Wayne Easter

[Employment Insurance, February 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present some facts about employment insurance in Newfoundland and Labrador in response to comments by the hon. member for Burin—St. George's earlier this month.

The hon. member vastly underestimated both the contributions and the benefits to the people of this great province. The member stated that EI contributions this year would total $107 million. The member must have overlooked employer contributions which would bring the grand total of premiums to some $257 million.

The hon. member was even more in error concerning the level of EI expenditures. His estimate of $75 million for the year compares with actual benefit payments of $666 million to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in 1998. Fishing benefits alone totalled more than $84 million in this province. Those are the real facts.

[War Veterans Allowance Act, February 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Based on previous discussions I think you will find that there is unanimous consent to see the clock as 1.30 p.m.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, February 9th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I sometimes think this is supposed to be the House of reason, but we had quite a rant against an honourable former member of this House. He used the word ridiculous and I would say to the hon. member opposite that the charges he is laying are in fact ridiculous. He has no basis on which to make those charges against the particular individual.

I will quote again from the auditor general's report.

We found in all the negotiated agreements that the program objectives, funding levels and cost sharing ratios to be maintained throughout the life of the agreements reflected the government's objectives.

I said in an earlier response, and I do believe this is important, we recognize that we do not want to face a system of tolls right across Canada. The concerns raised about tolls and federal contributions deserve further study. Transport Canada is developing a future policy on tolls in the event that the federal government were to launch a new national highway program.

The member charged that the company of which Doug Young is a member is doing all these things that he resents. I cannot recall them all. Really the provincial government decides on its alignment, design, construction, standards, tendering process and financing, as well as subsequent operations and maintenance.

If the hon. member is suggesting in his remarks that tolls create an interprovincial trade barrier, the agreement on international trade has an established process under which a province—

[Canadian Human Rights Act, February 9th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague asked earlier about New Brunswick taxpayers in relation to paying tolls for highways and where the money was going.

The member certainly knows that we on this side will investigate every morsel of information that he has put before us because we want to be clear and articulate in what we say. He does understand the issue.

Under the Constitution of Canada highways are a provincial responsibility.

In the instance of the new Fredericton to Moncton highway, the federal government did contribute a portion of the highway's overall costs. New Brunswick has chosen to operate the new highway as a public-private partnership with the Maritime Road Development Corporation using tolls.

The hon. member should note that the Government of New Brunswick has indicated that the federal contribution was already deducted against the cost base used to establish the tolls and the annual provincial payment for the remaining capital costs. In effect, the federal funds have reduced the overall capital costs to this project for New Brunswick taxpayers.

The concerns raised about tolls and federal contributions certainly deserve further study. We will grant the member that. Transport Canada as usual is providing some leadership in developing a future policy on tolls in the event the federal government were to launch a new national highway program.

However, with respect to the hon. member's allegation of inappropriate federal spending, I would like to quote directly from the auditor general's report: “We found in all the negotiated agreements that the program objectives, funding levels and cost sharing ratios to be maintained throughout the life of the agreement reflected the government's directives”.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, February 9th, 1999]

The member opposite asks about Saskatchewan. I understand that finally the premier of Saskatchewan has come through this afternoon and is going to pay its 40% share. That of course is due to the good persuasive powers of our minister of agriculture and our Prime Minister in having them come to the table to do what needs to be done to support the farm community.

I want to get back to the issue at hand, Bill S-11. As I said, simply using an open-ended term such as social condition will add confusion to the act that will result in an endless sea of litigation. I want to re-emphasize that point.

If we are serious about assisting the poor and the disadvantaged in our society, then we must create opportunities for jobs. That is what this government has been doing. We must lower unemployment. That is what this government has been doing. We must provide education. Look at the last two budgets. Look at the millennium scholarship fund about which hon. members opposite are so critical.

We must provide training and we must provide the necessities of life so people will be able to participate as full and equal partners in our society. We must provide a remedy through our human rights legislation for prejudicial treatment of the poor in a manner that makes that protection meaningful.

This year we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the UN declaration on human rights. It is a fitting time to review our current human rights legislation to ensure that it protects the most vulnerable in our society. In Canada we have honoured our commitment to the declaration for 50 years.

What does the declaration say on economic rights? Article 25 states:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself (herself) and of her/his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widow, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond her/his control.

Recently the United Nations in its Human Rights Development Index Report gave Canada top marks as being the best place to live based on 1995 data. I believe that Canada received a high rating because Canadians take our commitment to human rights very seriously.

I believe, Madam Speaker, that you are indicating I am out of time. Maybe I can conclude my remarks at a later date.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, February 9th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I support the essence and spirit behind Bill S-11, an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act to add social condition as a protected ground under the act.

I believe that the drafters of Bill S-11 intended it to provide protection to the poor, to prohibit discrimination based on economic discrimination. That is laudable and should be supported by members. How could we do otherwise?

My concern is not with the object and aim of Bill S-11, but rather with an overly broad and confusing nature of the exact wording. Simply using an open-ended term such as “social condition” I believe will add confusion to the act that will result in an endless sea of litigation.

Imagine the hay day the lawyers would have with this kind of wording. Maybe there are too many lawyers in the Senate. I will give an example in terms of the remarks made by the hon. member of the Conservative party. He talked about this government waiting and studying. That is not the case at all. Where has he been since 1993? Look at the budgets and look at what we have done in those budgets for training, education and other things in trying to grapple with these problems.

The hon. member mentioned the Minister of Justice and the child pornography issue. We believe in due process on this side. We do not believe in using the notwithstanding clause every time a judge makes a ridiculous decision.

Then the member talked about the minister of agriculture and the farm crisis. It is a little off topic, but I think I should correct him. The point I am trying to make is that the broad term of social condition could be given all kinds of different interpretations.

I think the House can see from my explanation how wrong the member opposite is in terms of how he views some of the things this government is doing.

The minister of agriculture acted very quickly prior to Christmas. In fact, one of the problems that the minister of agriculture has is getting the Progressive Conservative government on side in Manitoba to pick up its share of the funding so that those cheques can get to the farm community.

[Harry Maclaughlan, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate a prominent Island businessman, Harry MacLaughlan, who will be inducted in the Prince Edward Island Business Hall of Fame on May 27 this year.

Mr. MacLaughlan, a native of Stanhope, P.E.I., first entered the business world as the owner and operator of a general store. Since then through hard work and perseverance his business interests have expanded to include Island Coastal Services, Island Petroleum Products, Island Cablevision, Commercial Properties Limited and H. W. MacLaughlan Limited.

A strong supporter of his community, Mr. MacLaughlan has been active in minor sports, recreation, tourism, health care and politics, as well as charitable and youth activities.

Congratulations to Harry for a job well done and best wishes and continued success in the future, another great Islander showing leadership to the country.

[Tax On Financial Transactions, February 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to enter into this debate.

The motion is that the government should show leadership and enact a tax on financial transaction in concert with the international community. I certainly applaud the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle on that motion and I very strongly support it.

Of course we need an international agreement and we know that will certainly not happen unless somebody takes leadership. It only makes sense to me in the kind of government we have. We show leadership in a lot of areas. We certainly could show leadership in the international community in this area.

I am told that Canada has explored the idea during the Halifax summit, at which time it became apparent that a number of G-7 countries were very strongly opposed to the idea. I recognize their positions have not changed. But they will never change unless we provide the evidence to them on why it should change. We have to enter into that debate at a global level and go out there and make the arguments for putting in place a Tobin tax.

I realize that even if we had all the industrial on side it would not be sufficient for the proposal to work. But we have to start somewhere. I suggest we can start here, that we need strong political will on the part of the Government of Canada and on the few allies that we can achieve in the beginning and exercise that political will so that we can institute a Tobin tax some time down the road.

We are not talking about a big percentage tax here. It would be a very small percentage tax. But imagine on the amount of speculation of money in this world what that small percentage tax would do in terms of benefiting and improving the lives of people around the world, in Canada, in Nicaragua, in Honduras, in Central America. All around the world it would improve the lives of people and those are the kinds of things that we should be doing.

I heard the member from the Conservative Party speak earlier. He used the example of someone in the community who did a lot of volunteer work. I respect what that individual did. I applaud what that individual did. But the member tried to leave the impression that this was a tax that would hurt that individual. It would not. I doubt that individual was a money speculator. He was not a financial money speculator. Who are these people?

I am a primary producer and I know about speculation in terms of the hog market, the grain industry and the beef industry. I know very well that those people that play those markets make huge profits many times by shuffling a little paper around and playing with the futures market and so on. The primary producer who does all the work, who takes all the risks, who creates the investment and puts his family to work and works himself, ends up many times loosing money. The speculators make money.

It is even worse when we get to the financial speculators, the money speculators. They play games, not only with countries, and with the new technology that is available today millions even billions of dollars can be moved in the flash of a second.

There was a rumour in New York where someone said that Canada was a basket case. Of course when we became the government we changed that and the government is no longer a basket case. Remember what happened? One trade, a supposedly respected trader, said internationally that Canada was a basket case. Suddenly our dollar started to go down. That was the financial money speculators playing games and they are not playing games only with countries, they are playing games with people's lives.

[Fisheries, December 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is well aware the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has done a study and has made recommendations relative to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board and his statement stands true. He is interested in doing things that are in the interests of fishermen and communities.

[Canada-United States Days Of Peace And Friendship, December 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs I thank the hon. member for Erie—Lincoln for bringing this motion to the House and for reminding us of the deep historical ties that bind Canadians and Americans together.

More than anything else, the unique and enduring relationship between our two peoples rests fundamentally on the broad set of values we share in common, a belief in democratic open societies, respect for the rule of law, tolerance and an abiding faith in the rights and responsibilities of each individual citizen.

Together these values shape our societies and the way we look at the rest of the world. They are the underlying reason our shared border is one of the most open in the world with more than 200 million crossings each year.

Thirty-seven years ago in this Chamber, then President of the United States John F. Kennedy described the relationship between Canada and United States this way: “Geography has made us neighbours. History has made us friends. Economics has made us partners. And necessity has made us allies”.

President Kennedy's words ring as true today as they did many years ago. Among all the countries in the world Canada and the United States are each other's most important partners. The partnership covers the full range of bilateral and global issues, from trade and investment, defence and international security to the furthering of the human rights agenda. But the real measure of our relationship can be found in the everyday linkages between our peoples. For example, millions of Canadians have family members and friends who are Americans.

Canadians continue to occupy key roles in American society, be it in business, popular entertainment, sports, academia or science and technology. Americans visit Canada more than any other foreign country yet it is a mark of the closeness of a relationship that most do not consider Canada a foreign country at all.

Our native peoples share cross-border cultural and historical bonds that are thousands of years old. This continuing flow of people and ideas back and forth between our two countries has been an enduring strength in our relationship and one that has served to cement the bonds between our societies.

Our bilateral trade relationship within the framework of the FTA and NAFTA has grown to create an unrivalled sphere of prosperity for our citizens. Every day approximately $1.4 billion in goods and services crosses the border creating jobs and raising living standards.

Canadian exports to the U.S. support over two million jobs for our citizens. This makes expanding our access to the United States markets a key international trade objective. The joint management of our shared border is another example of how our close and productive partnership benefits both our citizens. However, we believe we can do even more to expedite clearance procedures, avoid the imposition of unnecessary bureaucratic red tape and ensure the creation of a seamless border for the 21st century.

Cross-border co-operation also extends to law enforcement where Canadian and American police forces work together to fight crimes such as telemarketing fraud and illegal child abductions.

The close ties between our two countries are nowhere more evident than in border communities such as those represented by the hon. member. Every day people flow across the border in these communities forging friendships, new opportunities and working together to create a better life on both sides.

The recent example of how communities on both sides of the border helped each other during the devastating ice storm last winter is a good example of the kind of friendship that Canadians and American share. Who can forget the images of exhausted American hydro crews working alongside their Canadian counterparts in the struggle to restore power to cities, towns and villages in Quebec and eastern Ontario, or the thousands of tonnes of supplies and equipment that streamed from south of the border. When the crisis struck our American friends were there to help us out.

Another reason for continuing strength and resilience of our relationship is the respect we have for each other as unique societies, each with its own distinct identity, forms of governance, traditions and political and social cultures. It is fair to say respect is an indispensable condition of any friendship, be it between individuals or between countries.

Internationally Canada works closely with our American friends on a wide variety of global issues, from security to trade, through a variety of partnerships. In the security field our military co-operation has a long and noble history.

Canadians and Americans fought together on the battlefields during three wars in this century. We helped create NATO which even now is working to ensure peace in Bosnia and Kosovo. We co-operate in NORAD to share the burden of the defence of North America. The changes to the international system since the end of the cold war present us with new global challenges and threats that NATO and NORAD are evolving to meet. The United States and Canada are working together to ensure these two organizations adapt to the changing world so they can continue to play a role in contributing to international peace and security.

The hon. member's motion provides us with an important reminder of the incredible number of ways Canadians and Americans co-operate together in almost every facet of life every day. The ties that bind us are strong and run deep. They will continue to be based on the organic linkages between our civil societies. As we consider the motion we must reflect on the fact that our relationship with the United States is all encompassing and a daily reality for many Canadians. It does not do that relationship justice for the government to single out two days to commemorate it.

Informal ease of interaction and the essential simplicity of friendships among individuals, communities and regions across the border is a phenomenon whose continued vitality exists apart from the world of government, politics or economics. In an environment where such a healthy and vibrant co-operation can and does develop of its own accord, need we take the step of a formal declaration?

Every day we celebrate the Canada-U.S. relationship through the actions of our people. Every day a citizen of ours travels across the undefended and peaceful border which is a symbol of close ties. Every day our students seek to expand their horizons and allow for unlimited options by examining the fine institutions on both sides of the border. Every day our businesses strive to expand as they enjoy unprecedented access to the wealthiest market in the world. These are just a few indications of the uniqueness of our close bilateral ties. Do these need a formal declaration to bring them to the attention of our citizens?

We should also consider the possible financial implications of individuals, organizations and border communities seeking funds from government to celebrate these commemorative days. These are just some of the questions that merit additional consideration.

Before I proceed further with this motion it would be helpful to have some idea of possible reciprocal initiatives by our American friends. The hon. member may want to raise this issue within the context of the Canada-U.S. interparliamentary association. I thank the hon. member for providing us with this opportunity to remind ourselves of how lucky we are to have this special relationship with the United States.