Werner Schmidt

[Family Day, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, today I wish to emphasize something which we all have in common.

It knows no definition. At its best, it is a source of strength, respect, cooperation, compassion and love. It has more value than money or status or success. It is that institution which weaves together people, who become communities, which become a nation. It is family.

Today in the province of Alberta people are celebrating family day, a day that we should celebrate as a nation. Let us recognize the most important institution in Canada's society. Let us give Canadians a respite from a long winter and declare the third Monday of February Family Day.

[Blind Curling Bonspiel, February 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Blind Curling Bonspiel, an event that is being held this week at the Ottawa Curling Club, has brought together some of Canada's finest curlers from the west coast to the east.

The exciting tournament launches White Cane Week 2005, hosted by the Canadian Council of the Blind to raise awareness for the blind and visually impaired in Canada. The bonspiel is a testament to determination and self-sufficiency, proving that blind and visually impaired Canadians are equally active in their communities, equipped with many abilities, not disabilities.

I wish all the curlers, in particular the team from my constituency of Kelowna, a great week of competition and thank them for their efforts in raising awareness of the challenges facing the blind and visually impaired. What they may lack in sight, they do not lack in vision.

[Food and Drugs Act, February 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the House in terms of an experience that I had shortly after I moved into the Kelowna area of British Columbia.

Within three months of moving into the area, a serious accident occurred involving a gentleman under the influence of alcohol. He drove his car through a red light on a main highway and killed a beautiful young lady who was a college student and doing exceptionally good work. She was a bright young lady and beautiful to behold. She had tremendous marks during her second year in university and it seemed like she had a major professional career before her.

She was killed by someone who had consumed alcohol in an irresponsible manner. The man who drank that excessive amount of alcohol knew the effects of alcohol. He had been told about them many times. In fact, he had been incarcerated from time to time because he had been drinking while driving and doing other things he should not have been doing. He knew what the difficulties were. I am quite sure labelling would not have made any difference to this man.

I want to refer to another case. Driving in a traffic circle and on her way home, a teacher was hit broadside by a person under the influence of alcohol. She is now in a wheelchair. She had a successful career and was an excellent counsellor. Both teachers and students went to her for advice. Even though she has a physical disability now, caused by someone who used alcohol irresponsibly, she is still an effective person.

My wife was a kindergarten teacher who has since retired. She saw the evidence of fetal alcohol syndrome many times. She was sad about the fact that young women would consume alcohol while they were bearing a child.

One could argue that there is absolutely nothing good about the fact that alcohol is being consumed in the world. That is not the issue however. The issue is the excessiveness and the irresponsible use of alcohol by certain individuals.

All of the speakers so far this morning have not referred at all to the other part of this issue which is the health benefit of drinking wine. Science has documented very clearly that responsible and moderate consumption of wine, particularly red wine, has significant health benefits, including decreasing bad cholesterol, raising good cholesterol, and contains anti-oxidant cancer fighting properties.

If we were to label wine bottles in the same way as we label other alcoholic beverages, and there is no distinction made in Bill C-206, then we should tell the world as well that there are some benefits in drinking certain kinds of alcoholic beverages. Moderate and responsible consumption of wine has been linked with helping to guard against coronary heart disease and prostate cancer.

I must presume that the premise of the bill is to educate the public. If that is the case, then I suggest that labelling would not be the best educative tool that we could find in the world. There are many ways to educate young people and adults. There are many ways to appeal to the responsibility of adults.

The other day I was in the presence of a group of young people in a pub. Some of them were consuming too much alcohol, but they had identified one of their group to be the designated driver. They knew they were going to be driven by a person who was not under the influence of alcohol. These young people would have been judged impaired, but they were going to be the passengers in the vehicle, not the ones driving.

We need to educate our young people. I was so proud the other day of a group of young ladies, some of whom were pregnant, and they would not touch one drop of liquor. They were very responsible. They knew exactly what the implications were. None of those people needed to have a label on a bottle and here we are making absolutely no distinction between one kind of consumption and another kind of consumption, as if it is all bad.

It is the universality of this, almost as if any rule could affect absolutely every situation. This is illogical. It does not square with the facts and there is no truth to the matter that doing this would in fact decrease the consumption of alcohol.

I want to refer back again to the American experience in this regard. In 1989, the following label was put on alcoholic beverage bottles:

Government Warning: (1) According to the Surgeon General, women should not drink alcoholic beverages during pregnancy because of the risks of birth defects. (2) Consumption of alcoholic beverages impairs your ability to drive a car or operate machinery and may cause health problems.

I agree. There is no difficulty with that at all. I have a tremendous aversion to the excessive consumption of alcohol.

However, to suggest that this is going to prevent drinking is a very long stretch because here is what happened. Between the years 1989 and 1993, the number of women who reported drinking while pregnant in the United States increased. Four years of experience looked at this and did the labelling do anything to solve the problem? It did not. Therefore, why do we not focus on educating young people and ensure that they understand what the implications are? We can do anything we want with the knowledge that is around this.

The person who invented dynamite never, ever understood that it was going to be used to destroy other people. But we have that knowledge. We can do with that knowledge what we will. We can do good with it or we can do bad with it. We can misuse it and be bad or we can use it for benefit. Look at what dynamite has done. It has done tremendously good things in our society. It has helped construction everywhere.

Therefore, let us not take one rule and simplify it in such a way that suddenly it is going to solve all our health problems, that we will solve the excessive and irresponsible use of alcohol and that it will be done by labelling a bottle to say that this could cause trouble. It will not work.

[Canada Border Services Agency Act, December 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke raised some very significant issues. I would like to ask him about the reference he made to the critical incidents that have been reported and that for some reason now they are not reported anymore.

I am wondering how the supervisor or the minister in charge would ever know exactly where the weakest spots were in the system if there was no way of finding out where the critical incidents happened, what the conditions were surrounding those critical incidents, and how those critical incidents could be avoided in the future or at least be treated in such a way to reduce the number of critical incidents. How would they know if they were simply saying that they are not going to find out whether there are any incidents? Who knows if there are more of these and if more lives are in danger?

These people, who are at the border, are there all alone in some cases, as the hon. member just indicated. They have families and they have people who depend on them. Can we imagine the terror that the wife or the family of a border guard is experiencing, wondering if this is the night that a critical incident will happen at that border crossing? I wonder if the hon. member could speak to that just a little further.

[Canada Border Services Agency Act, December 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly impressed with the nature of the discussion that is happening here. I am sorry that not all of the members who have spoken in the debate are currently available for comment.

I would really like to commend the kind of interaction that is taking place and the basis on which this discussion is taking place. This is a non-partisan discussion yet at the same time one that recognizes the weaknesses and the strengths in our current operation.

In particular, I would like to refer to the last speaker and the degree to which he recognizes that the weaknesses that need to be addressed are weaknesses that need to be addressed by all parties, and they need to be addressed in an objective, non-partisan way. Indeed, they are the problems of security that affect every human being. Whether they are Conservative, Liberal, NDP or from any other party is irrelevant. The significant part here is that we develop an attitude of security and a recognition that our security does not happen only because we have officers at the border, but that we have security because we all care about it.

When the hon. member has to say that some of these people who recognize that they are in danger refuse to call because they feel there will be no one at the other end of the line, that is a serious indictment. I know the hon. member speaks from experience. I would like to ask the hon. member to what degree the neighbourhood and the people who care about one another have filled the vacuum that has been created, in his observation, for a strength, a power and a service that ought to be provided by government.

[Governor General, December 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.

Canadians agree with the opposition. The government must practice proper spending control, including the Governor General. The $417,000 reduction to the Governor General's budget is not unreasonable. Only an office with the heart of Scrooge would cut a children's program.

Why would the Governor General threaten to cut children's programs at Rideau Hall on the eve of the Christmas season? Why not exercise fiscal responsibility instead of spite?

[Committees of the House, November 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the member for Kildonan--St. Paul on her first election to this House.

It is nice to hear the compassionate tone in the speech that she gave. I am particularly impressed by the fact that she is emphasizing the impact of this resolution if it were not passed and what the impact would be on unemployment. The member has also emphasized the impact it would have on families. The time has come for us in this House to recognize that whatever we do here impacts families directly or indirectly. In this case, it could have a very direct impact on families.

At this time of year, when we are getting ready for Christmas and where we are getting ready to put together those things that really matter to families, could the member talk a little bit about that as well?

We have heard a lot about the particular motion that is now before the House. It is very significant. The hon. member for Edmonton—Leduc put together a kaleidoscope of all the things that must be done. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance indicated the complexity of this issue. However, no one so far has really emphasized the significance and the impact that it would have on families.

I wonder if the hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul might be able to address that question and expand a little further on what she alluded to in her speech.

[Committees of the House, November 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, difficult as it is from time to time to compliment a member of the governing party, I must do that this morning. The ex-chairman of the finance committee has done an excellent job of presenting the case to the House this morning. However, I have a question for him.

He talked about the complexity of the adjustment that needs to be made. I think we all agree there is tremendous complexity. If we change one thing on one side of the organization, then it has implications elsewhere. I agree with that, and it makes good sense. The question I would like to ask him has to do with the overall study of the issue of tariffs and duties in Canada, not only with regard to the apparel and textile industry, but generally speaking.

I believe recommendation three gets into exactly that sort of thing. I agree that the report deals specifically with the apparel and textile industry. However, could the hon. member give us his opinion about examining the whole concept of duties and tariffs as they apply to Canada and its industries?

Also, is the difficulty experienced by the apparel and textile industry primarily about tariffs and duties or, as he intimated in his speech and perhaps even said directly, should the industry have made adjustments? Where is the problem? Is there a problem because the industry has not become competitive in terms of adapting its processes and operations to be more efficient, or is the problem because of the imposition of duties and tariffs, which may have nothing to do with the efficiency of operations of the industry? It seems to me that in the comments of the hon. member there was confusion in these areas. It was almost as if the industry were more responsible for being in difficulty than it was duties and tariffs. Could he perhaps clarify that?

[Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to Bill C-21. I cannot help but refer to the member who just spoke, the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. He is a very experienced and knowledgeable person in the affairs of the House and how things operate in the House. I congratulate him with the knowledge and persistence with which he pursues his particular line of argument.

I am sure the hon. member for Edmonton—Leduc would be only too pleased to answer some of the criticisms that the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell advanced in his particular speech. However, by the nature of the debate right now, it is impossible for the hon. member for Edmonton—Leduc to even begin to address some of the points that were made by the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. I think that illustrates the difficulty with this kind of legislation. It is very technical and involved and deals with the business of not for profit organizations, many of which are very much oriented toward helping people who are less fortunate than others.

These charity organizations are very powerful. The United Way, for example, is one of those organizations. I know from serving on the board of directors of the United Way in Kelowna, for example, and continuing to serve with that group, it is an absolutely fantastic organization. United Way organizations do wonderful work in various communities right across Canada. However there are a whole host of other organizations, including private foundations.

I cannot help but also look at the Minister of Industry who is advancing this legislation. It has been a privilege to work with several other ministers of industry in the House and I have to suggest that the minister who is now presenting this bill could benefit from discussions with one of the previous ministers, the hon. John Manley.

Mr. Manley was a gentleman who was very concerned about doing what was right in legislation and in making sure that all the information that could possibly be gathered was put on the table. I think he honestly wanted to do what was best for the legislation.

I think what happened here is that we have legislation, which, as has been referenced, has had broad consultation over several years, but when I look at the various details and provisions in the bill I cannot help but wonder whether these organizations, for which the legislation is being proposed, recognize and know what the implications of the clauses in the bill mean to them as organizations.

I want to focus on a couple of the clauses in some detail. I was absolutely amazed. I know how some of the organizations operate and when I look at some of the provisions in the bill I wonder whether they will actually like them. I cannot help but ask myself to what degree there was a need expressed by the organizations to have a new bill written for their benefit.

I know the bill would replace parts I and II of the Canada Corporations Act, but I have to wonder whether there was a need expressed for those things to be taken out and that a completely new bill be written. I do not think there is any question that the act needed to be amended because that act, which was passed by the House in 1917, was quite old and a lot of things have changed in the meantime.

I think they had reason to believe that some updating and some modernization had to take place but I wonder whether the kind of modernization took place that they wanted. It removes the requirement of letters patent, for example, to be approved by the minister. All that has to be done is to have articles presented to the director. The director is appointed by the minister and the director then receives these articles. Once he receives them, that is good enough. Just like that, the organization is incorporated and recognized.

No real attempt is made to decide whether the organization is a bona fide organization. They simply submit the articles and they are accepted. It is very interesting that is all there is. The organizations are divided into three broad categories: small, medium size and large. Obviously, the United Way would be one of the large ones but there could be individual small community organizations like a curling club, for example, that has a few members. It, too, could be incorporated. If it were to do so, all it would have to do is send articles in. It only needs one director and that would be good enough.

As I go through the other analyses, members will recognize and want to know whether we really want that kind of power to be given to the director.

What are the advantages of being incorporated under the act or not being incorporated? It seems to me that every existing organization that is under parts I and II of the Canada Corporations Act has three years to transfer and be incorporated under the new act. If they do not do it in three years, they are dissolved by the director without any particular motion on their part. Having been dissolved by the director, does the existing corporation have the option then to continue to exist as a corporation? It is not clear. Could they immediately miss that one and then become incorporated with different articles within seconds of the other one? It does not speak about that at all.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of being incorporated under the act, vis-à-vis being registered under the Societies Acts of the various provinces? Many of these charitable organizations are part of the Societies Act and registered within each of the provinces. What is the advantage of going to this organization rather than being under the provincial Societies Act? It is not clear at all as to what the advantages would be under this particular act.

The bill contains a very interesting provision concerning complaints. We must remember that if a member of one of the organizations issues a complaint, the director then has the power to investigate, but he actually does not investigate it himself. He has the power to have the investigation take place. Whatever the results of that investigation are, he then has the right to dissolve that corporation.

I want to read clause 287 of the bill because it is rather an interesting provision. It states:

(1) In the prescribed circumstances, the Director may cancel the articles and any related certificate of a corporation.

(2) Before proceeding under subsection (1), the Director shall be satisfied that the cancellation would not prejudice any of the members or creditors of the corporation.

(3) In the prescribed circumstances, the Director may, at the request of a corporation or of any other interested person, cancel the articles and any related certificate of the corporation if

(a) the cancellation is approved by the directors of the corporation; and

(b) the Director is satisfied that the cancellation would not prejudice any of the members or creditors of the corporation and that the cancellation reflects the original intention of the corporation or the incorporators.

(4) On the application of the Director, the corporation or any other interested person, a court may--

I am just beginning. That was only one clause where the director could actually dissolve a corporation because somebody was complaining about how the corporation was running.

We have heard all kinds of talk about transparency and about meeting the objectives of the organization and yet if someone were to complain, there is no time schedule as to how the complaint would be handled. If there is a capricious complaint, where perhaps someone is dissatisfied or does not like the director, then, if it is a small or medium sized organization with one director, the organization can be dissolved. There is no clear-cut way of dealing with this.

The bill has not been properly studied and has not been given the kind of attention it should have been. I think the minister and the staff who support him are honourable people and they have tried hard but the bill is not ready to be referred to committee.

[Street Racing, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in August of this year the Ferguson family and the community of Kelowna lost a dearly loved and active member when Mary Lou Ferguson was killed by an alleged street racer.

Our community is not the only one to experience such a tragedy. In the last four years, more than 150 people in Canada have been killed in street racing crashes, some of them innocent victims, some of them young people, all of them unnecessary.

Bill C-230, introduced in the House on October 20 by the member for Surrey North, aims to change these statistics by taking a tough stance against street racing and allowing for tougher sentencing.

I ask all members of the House to support Bill C-230 to prevent street racing and to send a clear message that those who endanger the public will face long term consequences. Let us ensure that our streets are safe for all Canadians and not let Mary Lou Ferguson's death be in vain.