Lynn Myers

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, May 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying that it is a great honour to speak today to Bill C-16 and what it means not only for the country but especially people who want to make Canada their country, and certainly those who have been here.

I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre. He made many valid points. Certainly the one which I wanted to echo was that the committee, having listened to and heard witnesses, has now been able to make decisions which are appropriate to the matter at hand.

Citizenship, as all members of the House and all Canadians know, is of great value to individuals and their families. It bestows upon them great honour and responsibility as well as rights which are inherent under the charter and the constitution of this great country of ours.

I think back to my great-great-grandparents. They came to this country in 1827 via Bucks County, Pennsylvania having first come from Europe. Over the years we have cherished those things which we hold near and dear, that is, being citizens of this great country of ours.

By way of history it is amazing to think that prior to 1947 Canadians were still not Canadians as we know them but rather were British subjects. It is interesting that the Prime Minister himself was 12 years old before he actually had Canadian citizenship given to him. We were British subjects until that point. Having said that, citizenship and all that goes with it is something which Canadians now value greatly in terms of what it means to be a Canadian. It is important that we celebrate and cherish that which we hold near and dear to us. In 1947 the Liberal government of the day under Prime Minister Mackenzie King ensured that Canadians would have a status which we cherish to this day, being a citizen of Canada.

Citizenship is a concept in our culture which goes back to the city states of the ancient Greeks. For them the life of a citizen meant deep involvement in the life of a city. It meant the widest possible rights and privileges. It was also a very restrictive status, something which we no longer have. For example, no woman or newcomer could hope to be a citizen in those days.

While that restrictive status continued over the centuries, it has finally been washed away. In a sense we still see it today in countries which restrict their citizenship and those people who are part of a traditional ethnic group. Unlike Canada there are many countries where citizenship is not an opportunity to welcome people. It is not an opportunity for newcomers to declare that they are ready and willing to become a full part of their communities as citizens.

The point is clear that Canada has been different in that regard. We welcome newcomers. We grant full citizenship to all our people in a manner consistent with the charter and the constitutional prerogatives, as well as the rights that Canadian citizens no matter where they live in this great country of ours have come to expect and deservedly so. It is important that we keep that in mind.

When Canadians travel abroad it becomes apparent how great our citizenship is and what a great country Canada is. It is important that we value and cherish all that goes along with what it means to be Canadian.

Let me be clear in terms of what that 1947 act did. I offer that by way of background because it is important. That act treated men and women differently when it came to issues such as marrying a non-Canadian and keeping Canadian citizenship if they lived abroad, passing citizenship to their children if they lived abroad, and finally, how soon the spouses of men and women could become citizens. That was part and parcel of the 1947 act, yet for all the faults we have seen in retrospect, that act was an important starting point. It set us on the course which had led us to where we are today with Bill C-16.

It is important to note that what has never changed is a sense that citizenship is about joining the Canadian family, and a great family it is. It is about sharing in the values, traditions and institutions which define us as a people and unite us as a nation and which have made us the finest country in the world according to the United Nations Human Development Report for six years in a row. That is no coincidence. It is because of who we are and what we represent and the citizenship of Canadians is part of that greatness that is ours.

When new Canadians take the oath of citizenship outlined in the bill, they will speak about what it means to be Canadian. They will pledge their loyalty and allegiance to Canada and to our Queen. They will promise to respect Canada's rights and freedoms and uphold the constitution. They will vow to uphold the democratic values that allow us to debate some very important issues in the spirit of openness, transparency and accountability which we do in this great democratic system of ours in Canada. They will promise to do what we should do, to observe our laws and fulfil the duties and obligations of what it means to be a true citizen of this country.

These are not just words. Those words get to the heart of what citizenship is all about. They are about agreeing to accept the basic rules of how our society operates. They are about agreeing to play a full role in the life of our society in terms of what it means to help others to care and to share and to use the kinds of values in a meaningful way for Canadians wherever they are in this country. It also means acting at the ballot box, on a jury or just in the day to day debate among fellow citizens. It means ensuring that we vote, that we fulfil our duties as citizens in meaningful and tangible ways and in a way consistent with the values that are part of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I want to indicate that I will be splitting my time with the member for Cambridge.

There are countries in the world that essentially sell their citizenship. People in parts of the world actually do that for money. They buy passports which can be used to go elsewhere. Some travel documents might be part of that as well. It is selling hope, false hope in many cases, in volatile parts of the world, and it is most unfortunate. But it will never, never give a person what Canadian citizenship does, and that is what we have here. Those passports of convenience that are sold never announce to the world that a person is part of a great family the way our citizenship does. A person is never linked to the men and women from all over the world who regardless of birth share in the pride of being citizens of this country.

That is what citizenship is all about. That is what it means to be Canadian. That is what it means to have the kinds of values that unite us as a people in that sense and ensure that we carry on in a meaningful way consistent with that which our forefathers and foremothers did, including that which newcomers to this country also add. That is important so we can build on the foundations of the past with vision, insight and foresight. We project into the future with confidence knowing that we have one of the finest, and I would argue the finest, country in the world. We need to celebrate that.

In closing I state simply that Bill C-16 helps to reinforce that which we take for granted so many times in this great country of ours and especially our citizenship. Having said that, I move:

That the question be now put.

[Cystic Fibrosis, May 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform members of the House and all Canadians that May is Cystic Fibrosis Month.

Cystic fibrosis is a genetic disease affecting primarily the respiratory and digestive systems. As yet there is no cure for it.

Approximately one in 25 Canadians carries the gene which causes this disease and approximately one in every 2,500 children born in Canada has the disease. Cystic fibrosis is one of the most deadly inherited diseases affecting Canadian children and young adults.

The Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation supports clinical services for persons with this disease and supports scientific research to find a cure or control for the condition. Volunteers and supporters in communities across the country conduct public awareness and fundraising activities.

I want to congratulate all those associated with the foundation for their many achievements. I wish them the very best not only during this month but throughout the year.

[Criminal Code, May 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am not rising on debate, but I wanted to take a quick opportunity to wish the brilliant and charming member opposite a happy birthday from this side of the House.

[National Palliative Care Week, May 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the members of the House and all Canadians that May 8 to May 14 is National Palliative Care Week.

Hospice palliative care is aimed at relief of suffering and improving the quality of life for persons who are living with or dying with advanced illness. This type of care includes the person and his or her family in planning treatment and care so that they can make choices based on knowledge and understanding. This kind of care offers social, emotional and spiritual support to the person as well as their family by members of a very diverse team.

The Canadian Palliative Care Association is a national association which provides leadership in hospice palliative care in Canada through collaboration and representation, development of national standards of practice, support in theory, advocacy for improved policy, research allocation and support for caregivers.

It is very important that we join them in commending the dedicated professionals, caregivers and volunteers who provide palliative care and to the Canadian Palliative Care Association and its affiliates for the good work they do.

[Division No. 1280, May 8th, 2000]

Members from the NDP know that as well. Listen to them caterwauling instead of listening to the speech. They are caterwauling and trying to stir things up. They should listen. What I am about to say is worth listening to.

The minister met with all kinds of officials in that part of the country. He met with management. He met with unions. He met with business and community leaders. He met with local clergy, for that matter. He met with representatives of the provincial government. He has gone out of his way as have other members of the government, instead of stirring things up, trying to undermine the process and trying to act on rumours, innuendo, falsehoods and myths like members of the NDP. Instead of doing that, we on the government side got our facts and listened to the people to ensure that we were involved in great consultation by way of process and how best to deal with the good folks in that part of Canada.

At the end of the day, is it perfect? I do not think so. However at the end of the day we have put in place a great process which makes sense ultimately. It will assist that part of Atlantic Canada and, more to the point, Cape Breton. It will do so in a manner consistent with the values of people in not only that part of our country but Canadians wherever they live in our great land.

It is important that we have done it in a methodical, wise and reasoned way, instead of operating as some members of the opposition have, that is by way of falsehoods, stirring things up and making mischief, quite simply, which I think is absolutely inappropriate.

The plan is in place in a way that Devco has now received definitive proposals for its assets. The corporation is at a stage of evaluating and clarifying one of the proposals with a view to finalizing the broad terms and conditions of the sale. Hopefully that will be done in the very near future, and again there is talk of as early as June. Negotiations concerning a final detailed purchase and sale agreement would follow accordingly, as would be the normal course of events.

This is following what the minister, the officials and government have seen as appropriate in terms of this important issue which strikes to the heart of a great many people in that part of Canada. We understand that. We respect it and we have tried to deal with it in a sensitive and reasoned way.

The prospects for transferring the assets of Devco to the private sector and for maintaining coal mining jobs in a private sector commercial operation are very real. That has been a goal of the government from the outset. Instead of trying to create mischief and doing those kinds of things, with a steady hand the government is trying to ensure that we can carry on with employment in an area that requires our assistance. We as a government have always tried to do the right thing, which is to assist people.

Unlike others in the House who might try in a Darwinian economic sense to let people hang out to dry, we have never done that, not through history and certainly not now. We will do the right thing to ensure that the transition from the jobs of the past to the new economy will take place in a way consistent with the values that are appropriate to Canadian society. So it is that we proceed in this important area.

I have great friends in Cape Breton with whom I have talked repeatedly. I have visited there on a number of occasions. It is important that we deal with the matter in a way consistent with not only what those people want, because obviously they are important in this equation, but in the best interest of the country as a whole. It is with great honour that I say we will now bring the bill forward, vote on it and get on with the business at hand. Why do we do that? We do it because it is ultimately not only in the best interest of the people of Cape Breton and specifically the employees of Devco, but it is in the best interest of Canada as a whole.

[Division No. 1280, May 8th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to speak to this very important bill, Bill C-11. It deals with Devco, the Cape Breton Development Corporation divestiture authorization and dissolution act.

It is important to put this matter into some context in the sense that subsection 90(2) of the Financial Administration Act stipulates that we need to go through this process in order to meet the requirements under that act. It is very important that we proceed accordingly.

I was somewhat heartened by the member for Kings—Hants. He spoke in very reasoned tones and appropriately so. It was important that he went on record as indicating that the party opposite was in agreement with how the government was acting. It certainly made a great deal of sense to me. It is important that we proceed accordingly.

I was a little disappointed with the Canadian Alliance member, the member for Athabasca, who talked in terms of the Americans and how they interact with Canada. If anyone should be looking in the mirror when it comes to the Americans it is the alliance party. That party is in favour of a two tier American style health system. Members of the Canadian Alliance should be the last people in the House to talk about Canada's interface with the Americans.

The member for Athabasca seemed to drag a few people and the process through the mud today. I take exception to that. It is inappropriate and not very beneficial to the debate. Quite frankly it is typical of those alliance members in what they do, how they say it, and the kind of actions they seem to take delight in making.

Having said that, I have been to Cape Breton a number of times, at least three times and most recently twice. It is very important to meet with the people there. I have met with people in the area, union people, local officials, families. It is important that we on the government side listen carefully.

I was astounded by the NDP member for Vancouver East and the outrageous things she said about bringing in the end to this debate and proceeding forward. She knows full well, as do all the NDP members opposite, that we have had a number of hours of debate in the House on this very important bill. Instead the member said that we are somehow abusing the system when in fact it is the contrary. What we are doing is bringing closure to this very important bill.

Instead the member talked about poor children. She talked about child labour in other countries. She talked about rumours that she had heard. Imagine, in this great parliament of ours members opposite, especially the NDP who should know better, getting up and dealing in rumour and innuendo. Is that not typical of the NDP members who always are delighted in throwing tons of money at everything. Instead of taking a reasoned, natural and good rational approach to things, they always throw money at them, which is a typical NDP philosophy.

Instead we on this side of the House are putting a process in place for the benefit not only of the good people of Cape Breton, of Devco and those people who are in need but by extension for all Canadians. That is important to note. It underscores the commitment of the Government of Canada in this all important area.

The NDP members in this debate have been twisting this fact and I find it reprehensible that they would do it. I want to point out that on October 1, 1999 the Cape Breton Development Corporation advised the federal Minister of Labour that it would be terminating the employment of approximately 600 employees due to the closure of the Phalen colliery.

On January 13 the company and the four unions representing Devco employees agreed to form a joint planning committee as per part III of the Canada Labour Code. The committee met in an attempt to reach agreement on the terms of an adjustment program that was unsuccessful, which was unfortunate.

The employee representatives on that committee notified the Minister of Labour of their inability to reach agreement with the company. On March 14 the Minister of Labour appointed a person as mediator to assist in the negotiations and failing agreement, to advise her on the matters appropriate for arbitration pursuant to section 224 of part III of the Canada Labour Code.

We are now at that point and into binding arbitration. As most members of the House know, it will be binding not only on the company but on the members and the employees involved, as well as on the Government of Canada. We expect that report some time in the very near future and some talk as early as the end of May. We need to proceed in that fashion. It is important and it makes a great deal of sense.

It astounded me when I heard the Alliance member, the hon. member for Athabasca, talk in terms of little or no consultation. That really is an out and out falsehood.

[Walter F. Cook, May 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness and regret that I inform the members of the House that Walter F. Cook of New Hamburg, Ontario passed away suddenly at his residence on April 27, 2000.

A community leader, Mr. Cook devoted himself to his local business, his church and his government. He owned and operated Cook's Pharmacy in New Hamburg and Wellesley. He committed himself to the Trinity Lutheran Church and represented New Hamburg on the Wilmot Township Council. Mr. Cook was also a veteran serving Canada in World War II.

Mr. Cook is remembered by his beloved wife, Audrey E. Cook, his children and his grandchildren and will be dearly missed by all members of our community.

[Supply, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague who uses great eloquence in the House. With grace, wit and humour he is always on his mark in terms of how he delivers his speeches. He knows exactly the kinds of issues that affect Canadians, and on this there was no exception.

I was interested in the Bloc member's question. Some $37 million went missing in terms of federal money that went to Quebec. Even the auditor general of Quebec is quoted in Le Devoir as wondering where that money was. They can caterwaul all they want over there. They can natter away, but the reality is that there are $37 million of federal money for which they cannot account.

I have a question for the hon. member for Mississauga West. He represents a great part of Ontario. I listened with interest to how he noted that the Reform-CCRAP alliance has been genetically modified. The only comment I would add is that in light of the genetically modified Reform-CCRAP alliance perhaps we should have an amendment today that requires the Canada Elections Act to be amended so that there is a warning label on the ballot to indicate that those people opposite are nothing more than the reformed, warmed over people they were before.

Never mind that. Does the hon. member agree that Canada, under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the minister of agriculture, has the best food safety system in the world? Does he agree that as a result of what we have been doing we have nutritious quality food?

Does he agree that instead of taking cheap political partisan shots all members opposite should be standing and congratulating the government, the minister of agriculture and the Prime Minister for doing a fabulous job to protect food and food safety in our great country?

[Supply, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the member opposite. I can tell the House that I was born, raised and still live on the family farm. For me and indeed for all Canadians it is very important that we have very stringent criteria when it comes to food safety.

Why do I say that? The answer is clear: Canadians deserve and expect a food safety system that is in place and they expect their government to ensure it is in place in a manner consistent with what Canadians not only need, but require for themselves and their children.

I can tell the House that Canada has the best food safety system in the world. We have gone to great lengths through the years to ensure that we have a system in place that underscores the commitment of the government and our people to get the right quality of food, nutritious food and good high calibre food in keeping with the Canadian way. I think it is important that we emphasize that and that we understand that.

I also want to point out that Canada chairs the Codex Alimentarius committee on food labelling, which is an international body. It underscores the fact that Canada is part and parcel of partnerships throughout the globe when it comes to this all important area. I think Canadians, wherever they live in this great country of ours, need to know the high calibre and the high regard in which Canada is noted.

I also want to point out that our Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food on September 17, 1999 announced the voluntary labelling of foods derived from biotechnology. That was in partnership with the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors as well as the Canadian General Standards Board. That too underscores the commitment of our government.

I have a question for the hon. member. I want to know if the sovereignists can tell us where the $37 million in federal money went which was allocated to farm insurance stabilization in Quebec. Why did the Quebec government not include it in its budget for the year 1998-99, as reported by the auditor general of Quebec on March 28? I want to know from the hon. member where the money went that was allocated for farm insurance stabilization. Where is the $37 million hiding? Where did it go? Why was it not spent in the appropriate place? Why was it not spent? Let us hear the sovereignists answer that.

[Supply, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the reason I can say it is because it is true. The reason it is true is because the Government of Canada has long since gone on record and in fact in deed and in word has ensured that the food safety system is in place in a manner consistent with what Canadians expect, what they need and what they desire.

I want to point out for the hon. member that the government works diligently in this very important area not only with what she mentioned in reference to my speech about equivalents and other scientific ways of measuring safety and ensuring that it is in place consistent with good science, not emotionalism but rather good science, truth and consistency. I am pleased to be part of a government that is able to do that, has done so and will continue to do it. Canadians expect that of their government, they want it and they think that it is important.

I want to go on record to mention what I think is an important point that the people of Canada should know and I challenge the members opposite, especially the Bloc members to ensure that they mention it at every opportunity. The federal government encouraged the development of standards for the voluntary labelling of new foods. This project was launched by the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors and the Canadian General Standards Board with the goal of developing consistent codes of practice for labelling to keep Canadians better informed in this all important area. The Bloc members should mention that when they talk about food safety. They should give credit where credit is due and I am sure they will.

I conclude in answer to the hon. member's question by saying once again that we have the best food safety system in the world. The reason we have it is because Canadians want it, Canadians need it and Canadians deserve it. We as a government will continue to provide it.