Paddy Torsney

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time this afternoon with the hon. member for Kitchener Centre.

I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House today on the finance committee's report, an initiative in which I have been actively involved.

First let me say that I am very proud to be the vice-chair of the finance committee, one which worked under the direction of the member for Vaughan—King—Aurora and with Canadians from coast to coast to coast to ensure that the Minister of Finance has a clear presentation of Canadians' priorities, values and expectations for the upcoming budget.

This prebudget consultation is evidence that once again the Liberal government has delivered on its promise to provide Canadians with good government, to provide Canadians with a government that listens and then acts, a government that involves Canadians in the process so that the very people who are affected by government policies are actually there and choosing these new priorities for the economic realities and providing the very recommendations on how to achieve those new realities. This involvement of all Canadians in the decision making process ensures that we have the benefit of their knowledge, their experience and that we achieve the best possible outcomes.

Unlike previous years, this year's prebudget consultations centred around the fact that Canadians for the first time in decades will not be faced with a deficit. On October 15 the finance minister announced that no later than 1998-1999 fiscal year we would begin this new era which presents Canadians with new choices and challenges. The country cheered. This dialogue and this optimism carried throughout the provinces.

In each of our meetings in the provincial capitals and here in Ottawa I was encouraged to hear that Canadians are more optimistic about their own futures and the futures of their children and grandchildren.

As a result of our international performance we heard that Canadians have a positive outlook about our future as a nation and as a world leader. There is no doubt that this optimism is the product of the Liberal government's actions to set a new course for Canada, to eliminate the deficit and to restore Canada's fiscal health. This optimism arises from the fact that Canadians know that at long last they have a government that cares about their priorities and is working co-operatively to ensure that all Canadians have an improved quality of life.

As the committee heard time and time again, Canadians approve of the direction the government has taken and understand the decisions that have been made. Canadians have made sacrifices and they have supported the government's focus over the last four years on eliminating that deficit, on restoring fiscal health and at the same time making positive targeted measures to improve the quality of life for Canadians. They know that this renewed focus, this changed focus in fact will ensure that present and future generations have room to move and react to situations as they arise.

Canada was built on principles of sharing, caring, fairness and equity. These are the parameters within which we held our debate. In preparing the report the finance committee considered more than 500 witnesses and 450 written briefs. These appearances and submissions coupled with the town hall meetings held by many of my colleagues in this House make this the most extensive prebudget consultation session ever.

In my own riding of Burlington, Ontario more than 60 people joined with me for a good evening's discussion about the issues. I was overwhelmed by their enthusiasm and creativity with which they tackled this debate.

Perhaps most interesting to me is the reaffirmation of the sense of balance that Canadians have and want. Participants in Burlington and across Canada focused on the importance of decreasing the debt, ensuring that we have increased financial security and stability, and at the same time Canadians wanted increased investment in Canada's greatest resource, its people. They want the government to invest in research in preparing Canadians for the future economy. They want investment in health care and children. Children deserve to have every and equal opportunity to succeed in Canada.

The finance committee heard from Canadians on how to find that balance, to protect Canadians of today and provide for Canadians of tomorrow. In making our recommendations members of the finance committee dealt with three main options available to them, to use the surplus to further reduce the debt, to introduce a major tax cut as was done with mixed reviews in Ontario, and to increase spending on social programs.

Members of the House I am sure are interested to know that the answers from Canadians were that they feel very strongly about maintaining the programs we have which they have come to count on, but more often than not and in a very large measure Canadians lent their support to reducing the debt first and foremost.

In my own riding 87% of the people at our meeting were in favour of reducing the debt, leaving a small percentage of people who supported an across the board tax cut. In further discussing these ideas however it appears that Canadians wanted this investment and support in social programs for health care, for education, support for those in our communities in need, for fairness for seniors and those who are disabled.

These are the things that make us uniquely Canadian. Canadians supported our job creation focus, our emphasis over the last few years on getting the environment right so that job creation will occur and focusing on youth employment opportunities and on the infrastructure program. They hope this job creation focus will continue because too many Canadians still are lacking that opportunity which they need to make sure they can provide for their families and to contribute to our economy.

Four years of responsible government have produced positive results. As we all know the numbers, more than 1,012,000 have been created. Our commitment continues in ensuring that every Canadian who wants a job will have that opportunity.

Generally the finance committee's recommendations reflect the need to maintain fiscal prudence and at the same time to invest in those initiatives that meet the social and economic needs of Canadians, including enhanced debt reduction, continued targeted tax relief, increased investment in science and technology and health care, as well as the urgent need to reduce child poverty and youth unemployment.

Far too many very low income people in Canada are paying taxes. While we have delivered targeted tax relief, while we have enhanced the working income supplement, we must continue in this vein to take that pressure off. We have that recommendation on the surtax. While it was perhaps misunderstood by some of the people who reported on it, it was across the board that this surtax was being charged and we must begin to deliver that relief.

Many presenters talked about the brain drain and the lack of research opportunities that exist for Canadian young people at home.

They also talked about the precarious position we are putting ourselves in as an economy vis-à-vis other nations in that we must ensure we are making the investment for the future in those high tech industries and businesses that are making way for all Canadians. The innovation fund has done great things but we have to enhance that culture of investment and research.

All Canadians have made sacrifices to ensure Canada's fiscal health and independence are restored. I want to thank them for that. I thank all the people who were involved in this process of prebudget consultation: my colleagues in the House of Commons, those on the finance committee, the staff of the finance committee, in particular our clerk and researchers and, most important, our committee chair, the member for Vaughan—King—Aurora. His staff deserves the credit for ensuring the report was co-ordinated, for ensuring the t s were crossed and the i s dotted.

I thank those Canadians who participated in the committee hearings in the cities where I had the pleasure of chairing the meetings, Regina, Winnipeg, Montreal, Fredericton and Charlottetown, and especially in Burlington. Presenters shared with us their very personal experiences and their incredible expertise.

To my colleagues from all parties who listened with great care in those meetings and who asked thoughtful questions, the pace was somewhat intense but the spirit of co-operation and of shared purpose was excellent. The results of the work of this committee speak for themselves. Canadians have a unique opportunity now. They appreciate that opportunity and they have told us very clearly what their priorities and values are. We encourage the minister to pay attention to the report and to implement those suggestions.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, December 4th, 1997]

No, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to stand up on a point of order to vote with the government.

[Privilege, November 26th, 1997]

The part where I said I am sorry was an apology.

[Privilege, November 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I have the wrong Mr. Breitkreuz. It is the member for Yellowhead.

[Privilege, November 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege.

My rights and those of several of my colleagues have been violated by another member of this House of Commons.

On his instruction, the staff of the member of Parliament has deliberately harassed my colleagues and myself, thereby preventing me from doing my duties as a member of Parliament.

This is clearly an abuse of the facilities provided to all members of Parliament to fulfil their responsibilities to Canadians. There is no doubt that the staff member acted on behalf of his employer, the member for Yorkton—Melville.

The staff member has boasted of disrupting a private dinner comprised of duly elected members of this House, taking photographs and behaving in a threatening manner for the sole purpose of invading our privacy.

His antics need no further description as they are well documented in the Ottawa Sun . This is not a joke. It is a very serious harassment that needs your attention.

The member's staff clearly meant to intimidate and frighten my colleagues and myself. I must insist that this behaviour cannot be tolerated as appropriate activities by those people who are employed by us.

I believe I have a prima facie case of privilege, and if you so rule, I am prepared to move the necessary motion to refer this issue to the appropriate committee.

[Presence In Gallery, November 25th, 1997]

No.

[Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Implementation Act, November 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased and honoured to be able to rise today in support of Bill C-22. I am particularly pleased but not at all surprised that this bill has received support from all parties in this House.

We do not agree often, but on this issue we do because we stand first as Canadians and stand for peace in the world. I was honoured along with my colleagues from Brossard—LaPrairie and from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca to participate with the minister at the Oslo conference in Norway this September as the treaty was being negotiated and at the forum for the non-governmental organizations with the people who have been driving this issue for years and years.

The Canadian delegation performed admirably. Their action, their commitment, their perseverance in Oslo was second to none and as a result, countries from around the world look to Canada for leadership on this issue.

In fact, with the passing of this bill, we will be in a position to be the first country to ratify the treaty to ban land mines. This, coupled with our recent destruction of our last operational land mine, signifies the level of our commitment to ensuring that land mines are destroyed and lives will be saved.

During this debate we heard the member for Nepean—Carleton talk a great deal about the impact of active land mines and what he has witnessed and the important role Canada has played in bringing this issue to its present place.

We all have a vested interest in this House and across the nation in ensuring that the world is de-mined. I thought I would focus my comments, therefore, on why Canadians are working so hard and at such a speed to impose this world-wide ban. What are the next steps?

This is a bill about peace and international security. It is a bill about taking steps to protect people's land, allowing people to provide safely for their families. For too long people in a number of countries have starved while their rice paddies and fields lay empty for fear of the consequences of entering those areas.

Most important, this bill is about people. It is about saving lives. It is about preventing senseless deaths and it is about restoring hope to communities.

It is frightening to think that even with the tremendous co-operation in this House, in the amount of time that we have taken to debate this bill, hundreds of people, civilians, women, children and farmers will be maimed or killed by anti-personnel land mines, one person every 20 seconds.

During this presentation and that of my last colleague, 30 people were hurt by land mines. Some will die immediately. Others will take weeks to die. Physically, we have already heard it is a tremendous injury on the individuals and medical care is not always accessible.

I heard stories in Oslo of having to take six days to reach emergency help and even then sometimes it not being adequate, of getting help for their immediate injuries and then suffering gangrene later, of being fitted with 30-odd prostheses through their lives if it is a child who is injured, the cost of that alone, the inability for people after being injured to provide for their families because in a lot of countries jobs are very scarce.

They can no longer manoeuvre in the rice paddies, go out and work on the farms. The effect for young women on their marriageability is rather drastic. If they should be so fortunate to get married, often there are later complications in childbirth.

There are many obstacles along that road. Of course, as the member for Nepean—Carleton has mentioned already, emotionally it has a devastating impact on children and adults who are injured.

The social reintegration of the individuals is absolutely important. These are innocent victims. They are women working in their fields supporting their families, children playing freely or gathering firewood.

On December 4 when delegates return to their respective countries and heads of state leave with their official copy of the treaty, our work will just be beginning.

Colleagues, we must really focus on our work at that point and we must work in earnest. The signing of this treaty is only the first step. We must sustain political and public attention on the issue. We must continue to encourage non-signatory countries to sign, otherwise there will still be countries that can buy land mines, transfer land mines, stockpile land mines and they will wreak havoc on our world.

We have the momentum. There is a lot we can do with this energy. We must encourage all countries to move forward. We must universalize the treaty.

This treaty is a fantastic example of diplomacy, of what can be achieved when governments listen to the people and then act, and of what can be attained when individuals and groups work together relentlessly and of what our country, Canada, as a middle power, as a peaceful nation, is capable of advancing in this century and in the next.

I would like to add my congratulations to those of all members of the House of Commons to the individuals who have been involved in this historic treaty, especially to the member for Brant for her initiative and for helping to focus me several years ago on this issue, and to the Minister of Foreign Affairs for his insight, perseverance, commitment and energy. He took a risk last year and has followed through and worked doggedly on this. I congratulate the Prime Minister for using his political pressure to bring people into the fold. It was critical.

On December 2, 3 and 4, the world will be watching as we take this important humanitarian step and lead the world into a new phase of disarmament. There are more issues that we can tackle in this progressive new way to deal with things.

On December 4, evil will be defeated, good will triumph and people around the world can be joyous that we will finally be on the progressive side of dealing with this deadly, indiscriminate weapon. They will know that finally one day we will see that end, we will see when mines are removed from our land. My colleague has identified opportunities for Canadians to participate in that process. We can know that without mines being used in such a terrible fashion that our peacekeepers, who are trying to help in various nations around the world, will have a better chance and will be a little safer.

This has been a terrific debate and I am proud to have been a part of it.

[Distinct Society, November 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to private members Motion No. 26. It is important to recognize that the province of Quebec occupies a unique place in Canada and that all Canadians should reach out, whether they be Quebeckers or other Canadians, to preserve our wonderful country.

When we line up all the reasons for keeping our country united, we can manage without difficulty to celebrate and recognize Quebec, the only majority French speaking society in North America, as a fundamental characteristic in Canada. We can manage to say as did the Manitoba constitutional task force in 1991:

It is time to reach out formally to the people of Quebec and recognize in the Constitution their special identity which has contributed so significantly to the building of Canada.

Talk Constitution, why not? All democracies make constitutional changes from time to time. Usually they do so by proceeding one step at a time, one issue at a time.

It is obvious that Canada deserves to survive and can be improved even without constitutional change. It is just as obvious that Quebec has everything to gain by staying in a united Canada, whether or not the Constitution is amended. Federal Liberals have reiterated that truth unceasingly in Quebec and right across Canada. At the same time a better affirmed recognition of Quebec in our Constitution would be a good thing in and of itself, a remarkable expression of Canadian values.

Let us do a little what if experiment together. What if the people of Saskatchewan were in the situation that Quebeckers are in today? What if they lived in the only anglophone province surrounded by nine francophone provinces in Canada and French was the language of the United States, the international language of economics, finance, science, the Internet, movies, the latest pop music, and the language of immigrants from Asia or elsewhere? Why then would they not ask their fellow citizens in the other provinces to recognize this special situation they have found themselves in? We might not call it distinct society but then again we just might.

This desire to affirm cultural and regional identities is seen around the world. At the end of this century, as populations mix together, as identities become uncertain and as the number of languages is decreasing rather than increasing for the first time in the history of humanity, people are affirming their language, their culture and their identity.

The vast majority of Quebeckers feel Canadian and want to stay Canadian. They are as proud to be Quebeckers as British Columbians are proud of their province and Nova Scotians are proud of theirs.

I am proud to come from Ontario.

We need to find a way to express the obvious link between constitutional recognition of Quebec and the great Canadian value of respect for diversity. We could easily harmonize that recognition with our ideal of the equality of citizens which the Canadian charter legally entrenches. We can harmonize it easily with the equality of status of the provinces.

Equality of status must not be confused with uniform treatment. As members of the House can easily understand an example, parents love their children equally and give them the same attention, but they treat each child according to his or individual needs.

It is the ability to combine equality and diversity that has so contributed to the country's success and reputation in the world. It is precisely in that perspective that we should recognize the place of our only majority francophone province within Canada.

In so doing, we would for all practical purposes merely be formalizing a principle already admitted by our courts, a principle that leads them to take account of the context of each province in order to make just decisions, including the specific context of Quebec.

It is the eminent Saskatchewanian, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Brian Dickson, who said:

As a practical matter entrenching formal recognition of Quebec's distinctive character in the Constitution would not involve a significant departure from the existing practice of our courts.

We cannot actually amend our Constitution to express the character of Canada and the unique place of Quebec so long as a secessionist government is in office in Quebec, but we can seek the way to express what we all believe.

When the premiers of the nine provinces and the territorial leaders next meet, I hope they will continue down that road started in St. Andrews and continued in Calgary.

Yes, we are ready to engage in a positive way to secure the future of Canada. Yes, our Canada will include Quebec for ourselves and for future generations, an authentic Quebec that is part of Canada, that is part of all of us.

As the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has demonstrated time and again, if it is explained that we can reconcile the diversity of Canada including Quebec's uniqueness with the principles of equality of citizens and the equal status of provinces, support for recognizing Quebec is even higher.

Let us look at the popular support for the principles of the Calgary declaration. An Angus Reid poll shows that 73% of Canadians, including no less than 70% of British Columbians, think the premiers national unity initiative is a positive step in the right direction.

A new Environics poll shows that around 70% of Canadians, including interestingly enough 68% of British Columbians and 68% of Quebeckers, support recognizing the unique character of Quebec in the Constitution as long as any advantage this may give to Quebec is made available to the other provinces.

Because Canadians judge that the principle of equality and diversity is good in and of itself they support the Calgary declaration. It is in this spirit that I urge citizens to participate in the consultation process that the provincial premiers have launched to discuss the Calgary declaration.

This is an initiative that will help keep Canada together so that as Quebeckers, as British Columbians and as Ontarian residents we can all continue to share in this marvellous country.

I hope I have demonstrated that the recognition of the specificity of Quebec does not imply a special status for that province and that it is in the interest of all Canadians that this show of good will be realized.

Further, I remind all hon. members that Canada is currently undergoing an intense period of social and political change. We have not become a tolerant country by accident. Our country has an enviable reputation in that regard because since the beginning of our history anglophones and francophones have been called on to journey together.

That spirit of openness has allowed Canadians to welcome to our country new citizens from all corners of the international community, including my family. Our diversity is a strength and a defining characteristic of our country. We all know that Canada is a remarkable human success. We all must work hard each and every day to keep it united. Every one of us can play a role in that regard.

[Infrastructure, November 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the government has placed important and appropriate emphasis on renewing Canada's infrastructure.

Could the President of the Treasury Board tell us today how he has allowed Canadian municipalities to fund progressive infrastructure to benefit Canadians equitably?

[Land Mines, November 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, today is a remarkable day in Canadian history et nous pouvons touts être fier d'être Canadiens.

Today after three years and the efforts of many individuals, including the member for Brant, Canada has eliminated its land mine stockpile. This is a critical step in the long road to ban land mines around the world.

In December governments, NGOs, citizens and activists will come together in Ottawa to sign a treaty that will unambiguously ban land mines. For all the world it will be a wonderful celebration. It will also be a time to commit energies, to work hard to ensure the treaty is ratified, implemented and monitored. The remarkable success of individual and collective efforts, the tremendous accomplishments of people like Nobel peace prize winner Jody Williams give us the energy we need to see this issue resolved.

Let us join in congratulating Ms. Williams for her relentless quest and in pledging to her our continued support to work together toward a safer society within our borders and outside them for all human beings.