House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was environment.

Last in Parliament September 2008, as Liberal MP for Don Valley West (Ontario)

Won his last election, in 2006, with 53% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Children's Rights November 26th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, last week was the international week of children's rights. The international convention on the rights of the child was adopted in 1989. The premise of this convention is that all of the world's children are born with fundamental rights and freedoms.

These rights include the right to survival; the right to develop fully; protection from harmful influences, abuse and exploitation; and the right to participate in family, cultural and social life.

We begin by recognizing that Canadian children have these inherent rights, especially today on the 12th anniversary as we mark our pledge to end child poverty in Canada.

All over the world children are caught in conflicts and even used as soldiers. Many children cannot attend school. Some are exploited through prostitution or labour under severe conditions. Many become orphans due to the spread of HIV-AIDS.

The government is concerned about these children and is working with the international community to help children in Canada and around the world to attain their fundamental rights.

Terrorism September 17th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, in the aftermath of the tragedy in the United States on September 11, we are reminded of the crucial role of parliament and government in leading the country through troubled times.

What do people in Canada and around the world want right now? What do they expect? They want security.

A prime function of government is to ensure our safety and security in our local community, our national community and our international community. This is the true human security agenda, but Canadians also expect our governments to act prudently, intelligently and wisely.

We must not let evil triumph because we allowed ourselves to be provoked in ways which will ultimately destroy our security, not enhance it.

Sir John A. Macdonald Day And The Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day Act June 7th, 2001

moved that Bill S-14, an act respecting Sir John A. Macdonald Day and Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker:

Let us now praise famous men, and our fathers in their generations.

The Lord apportioned to them great glory, his majesty from the beginning.

There were those who ruled in their kingdoms, and were men renowned for their power, giving counsel by their understanding, and proclaiming prophecies; leaders of the people in their deliberations and in understanding of learning for the people, wise in their words of instruction.

This passage from chapter 44 of Ecclesiasticus reminds us of the obligation of humanity to honour its great men and women, both of the present and of the past.

Canadians as a nation are a modest lot, which is in many ways an endearing quality. I am reminded of the advice I was given many years ago before I moved to Nova Scotia. I was told that things would be well if I simply remembered the chief operating principle of all Nova Scotians: who the hell does he think he is? I must say that in the past few days as the House has been considering the delicate subject of pay increases for MPs, I have heard more than one constituent express this very sentiment.

Canadians, however, for all their becoming modesty, do not seem well equipped to deal with greatness, to praise famous men and women. This is partly because by definition greatness is in short supply at any given moment in history. Indeed when we are confronted with true greatness, we are startled. We hardly know how to react, so rare is the experience.

In my time in the House we have met greatness in this Chamber in the persons of Vaclav Havel and Nelson Mandela. There is something rarefied in the air, something special which is hard to define but utterly palpable, something which produces a sense of awe mingled with excitement.

So too was it when Pierre Trudeau died and his body was brought last fall to Parliament Hill to lie in state. The spontaneous decision of thousands of Canadians to come to Parliament Hill from all over the country to pay their last respects, to line up for hours before filing by his coffin, reminds us of the power of greatness to awaken within all of us profound feelings of wonder, awe and sadness.

Those who planned Pierre Trudeau's last trip to Ottawa were well aware of an earlier lying in state, that of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in February 1919. The aptly named Laurier Lapierre, in his book Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Romance of Canada , describes the scene:

The country did well by him. All the seats in the temporary House of Commons in the Victoria Memorial Museum were removed, except his, and the room was adorned in the purple and black colours of mourning. He lay in the centre of the room in his open casket, candles surrounding him, flowers banked in profusion, and police officers guarding him. After the officials had passed by, the doors were opened to the general public. From about 7:00 p.m. on Thursday until the early hours of Saturday morning, fifty thousand of his countrymen and -women, many with their children, came to bid him farewell.

Meanwhile, Ottawa, Hull and neighbouring municipalities were inundated with a mass of humanity. Every hotel, pension , and empty room was occupied as, by every means of transport available, thirty-five thousand people came to take part in the national moment.

Saturday, 22 February 1919, was a calm day with a fluttering of spring in the air. By 9:00 a.m. thousands of people were already on the streets through which the funeral procession would pass. Soon thereafter, close to a hundred thousand were lined, six rows deep in many places, to await Wilfrid's passage. . .

At 10:30, as the procession proceeded down Metcalfe Street, every train in the country, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, stopped, wherever it was, for one minute.

This brings me in an admittedly roundabout fashion to Senate Bill S-14, an act respecting Sir John A. Macdonald Day and Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day, which I have the honour of introducing in the House of Commons today. Its purpose is simple. In the words of its proposer, Progressive Conservative Senator John Lynch-Staunton, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate:

The Bill declares the birthday of each outstanding Canadian (January 11 and November 20) a national holiday as distinct from a statutory holiday. Canadians too often are faulted with not being as familiar as they should be with their history, particularly how Confederation came about and its early years; honouring Macdonald and Laurier in such a special way will contribute greatly to correcting this deplorable situation.

As a Liberal member of the House of Commons I am pleased to support the initiative of my Conservative Senate colleague. It should be noted that this bill was given unanimous third and final reading in the Senate.

It is a curious fact that Canada has no equivalent of Washington's birthday, presidents' day or Martin Luther King day. The closest we come is Victoria Day and her Quebec cousin, Dollard des Ormeaux, or perhaps our acknowledgement every September of Terry Fox. This bill would begin to rectify that lack by honouring two of Canada's greatest prime ministers.

In some ways they make an odd couple. They were men of totally different character and temperament. Macdonald was a character, indeed almost a rogue. What contemporary politician would dare boast in an election speech as he did “I know enough of the feeling of this meeting to know that you would rather have John A. drunk than George Brown sober”? A man of artfulness and subtlety in politics, he was variously known over the course of his political life as Old Reynard, Old Tomorrow and The Wizard of the North. As one anonymous Liberal member of the legislature was heard to mutter “Ah, John A., John A., how I love you! How I wish I could trust you!”

Laurier, the first French Canadian to become Prime Minister of Canada, had a totally different personality. He was an elegant and refined intellectual, an extraordinary speaker, and there was a tragic dimension about his persona that was absent in Macdonald's case.

He had to face difficult tests during his political life, including the challenge of francophones outside Quebec, the Catholic Church in Quebec, the threat to national unity posed by World War I, and the challenge represented by compatriots such as Henri Bourassa.

These two great men also had much in common. John Raulston Saul, in his book Reflections of a Siamese Twin , argues that Canada was built over a century and a half through eight dramatic strategic acts. Another term for these is national projects, deliberate, strategic acts of nation building.

We think of Macdonald and we think of confederation itself, or the national policy or the building of the transcontinental railway. We think of Laurier and we think of the building of the west.

These great national projects were the acts of great men. They were not incrementalists. They were risk takers.

I would like members to listen to Macdonald defending his railway policy in 1873:

We have fought the battle of Confederation. We have fought the battle of unity. We have had party strife, setting Province against Province. And more than all, we have had, in the greatest Province, every prejudice and sectional feeling that could be arrayed against us. I throw myself on this House; I throw myself on this country; I throw myself on posterity, and I believe that, notwithstanding the many failings of my life, I shall have the voice of this country rallying round me. And sir, if I am mistaken in that, I can confidently appeal to a higher court—to the court of my conscience and to the court of posterity.

That is the authentic voice of a great leader. These were men of vision who were not content to accept things as they were. They were creators. They were agents of change. They were also great humanists, apostles of tolerance and respect in an era that was decidedly less respectful and tolerant than our own.

Here is what Laurier said at Montreal's National Club:

We, people of French origin, have a sense of our own individuality. We want to pass on to our children the language we inherited from our ancestors. But while we cherish this feeling in our hearts, we refuse to admit that it is incompatible with our being Canadians. We are citizens of Canada and we intend to fulfil all the duties that this title implies.

This being said, whenever we invite men from another race to our table, we affirm that they are our fellow citizens, just like they affirm that we are their fellow citizens. Our country is their country: their political opinions are our political opinions; our aspirations are their aspirations. What they want, and what we want, is that the rights of minorities be respected; that our constitutional guarantees be safeguarded; that the provinces remain sovereign and that Canada be united in its diversity.

Let the House now praise two famous men, two great Canadians, by voting to support Bill S-14, an act respecting Sir John A. Macdonald day and Sir Wilfrid Laurier day.

Committees Of The House May 4th, 2001

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources on the Main Estimates, 2001-02.

Sir John A. Macdonald Day And The Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day Act May 3rd, 2001

moved that Bill S-14, an act respecting Sir John A. Macdonald Day and Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day, be read the first time.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

Health February 26th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, as members are aware, heart disease and stroke are a leading cause of death and disability in Canada. As February is heart and stroke month, it is appropriate to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health to tell the House what new initiatives the government has undertaken to research these diseases.

Justice February 16th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, it has been seven months since the federal government opened Canada's long awaited DNA databank.

Could the solicitor general tell the House when Canadians can expect to see results from its operations and how the DNA databank will help improve public safety?

Toque Tuesday February 6th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, homelessness is one of the greatest social problems of our time. Sadly we are accustomed to people sleeping in shelters and on the street. Even worse, there are far more who are invisible to us: people who live in appalling substandard housing.

While the reasons for homelessness are many, solutions to the problem are in short supply. Raising the Roof is a national charity dedicated to finding long term solutions to homelessness. It is asking that we warm our hearts and indeed our heads this winter. Today is Toque Tuesday. Thousands of Canadians across the country are donning toques to draw attention to homelessness.

While I understand that props are not allowed and neither are funny costumes, I hope in this case you will forgive me for donning my toque.

The Budget March 27th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to weave the environmental piece back into the story of children by pointing out that in the budget we have allocated money, as the hon. member suggested, for the environmental health piece.

Which are the most vulnerable populations in terms of environmental health? It is very young children and very old people. Anybody who wishes to undertake a family or child based policy, as the hon. member suggested, has to take a horizontal view of all these questions and issues. We understand that if we do a survey of government departments whose policies have an impact on young children, we could easily find 16 or 17 including the Department of the Environment.

When we undertake these great challenges for the 21st century, the challenge will be to take traditional line governments and traditional orders of government between the provinces and the feds and ask how in these cross-cutting issues we can develop a full policy which makes sense in a holistic way, which takes into account the environmental dimensions of a children's policy or the childhood dimensions of an environmental policy. The two are inextricably linked.

The Budget March 27th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may be surprised to know that I agree with him on two issues. Some of us who ran in the 1993 election and took the promise of a national child care strategy seriously do not consider that promise stale dated. Some of us believe it is an ideal toward which we should be working.

We also understand it is only part of a bundle of services that have to be undertaken at the community level. We do not restrict ourselves to the vision of a national child care strategy, though it would be central to the piece I have described on community.

With regard to the clawback provision and the looseness of the reinvestment framework strategy for the national child benefit, I agree with him again. Whatever else we do in our national action plan we must make sure that a kind of discipline is imposed on ourselves and on the provinces. That discipline will come through the social union framework agreement when we allow ourselves to look at outcomes, to be held accountable to the Canadian public and to make outcomes like school readiness or birth weight, for example, part of the whole package in the accountability regime. We are not as far apart as he might have thought.