. If taxes are slashed 30 per cent, as Mr. Harris pretends he will do, then certainly if I were rich, which I am not, I would have a greater benefit than a poor person.

While the member's question in the context of his own party's philosophy might seem fair, I go back to my comments in my speech that a country is not a business. While it might need to be or should be run in a businesslike fashion, it is not a business. It is first about people. There is no way we can close our eyes, turn the pages of the budget, and stroke out items with a pen without considering their impact on people.

This government has taken action. The program review undertaken by the ministers of the crown has resulted in measures that will be effective. The result is in the reaction of Canadians and the reaction of the marketplaces around the world to the budget. There has been an extremely positive, balanced, and well considered response to this budget. That is the proof that the budget has hit the mark.

With that I suggest the member go back and look at his own prebudget plan. It would be too generous for me to say it was compassionate.

Budget Implementation Act, 1995 June 6th, 1995

Madam Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. As a fellow member in the northern Ontario caucus under his chairmanship I know he is an excellent member of Parliament for his riding. In his short but effective speech over the last few minutes we have seen a side of the member which is not surprising but is very inspirational. I would like to tell the member publicly that his comments were right on the mark. He said many very important and true things.

I will reiterate something which the hon. member said, and I may be paraphrasing him. We have our Reform colleagues and thankfully they are not the official opposition. His apology should have been to Canadians, not to the Reform Party. The Reform Party is constantly calling upon us to run Canada like a business, like a bank or like a large corporation. It is one thing to run a country in a businesslike fashion; it is another matter to run a country like a business.

The member for Parry Sound-Muskoka hit it right on the head when he said that a government is first about people. In February the Minister of Finance presented a budget that was about people, about Canadians. While wanting to preserve those things in our society that make Canada a special place, he also presented things that deal with the concerns Canadians have that we respond effectively to our deficit.

We know that each year our national debt is growing. We have made a commitment as a government to deal with the growth in the debt. We made a commitment as a party competing with others to govern this country back in the fall 1993 election to get the annual deficit down to 3 per cent of the GDP. If we listen to the Minister of Finance carefully and analyse the kinds of results that are available, we will meet our 3 per cent target and quite possibly do better than that.

As my colleague said in his speech, the government is first about people. It is not just a business. Along with several other members of this House, I am a member of the finance committee. I had the opportunity to hear and read hundreds of witnesses and their presentations last fall as the finance committee undertook the prebudget consultations and prepared its report for the minister as part of the overall guidance he was seeking in preparing for the budget.

With very few exceptions, the witnesses we heard did not call for massive slashing of programs. They did not call for draconian measures that would turn back the clock and bring us back to the middle ages. Consistently we were told to deal with the deficit, not to raise personal income taxes and not to forget the importance of this country's social infrastructure. The infrastructure ensures that all Canadians have a fair stake in the future.

The natural resources of the country belong equally to all. We expect mining companies to find minerals and metals and to extract those resources. In so doing they pay a share to the community at large to the provincial treasuries and to the federal treasury. We expect forest companies to harvest our forests. At the same time we expect them to give something back in terms of stumpage fees and taxes because all Canadians own those trees. All Canadians can benefit from our resources.

This is why a Liberal government has proven to be the most effective in doing this over the decades. Liberal governments have consistently been able to find the way to balance the needs of industry and business to be profitable. That is important for job creation.

On balance with that there is the need to ensure that all Canadians have equal access to the benefits of the country. We can hardly blame Parliament or finance ministers for doing great damage to the country when we have the best country in the world.

Even though we can criticize past governments for mistakes, the Canadian attitude which is one of balance, taking care of those who have and those who have not in a fair and balanced way is the kind of country the world admires. That is why Canada is in its way so much of a leader. Other countries look to us for examples. As I mentioned, in the prebudget consultations last fall we heard a call for balance, deal with the deficit, do not raise personal taxes and make sure that everybody is treated fairly.

I do not think any of us can say that as a country we do this perfectly. Sadly, the rate of illiteracy is still too high. The rate of poverty particularly among children is still far too high. We still have household and family violence. We still have crime.

All we can do is work together to do better and to improve our communities and the quality of life. Liberal governments have consistently been able to find the way to do that. The budget as represented in Bill C-76 takes us a long way down that road.

I pick out one example of the kind of leadership Canadians have come to expect and can continue to expect from this government. I pick out an issue that became a hot issue in the lead up to the budget, the possibility there would be taxation of employer paid health benefits. Those are the benefits provided to those in the workplace for drugs and dental care, paid fully or partially by the employer.

There was a notion that perhaps the government was thinking about taxing these employer paid benefits. Many people spoke out against this. I received numerous cards and letters from constituents. The minister heard from the finance committee in its report that at this time no such measures should take place.

The finance committee suggested what had to be in the mind of the minister, because it makes sense. That is, the current system is unfair to the working poor, who must pay for their health benefits out of after tax income. We called on the industry, the insurance companies, dental providers, and asked if they would work together to help us find a way so all Canadians can be covered when it comes to drug benefits and dental care. I was very impressed, as I am sure my colleagues in the committee were impressed, by the very positive response from the insurers and from the dental providers that they would try to find a way in which all Canadians can be covered in some fashion for drugs and dental care. I am not saying we are there yet, but I have in the last two weeks seen some very strong evidence that this challenge is being responded to in a very positive way.

The Minister of Finance responded thoughtfully and carefully and decided not to move on that. This will give us some time in this country to find a way to make sure all Canadians are treated fairly when it comes to those particular benefits.

There are elements of unfairness on the subject of RRSPs as well. The more income you have, the more you can contribute. If you are poor, you are not as likely to be able to contribute to an RRSP. There tends to be an imbalance toward Canadians with higher incomes. Here as well reform is in the wind.

The whole issue of aging and pensions needs to be rethought in this modern era. The minister has wisely deferred on this issue pending further research and consultation.

I emphasize to my colleagues in the House, to my constituents, and to all Canadians that the public support for Bill C-76 and the budget is tremendous. It is a fair and balanced approach.

Mining Exploration And Development June 5th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to participate in the debate on the motion of the member for Timiskaming-French River. I am very, very pleased to support the motion.

The motion calls upon the government to look at the mining industry and what it can do to support it. This motion calls on all sectors of our economy that deal with mining to work together to keep mining in Canada, as the slogan of the Mining Association of Canada reminds us.

On a personal note, I would like to mention that mining is part of my family and part of my personal history. My father was a part time prospector and mine developer. I have fond memories of days up near Shining Tree on his small gold claim. You would probably be interested to know, Mr. Speaker, that the very first mine in Canada was in Bruce Mines, Ontario, in my riding, on the north shore of Lake Huron. It was a copper mine, which was established in 1850. It may not be a fact that everybody knows, but everybody should know this. I thank my colleague for that piece of history.

I also want to say that my home is in Elliot Lake, Ontario, which once was the uranium capital of the world. There is now just one uranium mine left, but it is still very much an active part of the mining community. Even though this mine may possibly close next June, the fact is that mine rehabilitation, which I will cover a bit later in my comments, will keep Elliot Lake in the mining industry for many years to come.

One of the most important things this debate allows us to do, apart from calling on the government to work with industry to make sure that mining remains a strong part of our economy, is to make sure Canadians understand how important mining is to our economy and to our communities.

There are a number of myths about mining. I appreciate the attempts by the Mining Association of Canada to deal with the myths and I would like to help them in that regard. There is a myth that mining has an impact only on remote areas of our country. The fact is that yes, mines tend to be opened up where there are not very many people around, but there are 300,000-plus jobs that are directly related to mining and another 300,000-plus jobs that are indirectly relating to mining. A significant percentage of those jobs, possibly even a majority, are in our cities. Our economy is significantly impacted by mining. We just need to look at the papers every day and see how active the trade is in metals and minerals.

Another myth I would like to dispense is that mining will always be here and will always be part of our economy. However, that is only true if we continue to look for new reserves of metals and minerals. It is not the kind of thing we can just ignore and pretend that sometime in the future we need not worry about our reserves of these natural resources. We must always work diligently to maintain our inventories.

There is the mythology that mining is environmentally damaging and that the industry is irresponsible. This is also not true. Tremendous strides have been made in the mining sector and in mining communities to deal with the sometimes temporary damage that must necessarily take place in the landscape. The Canadian mining sector and miners have made a commitment to preserve the environment and to make sure that when a mine is closed down reclamation is put in place to return the land to a near natural state. Those initiatives have been tremendous in Canada. Canadian

mining companies and miners, who are among the best in the world in their business and work, have done a great service to our country and to the world in terms of leading in environmental protection.

Another myth I would like to deal with is that mining is a low-tech industry. Well in fact mining is very high tech. I mentioned a moment ago that Canadian miners are among the best in the world. They are among the best in the world because the mining sector is very high tech. In fact, innovation is taking place all the time.

Members might be interested to know that for the output of a million dollars of product it takes half the manpower resources in the mining sector compared to the manufacturing sector at large. This is an indication that in order to compete in the world and to produce metals and minerals at prices that are competitive we have to utilize and invest in high technology. We have done that in this country.

I would like to come to what the federal government is trying to do in its efforts to support the mining sector. There are many programs. I know we are being called upon at various times to put more money into the sector through tax incentives. This motion today does not call for those specific measures. We do hear from time to time that there should be more tax measures in support of the industry.

In fact much leadership is now provided by the federal government in terms of support for the mining sector. That leadership has led to partnerships which set an example for the entire world. In my own community of Elliot Lake the CANMET laboratory is doing some leading edge research on mine rehabilitation.

Under CANMET and in partnership with stakeholders in the mining community we have MEND, the mine environmental neutral drainage program. This is a major partnership to ensure that the acid produced from mine tailings is minimized and that there is no damage to the environment. This kind of research can help the world. There is mining development around the world and Canada is a leader in terms of protecting the environment. We must show to the rest of the world that there is a way to mine properly and to preserve the earth.

The federal government is also involved in the aquatic effects technology evaluation program. This program determines through our satellite technology what kind of impact mining is having on the environment. It helps industry in terms of preparing environmental assessments and resolving problems.

The leadership we are seeing in the mining sector in co-operation with the federal and provincial governments is quite amazing. I was at the Sudbury 95 Mining and the Environment conference just last week. I was impressed. The conference was sold out. People came from all over Canada and around the world. Every continent was represented. The interest in responsible and sustainable mining truly impressed me.

This leads me to the one single point I would like to make in all of this. The Mining Association of Canada in its outline of what kinds of things the federal government can do to assist says that an important first step is a sound mine reclamation policy. It is interesting that the first thing it says is mine reclamation. It is not saying the finding of more minerals and metals or tax incentives to assist in the milling and processing of metals and minerals. No, it is saying the most important thing is mine reclamation and I have to agree. Mine reclamation and mine rehabilitation is the way to go.

My colleague, the member for Timiskaming-French River, mentioned that we have been asked to consider the tax status of interest earned on the mine reclamation funds. I know this is a touchy issue. While the Minister of Finance has not committed himself or the government to make moves now on this or any other tax measure, his mind and ears are open. He is listening. We have an ongoing dialogue with him and the Minister of Natural Resources to ensure that the tax regime that impacts the mining sector is proper, appropriate and productive.

I want to commend the Mining Association of Canada for putting reclamation first. This government did respond, as I would like to remind the House, in the 1994 budget by providing that funds put into a mine reclamation fund would create a tax deferred situation so that taxes would not be paid right now on funds invested in mine reclamation. How we treat the interest in those funds is a debate that we would want to continue with the industry. I would point out that the interest saved by the industry because of the tax deferral is something that is a benefit in its hands.

What is the future of mining in this country? Fundamentally it is based on the prices out there for metals and minerals. My colleague beside me knows about farming and perhaps a little bit about mining too. He knows in farming that it is the prices which really count the most at the end of the day and at the end of the season. It is the same thing in mining.

We have seen a tremendous increase in mining investment over the last few years. In 1993 it was some $500 million of investment. We expect this year to be up into the mid or high $600 million of investment. We are not as high yet as we were in the early 1980s but the trend line is right.

We can compete with the rest of the world. We can compete because we have the best miners in the world. We have the best mining companies in the world. We have an attitude toward mining and the environment which is a kind of leadership that makes me proud to be a Canadian, to have a little connection to the mining

industry through my community, my father and my own few summers at Inco in Sudbury.

In conclusion, I too call on my colleagues in this government to pay attention to the mining industry, to continue partnerships, to continue finding ways that will ensure that mining is an integral part of our national economy for generations to come and, I would suggest, indefinitely. We need those jobs. We need the economic benefits for the communities involved. I am very pleased to be able to say a few words and encourage my colleagues in this House and all Canadians to be supportive of the mining industry in this country.

Petitions June 1st, 1995

Madam Speaker, I would like to present a petition that has to do with the rape of women in the war in Bosnia. Constituents from the Sault Ste. Marie area of the Algoma riding wish to express their concerns on the issue.

Petitions June 1st, 1995

Madam Speaker, I have several petitions I would like to present this morning.

The first petition is from constituents in the Blind River area of my riding. The petitioners wish to express to the government their concerns with respect to the issue of same sex legislation.

On the same issue, there is another petition signed by folks from the area of Blind River and Algoma Mills.