Lynn Myers

[Heart And Stroke Foundation, February 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, cardiovascular diseases impose a devastating burden on Canadians, accounting for 37% of all deaths annually and placing a significant hardship and a diminished quality of life upon those living with these conditions. As our population ages we can expect to see an increase in Canadians living with the crippling effects of heart disease and stroke.

During this month of February, representatives from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada will be going door to door in order to raise awareness and to receive donations as part of a national strategy to deal with cardiovascular disease. Events are planned in communities across Ontario and from coast to coast and I would like to encourage all Canadians and all members in the House to participate.

I call on all members of the House to raise awareness in their communities and in their ridings about the benefits of leading a heart healthy lifestyle. Our efforts can save lives.

[Employment Insurance Act, February 13th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the time to talk about these very important EI changes before us today and about the certainly very concrete steps that the Government of Canada, this side of the House, is proposing in this very important area.

Before I do, I want to somewhat address the crocodile tears we hear from the members opposite when it comes to closure or time allocation. Especially galling, I think, are the reformed Alliance people. It was not so long ago that the Leader of the Opposition was a member of the Alberta cabinet and the Alberta government. When the government sat, which is, as we know, very rare in Alberta, he brought in time allocation and closure on all kinds of measures, including the restricting of seniors, the shutting down of kindergartens, and of course the infamous bill 11. So this is really hard to take, from the people opposite especially, who say one thing and propose to do quite another. If anyone is the king of closure when it comes to those matters, it is the Leader of the Opposition.

However, that is typical. I listened intently to the member who spoke before me. I recall that in 1993 and again in 1997 a Reform Party member of parliament took a poll of his constituents on gun control. Guess what he found out? He found out that his constituents actually liked what the Government of Canada was proposing on gun control. Did he vote accordingly? No, of course he did not, so again it was “say one thing and do another”.

I could go on: Stornoway; the use of cars; the member for Edmonton North, her pension and the pigs on the lawn; the member for Medicine Hat and his pension; paying Jim Hart $50,000 to give up his seat. I could go on about the $800,000. Oh, we are so fiscally responsible, says he, yet he is so willing to spend $800,000 when it comes to taxpayers' money.

It becomes a little galling after a while to have to listen to those reformed Alliance people opposite who are so good in their overzealous way of saying one thing and doing another. The holier-than-thous rise up in unison, it would appear, to try to condemn a government that actually is operating in the best interests of all Canadians, is doing the right thing when it comes to EI reforms and is adjusting accordingly.

Why? Having done what we did in terms of the EI adjustments and having listened to the people—which is actually what good government should do and then readjust accordingly—readjusting is exactly what we are doing with Bill C-2 today. We are moving expeditiously.

Why are we doing this? We are doing it because we need to make the adjustments necessary and do so in a retroactive way that will enable the workers and those who will benefit as a result of the changes we are proposing to benefit in a manner consistent with the values of this great country. That is precisely what we are doing.

It becomes crystal clear, then, at least to me and the members on this side of the House, that fundamental elements of the reform package such as the hours based system and the first dollar coverage are working well. However, there are some elements that need adjustment and fine tuning to ensure effectiveness and fairness in the system.

Over the past number of years since this government took office after the Tories opposite, who left this country bankrupt and in a mess, we have known that because of good governance, fiscal prudence and wise decisions we have brought back prosperity to Canada. In fact, with regard to unemployment we are now nationally at 6.8%. All I can say is that this is enormously good news for Canada and for all Canadians. It is the lowest level in a quarter of a century.

However, as we know, there are still pockets across this great country where unemployment remains in double digits. Those are the areas we need to address, because after all, we want all Canadians to share in this new prosperity, and when those who are not sharing in it need help, it is the Canadian way to assist people who require that assistance. I am thinking, for example, of forestry workers on the west coast. I am thinking about construction workers in Ontario and fishers in the maritime provinces. These hardworking Canadians often struggle, but they are the backbone of their communities and, by extension, they are the backbone of Canada. These are the people we are reaching out to help. That is precisely what I believe Canadians expect us to do.

We need to act swiftly and we are doing that today. We have had hours of debate. We have had a number of days on this. It is now time to act and move on. That is why time allocation is here today. We want to proceed, and we want to proceed with expedition to ensure that the few elements of our reforms that need to be adjusted will be adjusted, such as the intensity rule and the clawback provision. In doing that, the program needs to respond, then, to the realities facing countless communities across Canada that depend on seasonal industries. Many offer limited options for working off season. In these many communities, I am afraid that the intensity rule has proved ineffective in reducing dependency and is viewed as simply punitive. That is why we are doing what we are doing today to correct that.

As members may know, a person's EI benefit rate is reduced by one percentage point for every 20 weeks of regular or fishing benefits he or she has collected in the previous five years. Depending on the numbers of weeks of benefits paid in previous years, a person's benefit rate would drop from the usual 55% to 54%, then to 53%, and down eventually, as we know, to 50%.

Our goal is simple. It is to reduce reliance on EI, but—and this is a big but—our analysis that we have done in this all-important area shows that in practice the rule does not curtail frequent EI use, particularly in areas where there are few job opportunities.

In short, there is growing concern that the intensity rule acts only as a penalty. That is unacceptable, so we want to eliminate that rule, and effective and actually retroactive to October 1, 2000, we propose, then, that the basic benefit rate be restored to 55% for everyone. I think that is a good move. Certainly my constituents in Waterloo—Wellington agree with that.

This does not mean that we will accept the high unemployment found in these regions. EI is only part of the solution. Certainly we should think about it and think about it hard and long. There is a growing need for everyone, governments, businesses, communities and individual Canadians, to work in partnership to stimulate local economies and make the economy work for everyone, especially people who might not otherwise get the chance.

We need to work together, then, to create sustainable employment opportunities for everyone. For example, I want to point out that the Atlantic investment partnership is a $700 million initiative aimed at helping Atlantic Canada generate jobs and growth in the new economy. I remember with dismay when people from the reformed Alliance made the kinds of comments they did about Atlantic Canadians. What was it again? They called them lazy and indolent. What an insult. I want to point out right here and now what an insult that was, not only to Atlantic Canadians but to all Canadians. That is how those people opposite think. They think in those biased, stereotyped terms.

Thank goodness that we on the government side do not think like those people with a dinosaur, Jurassic Park mentality, but let us move on to the positive. The positive is quite simply what our government is doing to ensure that we help people no matter where they are: east, west, north or south. We are ensuring that they get on with the business at hand and that they have good economic bases for themselves and their families.

I will borrow a line from Gilbert Dumont, president of the local Charlevoix committee on EI. He said that we must find permanent solutions to employment in our regions. He is absolutely correct. We on the government side are trying to ensure that is precisely what happens.

That is why our government is forging strong partnerships with businesses and communities to create new opportunities that reward work and people in that sense. We need to provide more Canadians with the tools and opportunities they need to support their families and earn a good living.

In conclusion, employment insurance is a tremendously important social program for Canadians. It is well regarded and well respected. From time to time we have to fine tune it to ensure that it works effectively and efficiently, but it is a program that Canadians cherish. We on the government side will continue to ensure that it is in place for all Canadians wherever they live in our great country.

[Supply, February 8th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I can clear this up very quickly. That is not at all what I said.

What I was pointing out about the previous Tory administration is that between 1986 and 1988 there were no less than 14 incidents of conflict of interest. We had to clean up that mess. That is exactly what the Prime Minister, the cabinet and the government did. We cleaned up that mess. As a result, we now have good conflict of interest guidelines in place. There is a conflict of interest person who, under the ethics commission and counsellor, does what is required.

[Supply, February 8th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am interested in these kinds of matters. I find it interesting to do the research to get to the bottom of these kinds of issues.

I can tell the House that the Conservatives under Mr. Mulroney had a decade of arrogance and high-handness when it came to the issue of conflict of interest and the unethical behaviour that took place. What happened was a crying shame. Members will note that under the leadership of the Prime Minister and this government that has not been the pattern.

I could go on at length about the reformed Alliance people, those holier than thous who sit on that side of the House and preach the gospel of always being on the moral high ground when in fact they are down in the gutter to the extent of $800,000.

We have to think about the member for Edmonton North and her pension. I was playing the tape not so long ago and listening to the pig sounds. The snorting was incredible. The pigs were out on the front lawn of this great parliament and there were pig buttons, and all of a sudden that is all supposed to be forgotten. Those members ran a couple of elections on the fact that they would never buy into pensions and now it is “oh, let us conveniently forget it”. The member for Medicine Hat said that it was hard to square with his constituents, but he wants back in. It is unbelievable.

The hypocrisy, the duplicity, the flip-flopping, the holier-than-thou-ism are unbelievable. It is so sacrosanct, and yet at the same time they are sucking and blowing whenever they think they can get away with it. I object and so do the people on this side of the House, as do my constituents of Waterloo—Wellington and most Canadians, because Canadians spot hypocrisy and duplicity every time, especially from those who always claim the moral high ground. That is when it galls the most and that is exactly what we are seeing here today.

[Supply, February 8th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, first, I had an opportunity to review this opposition day motion. Quite frankly it is crass politics at its worst. It simply comes from the dying days of the campaign prior to November 27, when the reformed alliance people were floundering and did not know which way to turn, so they came up with this smear campaign against the Prime Minister. This is a man of enormous integrity, a man who has fought all his life to ensure good, decent and honest government, but here we have the kinds of antics we saw not only today but certainly leading up to the election as well, antics that denigrate the good character of the Prime Minister and others associated with him. I find it objectionable. I want to go on record as noting that. I think the good people of Waterloo—Wellington do as well.

We need to be very clear in terms of what has taken place. First, the ethics counsellor has repeatedly said that the Prime Minister at every step acted with great integrity and did not show favouritism or any kind of partiality. He did so on behalf of his constituents. Next, the highest court, the court of the electorate, spoke on November 27 and, first, re-elected the Liberal government but, second, noted that there were in fact some questions about the integrity of the leader of the reformed Alliance group.

Let us consider the evidence on that fact. First, as was pointed out by the hon. member in her question to the other member who spoke, the leader of the opposition has $792,064 worth of reasons why he should be looking at his own nest before he starts considering others. This was taxpayers' money that was paid out as a result of ego, arrogance and error. He could have settled with Mr. Goddard for $60,000. Did he do it? No, he did not. He let the taxpayers of Alberta pick up the tab.

It is hard to take when we put that in the context of the grandstanding we are seeing today. It is doubly galling when we think of the fact that on this very day, at nine o'clock mountain standard time, a civil court challenge is being launched by none other than the former Speaker of the Alberta legislature, who happens to be a colleague of the Leader of the Opposition. The former Speaker claims that that $800,000 price tag—for ethical or unethical behaviour, take your pick—was in fact unethical but also contrary to the rules of the legislature of Alberta and that taxpayers' funds were indeed used to settle a private defamation lawsuit. How ironic that it is happening on this very day.

Let us not forget another little story that took place about a month ago. When he was seeking a seat in the House of Commons last summer, the Alliance leader claimed that Jim Hart, the sitting member for Okanagan—Coquihalla, had willingly and of his own volition offered to give up his seat. Only recently did we find out that the seat had a price tag of $50,000.

Well, is it not so ironic that those people opposite, those holier than thou, reformed Alliance people, can always be on the side of the angels, depending on which way they spin their little web in their zealotry and other things? Fifty thousand dollars is a lot of money. In the Ottawa Sun of January 24, 2001, there is a quote which reads, “People would find it shocking. Fifty thousand bucks is a lot of money”. That was the member for Wild Rose saying this about his very own leader and his very own colleagues. There is a joke circulating on this point which says that the Alliance leader had the Albertans pay for his mouth and the Alliance Party pay for his seat. Whether or not that is funny I will leave for you to decide.

This is all on the heels of the former leader having a secret fund of $40,000 for clothing and other things. Here we go again with the duplicity and the hypocrisy.

Speaking of duplicity, hypocrisy and other matters, ethical or unethical, let us remember the member for Edmonton North, the high priestess of principle herself on pensions. There were pigs squealing, buttons in the House, pigs on the front lawn and other things, but she has found it in her heart, bless her dearly, to find $90,000 to buy back into the pension.

Do we not read today that the member for Medicine Hat has found $50,000 to do the same? He says he is finding it quite difficult to square with his constituents. Is it not always interesting to note that at one time they say one thing to certain groups of people in parts of the country when it is convenient to their purposes and quite another to another set of people at another time? It does not always seem to jibe, and the circle always does not get quite squared, but holier than thou as they are, they keep plugging away.

I will say here and now that we as a government take pride in the fact that we have provided an excellent service to Canadians. We have provided good governance in the keeping of Canadian values and institutions. The Prime Minister, the cabinet and this government brought forward the Lobbyists Registration Act, for example, on the heels of the election after the first mandate in 1993. The Prime Minister and the cabinet brought forward the notion of the ethics counsellor. We did so knowing it was in keeping with the will of the people and knowing that we would be transparent and accountable in a manner consistent with what Canadians want and consistent with what I believe Canadians deserve.

We have maintained and held onto those high ethical standards, in keeping, then, with what parliamentary democracy is all about, in keeping with the constituents' wishes. We have ensured that we have the kinds of appointments and ethical considerations in place that keep us moving in a way that is consistent with what Canadians want us to do.

Why did we do it? When we took power in 1993, what a rogues' gallery there was under the Mulroney era. Need I remind the House that as a direct result of that, it was the ethics counsellor who brought forward the kinds of things that we now have in place because of what took place with the Tories prior to 1993. I could go through the list. There were Sinclair Stevens and the royal commission that concluded there were violations of 14 different conflicts of interest. I could talk about André Bissonnette, the Minister of Transport, who left cabinet as a result of flipping land that went from $800,000 to $3 million in 11 days. I could talk about Roch LaSalle and others. I could go on to Michel Coté and Senator Michel Cogger.

Earlier I wanted to ask the Conservatives something, because they were getting on their high horse too. They were going on about the kinds of clean and ethical things that they are capable of, yet we saw the rogues' gallery that preceded us in 1993. I want to know why Conservative Senator Eric Berntson is still sitting as a member of their caucus. If they are on such high moral ground, they should be asking for his resignation. They should be booting him out.

Do we remember that corrupt government of Grant Devine and the kinds of things that were happening there? He is still sitting as a member of their caucus. If they are on such high moral ground, the first thing they should be doing is getting him out.

I find that at the end of the day this government has acted with honesty and integrity and continues to do so on behalf of the people of this great country. For the reformed Alliance people to bring in this kind of crass political motion and to do so in light of their pension flip-flop, in light of the $800,000 that their leader has squandered on behalf of the taxpayers of Alberta, in light of paying $50,000 for Jim Hart's seat, in light of point after point of questionable ethics and doing it with the holier than thou attitude that only those people opposite have, I can tell you this: the good folks in Waterloo—Wellington do not cut to that kind of chase. They see hypocrisy where it is every time and I can tell you that on this day in this parliament it resides on those benches.

[Speech From The Throne, February 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak today to the throne speech. It is a very important document in setting out the blueprint for the government's mandate.

I certainly take this opportunity to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, because I know you will bring great decorum to the House. I appreciate very much the fact that you are in the chair. I also indicate that I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac. We will hear from him in a short while.

I thank the residents and constituents of Waterloo—Wellington and show my gratitude to them in terms of my re-election. I go on record as well and thank the Governor General, and Mr. Saul for that matter, for the throne speech and what was contained in it. As I said at the outset, it outlined the blueprint of the Government of Canada over the course of its mandate.

The people spoke on November 27 and gave our government, a government of decency, respect and integrity, another mandate into the 21st century. As a result of that sweeping mandate we can now govern accordingly. That is in the best interests of all Canadians wherever they may be in this great country of ours, north, south, east or west. It is appropriate that we proceed on that basis, knowing that we govern on behalf of all Canadians.

I was slightly distressed when I read not long ago that the members for Okanagan—Shuswap and Wild Rose attended a western separatist meeting. That is offensive when we really think about it in terms of our great country. Even more offensive was the fact that the Leader of the Opposition did not take the time to condemn that kind of treachery. I think he should have, but then we are on the road to seeing the kinds of things he is prepared to do such as spending $800,000 of taxpayer money. It is tough to take when we hear from him time and time again about good fiscal responsibility and good fiscal order. Here we have a person who could have settled for $60,000 and instead spent $800,000 when all the legal fees were added up. It is quite remarkable. I have to say that my constituents resent the hypocrisy contained therein.

Speaking of hypocrisy, we have the member for Edmonton North. I was reminded not long ago of the pig buttons and pig noises that we heard in the House, which came mostly from her; the pigs out on the front lawn of parliament; and all the kinds of things that took place. Here the high priestess of principle herself flip flops and with the duplicity of only what a contortionist could do is now back into a pension plan that she condemned so totally, so outrageously and so egregiously. It really is, and my constituents share this view, hard to take from that party opposite.

Let us get to the throne speech. It is important to note that we have set out a blueprint in keeping with the government's commitment to the people of Canada. I re-emphasize here and now that it emphasizes our commitment to opportunity for all. I do not mean for a few folks, or for people in certain geographic areas, but for everyone across the country. It underscores the commitment of the government to work for, to build and to lead into the new economy, and to ensure in the process that our communities are safe and secure.

The plan of action we have set out will allow Canadian men, women and children, for that matter, because we especially had emphasis in that regard, the very best country we can possibly give them. That too is in keeping with what we have said all along, and the Canadian people quite frankly agreed with us.

As a result of the great endorsement on election day we are proud to proceed on the achievements we made in the first two mandates. Even more important, we intend to fulfil the commitments we made in our election platform and proceed in that manner with opportunity for all.

The overriding goal is to secure Canada's place as one of the most innovative nations in the world. Why settle for second best when we can take charge and widen the circle of social and economic inclusion? In this way all Canadians can benefit from the economic rewards that are flowing and will continue to flow, and can share in the great future that is ours for the taking.

Since taking office in 1993 we have worked hard step by step, sometimes more incremental than other times, but we have worked consistently. We have worked hard to build a strong economy and a solid social foundation so that Canada can enjoy excellence and prosperity and an even higher quality of life.

Our plan is simply to create a very smart, focused and practical plan that ensures a bright future for all Canadians. We want to create and share opportunity for everyone who can partake. We want to include everyone in this great endeavour and leave no one behind.

The Prime Minister, cabinet and our caucus have repeatedly said that in the process we will make Canada the most innovative and entrepreneurial nation in the world, a land of endless opportunity for the best and brightest, not only to stay here but to be attracted here as a result of new investments, ventures, ideas and talent.

If we do this, and I am convinced we will, can and must, we will enhance our unmatched quality of life by building a more inclusive society, one in which all share the opportunities I have spoken of and in which no Canadian is left behind. In such a society we all work together.

The plan for our third mandate is to build a world leading Canadian economy driven by ideas and talent. We plan to create a more inclusive society where there is quality health service and where children get the right start in life. All of that will be available to individuals and families who can enjoy strong, safe and secure communities.

We plan to ensure a clean, healthy environment for Canadians. We need more and more to redouble our efforts in this area to preserve what is ours by nature and what we need to do as good stewards of the land, the water and the air.

Finally, we plan to enhance our voice in the world and our shared sense of citizenship, something that is envied around the world.

As Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General I would like to emphasize the feeling of safety in our communities and its importance to Canadians wherever they live. Feeling secure in our homes, our neighbourhoods, our communities and our streets is a fundamental right for all Canadians. Taking action to protect this fundamental obligation of government is very important. We have lived up to this obligation over the last number of years with what I believe to be a firm hand and innovative solutions.

We have taken a balanced approach, which is very important. It underscores the commitment of the government to ensure that it always proceeds in a balanced way. As a result, it is fair to say that Canadians have confidence in what the government is doing.

Let me review some of the things we have done. We have tightened up rules for early parole hearings. We have made it possible to obtain DNA samples from suspects of crime involving physical violence. We have cracked down on child prostitution and child sex tourism. We have introduced amendments to the criminal code that will strengthen the voice of victims of crime in the justice system. These are all important things.

Let us take as an example the national strategy of community safety and crime prevention and the money we have pumped into it to ensure that prevention is the order of the day. Let us look at the innovative youth justice strategy that we will soon reintroduce in terms of the Young Offenders Act. The act will be reworked for the benefit of all Canadians, and especially for our young people, to ensure not only prevention and consequences but rehabilitation as well.

The government's anti-smuggling initiative has resulted in 17,000 smuggling related charges in excess of $113 million and another $118 million in evaded taxes and duties.

We as a government have taken the measures and will be taking the measures that will ensure safety and security for all Canadians. It is very important because at the end of the day Canadians wherever they live in Canada will feel much better knowing that we on this side of the House will continue to fight for them and will continue to ensure their safety and security.

[Speech From The Throne, February 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the eloquent speech of the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

It is interesting to hear the Bloc people talk about Toronto and other things. They conveniently forget that Mr. Bouchard squirrelled away close to $1 billion of health money in a Toronto bank, money that was earmarked for Quebecers.

I want to ask that great Quebecer and great Canadian, the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, if he would explain to us the kind of good work the federal government is doing with respect to eradicating poverty, not only in Quebec but across Canada. I would like to hear his views because I know he is a very eloquent and passionate Quebecer and Canadian.

[International Year Of Volunteers, February 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to recognize that the year 2001 has been proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly to be the International Year of Volunteers.

Volunteers are individuals who donate their time and act for the well-being of their neighbours, their communities, their country and society at large. In times of crisis, volunteers offer much needed relief on a local, national or international scale. Volunteers have contributed significantly to the welfare and progress of both industrialized and developing countries alike.

I encourage all Canadians to involve themselves locally, nationally and internationally. The service that volunteers give is called for more than ever to tackle areas of priority concern in the social, economic, cultural and humanitarian fields. They do us all a great service.

I ask the House to join me in celebrating the International Year of Volunteers and in recognizing the tremendous contributions these people have made not only in Canada but to the world at large.

[Speech From The Throne, February 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park is truly an expert when it comes to things cultural and things related to the arts.

I was astounded during the election when those reform alliance people wanted to privatize the CBC and strip it of the great unifying effect it has on the country. I was shocked when those members opposite wanted to get rid of small theatre grants, destroy French immersion schools, and strip every cultural venue in our great country that makes us strong. It is a disgrace even to hear them today echo the fact that they were prepared to do that.

Would the hon. member be so kind as to outline the kind of activities that she has been involved in on a personal basis? I know she is a cultural icon in Toronto. What she needs to do for the House is tell us a little about what she does on a very grassroots, personal level to make this an even better country, unlike what the Alliance people—

[Speech From The Throne, February 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the member for Peace River.

He talked about bad public policy. Since when is bringing interest rates down, since when is bringing unemployment rates down, since when is bringing in and delivering the largest single tax decrease in Canadian history of $100 billion and since when is reinvesting strategically in things like health care, children and poverty bad public policy? Since when is paying off debt and reducing the deficit to zero bad public policy?

What I object to is those members opposite always need to bring in the Americans. They are lovers of the Americans. Listen to how they invoke the name of George W. Bush. Look at how they always want to cozy up to American cultural, economic and social ways. Canadians object to that. More to the point, they reject that.

Is it bad public policy for a person who has carved out his career by saying that taxpayers' dollars should be used wisely and then turn around and use $800,000 of Albertan taxpayers' money to do something that $60,000 could have done? I ask the member for Peace River if that is good public policy.

I also want to ask the member for Peace River—