John M. Cummins

[The Budget, March 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the comments of my friend across the way. I am having a problem with the definition. I am not sure what she means by social economy. I understand the intent of some of the objectives that she discussed but I think that if there is an intent, there should be some measure. If the object is to provide educational services, the results should be measured to ensure that taxpayers' dollars are well spent.

The member made reference time and again to this notion of social economy. I simply do not understand what she means by it. I wonder if she could define that term. It seems that she has been given a particular responsibility for that area in government. I wonder if she could define her job description and give us some indication of the budget that goes with it, if any.

[Canada Elections Act, March 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments and concerns of my colleague from the Bloc. I must say that in a sense, my colleague comes from a similar tradition to ours, although our objectives are different. His party sort of sprang from nowhere as did my former party, the Reform Party of Canada.

One of the concerns I have with the proposed legislation was addressed by the Chief Electoral Officer when he talked about being the guy who has to make the decision on whether or not someone who is applying for party status actually fits the bill. Among the issues that he has to determine is the party's political program and its advertising material and policy statements. As well, he has to evaluate information about the nature and extent of the party's activities and information about the interaction of the party with other entities.

Is this not really putting the Chief Electoral Officer in the position where he is going to be excluding Canadians from coast to coast in the political process if he does the job that is asked of him in this bill?

[Petitions, March 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to present a petition with several hundred signatures in which the petitioners are recognizing that marriage is the lasting union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of others.

They call upon Parliament to take whatever action is required to maintain the current definition of marriage in law and to prevent any court from overturning or amending that definition.

[Canada Elections Act, March 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from North Vancouver for his work over the years on this important issue and certainly the insights that he has provided the House this morning.

One aspect of the bill that I find especially troubling is the administration of it. The new process in the bill would allow for the registration of single person parties but it seems to me that underlying that very simple statement is a host of issues. How do we police this matter?

Theoretically, there could be single person parties in every riding in this country and maybe more than one. How will the electoral officer police this? Is it not a nightmare, as I suspect, or does my hon. colleague suggest that there may be a way out?

[Petitions, March 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition today where the petitioners call upon Parliament to defend the traditional definition of marriage as the bond between one man and one woman. They call upon Parliament to protect this union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others and to not permit it to be modified by a legislative act or by court of law.

The petitioners therefore ask Parliament to maintain the current definition of marriage.

[Customs Tariff, March 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciated the comments of my colleague from Nanaimo. I think that the issues raised by this bill and the hurry up fashion with which it is being rushed through the House are symptomatic of the way the government has been treating some important legislation over its mandate. I find that particularly reprehensible.

I think that one of the key issues reflected in the bill has to do with the failure of the government to look far enough ahead when these sorts of agreements are due to expire.

My friend has an interest in the softwood lumber issue in British Columbia, where we had the same sort of happenstance. We were aware that the agreement was going to expire well in advance of the due date, and yet only in the moments leading up to that did the government decide it had better get on the bandwagon and try to solve the problem. I wonder if my friend sees any parallels between the way Bill C-21 has been brought forward and the fallout from the other.

[Customs Tariff, March 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague makes a very spirited defence of the free market system and one which comes from personal experience. I certainly appreciate that. Not many can speak with the conviction he does unless they have had the experiences that he has had. He certainly is a great spokesman.

I am curious about two items. One is my friend's thoughts on the impact that the low Canadian dollar has on this competitiveness and the need for tariffs, as well as the efforts that the government should take perhaps to encourage investment in production facilities in this country.

[Customs Tariff, March 23rd, 2004]

No, Mr. Speaker, this amendment to the Customs Tariff would simply extend the life of the tariffs that are in place.

The member raises an important issue. Many of the jobs that he suggested are good jobs. They are jobs that we should be training young Canadians to do. When we look at and read some of the statistics, we are going to be short of many skilled workers, whether they be carpenters, plumbers or electricians, and certainly textile workers as well. It does not matter.

It is one of the issues that is important. Yet, when we look at the failure of the government to advance some substantive legislative agendas which would deal with some of these real problems that we as Canadians have, it causes one almost to break faith with the system.

We have some serious problems that cannot be addressed simply by fast-tracking legislation like this through the Commons, saying that it is okay, that it will be dealt with, and then move on.

[Customs Tariff, March 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way is accurate in what he says.

In fact, traditionally raw logs were shipped to Asia markets, Japan and elsewhere. Over the last few years and with growing frequency since the export of raw logs into the U.S. has been restricted, there has been an increase in the flow of raw logs into Washington and Oregon states.

This is especially galling to those Canadians who are losing their jobs because of these tariffs. It is an issue and I am glad the member opposite has raised that concern with the minister. It is one that should be addressed and needs to be addressed. There is no question that it is a difficult issue. However, it is one that Canada must address with some firmness and certainly with the tact that recognizes the power that the size of the American economy has over Canada.

Nevertheless, it is especially galling for British Columbians to lose their jobs and see those logs shipped across the border to provide work in Washington and Oregon states.

[Customs Tariff, March 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's observations. I agree with him that we are engaged in a global economy.

The point I was trying to make is twofold. First, labour standards are important to me, as they are to my constituents and as they are to my friend. We believe that labour, people who must earn a living like most of us did before we came here, deserves to be paid at a fair rate of remuneration for the job that is done. We should be able, in our daily lives, to prepare ourselves for a wholesome retirement as well. It is expected that those would be the fruits of our labour.

That being said, one of the difficulties with globalization is the fact that many of the products that may be sourced offshore will be products which are produced in poor conditions and with under age workers perhaps. There has to be some concern there. I guess that is really the role of the UN.

At the same time, we have to make investments in Canada in enabling our workforce to be more productive, so that we can compete on a global basis. That is the issue here for the tax system, that it encourages investment in Canada rather than offshore. I would rather see a tax system which was encouraging to Canadian companies, rather than tariffs which would prevent the importation or put artificial barriers up to protect Canadian industry.