Michelle Dockrill

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, we in the New Democratic Party have been very clear that we are not, nor have we ever been, against job creation initiatives. God only knows in my part of Cape Breton that we have had enough flimsy job creation programs from agencies of the government like ACOA.

My question is for the minister. I have a concern with respect to what appears to be the flexibility of the role. My understanding is that the criterion was 12% unemployment. It had to create at least one sustainable long term job. The riding of my colleague from Winnipeg Centre has an unemployment rate of 13% and the riding of the minister has an unemployment rate of 6%. My question is quite clear. Why has the minister's riding qualified for TJF funds when my colleague's riding of Winnipeg Centre has not?

[Human Resources Development, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, is there anybody left who wonders why Canadians do not have confidence in the government? The political mismanagement of HRDC funding practices has created yet another Liberal slush fund. Canadians are not fooled by the Prime Minister and his spin doctors trying to get off the hook. Canadians know that ministers must be accountable for their own departments.

Instead of following through on its ethical obligations and instead of helping students who are suffering under record high debt the government decides to subsidize billionaire banks. Next, the shipping company owned by the finance minister is interested in buying the assets of Devco, the same crown corporation that through his policies he helped shut down. Is that ethical?

The questions speak louder than the rhetoric. In this last month alone the examples of just how much the government is out of touch with the needs of ordinary Canadians are shocking. If the government wants to restore its credibility it must first learn to respect the people to whom it is accountable, all Canadians.

[Committees Of The House, December 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, when I listened to the member from the government side talk about how prosperous Canada is, I found myself sitting here trying to figure out if he and I both live in the same country.

If I take the member at his words with respect to how well we are doing in Canada, could he explain why we have seen a steady increase in child poverty over the last 10 years? There will be 1.5 million Canadian kids going to bed hungry tonight as we speak. We have seen thousands of protesters on the Hill with respect to the homeless. Thirty-six per cent of the people who are unemployed in the country do not qualify for unemployment. We have students carrying high debt loads by trying to access higher education. We have people on stretchers in emergency rooms.

Can he explain to me how this is happening in such a prosperous country?

[Tenth Anniversary Of Tragedy At École Polytechnique, December 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, following the unthinkable tragedy in Montreal 10 years ago today, Dawn Black, then NDP member of parliament for New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby dedicated her energy to the passing of the bill that would ensure that the people of Canada would never forget and would be active in any violence against women.

Women who are victims of violence are left with lifelong physical and emotional scars. The remembrance ceremonies in communities across the country serve to highlight the fact that for some women the physical scars may heal while the emotional scars that violence leaves on these women will take a lifetime to mend and will require change in our society.

The tragedy in Montreal only heightened our fear. Women's groups today have called again for a funding commitment to the women of Canada aimed at curbing violence against women. A commitment from the government would be a fitting memorial to all of the women of Canada who have been victims of violence and it would be a promise for change.

Today we must reaffirm and recommit ourselves to the essence of Dawn Black's private member's bill that named December 6 as the day of remembrance and action on violence against women. We cannot stop now. We must counteract the feeling of vulnerability and insecurity that women face which hit the Canadian public like a shock wave 10 years ago today. As a society, we must not only be intolerant but stand united in addressing the causes of violence against women so that women feel safe in their daily lives.

[Violence Against Women, December 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today all parties of the House stand in solidarity in the fight to end male violence against women. Today we remember the 14 people who were killed for being women. We also remember the hundreds of women, young and old alike, across Canada who have been hurt or killed.

Violence against women knows no boundaries. It affects women of all regions of the country, of all cultures and all ages. Too many women in this country live with some degree of fear in their daily lives. Until women can live without fearing violence at home and in our communities we have not achieved equality.

Yesterday in Montreal a monument was unveiled in memory of the 14 women killed at the École Polytechnique. The monument is designed to present a shock wave to those who see it because there are those who fear we are forgetting.

Today all of us in the House and all Canadians need to feel that shock wave because 10 years after that violent tragedy violence against women still exists. We must all renew the pledge made eight years ago to remember and to act in solidarity and create policies in the House that work toward ending the root causes of violence against women.

[Child Poverty, November 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard promise after promise from the government about what it will do to help Canadian children, but no action.

Ninety per cent of single mothers and their children live in poverty. One in four children in Nova Scotia experience poverty. Cape Breton children are worse off than their neighbours in the rest of the province. These statistics do not need reviewing. They are cold hard facts, especially cold and hard for the children they represent.

What specific targets is the Minister of Finance willing to set to eliminate child poverty, given that the efforts of the government to date have failed Canadian children?

[Canadian Tourism Commission Act, November 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my hon. colleague make the remark that the creation of a crown corporation would mean more money.

We on this side of the House do not have any problem at all in investing in small businesses across the country. When I listen to members of the Reform, their position has always been let us sell off everything in the country and allow those who can survive to survive and those who cannot to waste away.

[Canadian Tourism Commission Act, November 26th, 1999]

The member says “free enterprise”. What, then, is our responsibility to individuals in the industry? In my home town in Cape Breton a number of individuals depend on the tourism industry for their bread and butter. The member asks why they feel this is better. As I have said before, they are the people in the industry.

I am not a tourist operator. I respect why they are saying this is best for them. I do not understand why Reformers would take the position that they do not think it is good and therefore inflict their beliefs on the industry.

[Canadian Tourism Commission Act, November 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have real concerns with where Reformers keep coming from with respect to their questions. We are talking about the creation of a crown corporation. We all know, certainly those of us from Cape Breton, the Reform position with regard to Devco. If Reformers had their way they would fell all crown corporations and leave all Canadians on their own. Those that survive, great and those that sink, too bad.

[Canadian Tourism Commission Act, November 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we have to be clear. Reform has always taken the position that if there is a government connection it is no good.

As I asked the colleague who questioned me prior, who are we to tell individuals in the industry what is good for them? We in the House are supposed to listen to the people we represent and bring their concerns here, not vice versa. We are not supposed to inflict our personal beliefs on individuals within industry.

When I hear that the staff supports it, the provinces support it and, more important, the people in the industry support it, that is certainly good enough for me and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party.