Lynn Myers

[Supply, March 17th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I listened with some interest to the member opposite pat herself on the back with respect to what she had done presumably in 1991. I was certainly interested in that.

The one thing we know about the NDP members is that they are not very good with numbers. I think we witnessed that again here today with the member's speech. NDP members have an inability to really come to grips with such a very important issue and the kinds of things that are necessary in terms of our health care.

For members of the NDP the sky is always falling. It is too bad that they get into those flights of rhetoric and try to always undermine the very system that we in Canada take for granted.

I do agree with the hon. member when she talks about the Reform Party and what it stands for. Reform members stand for a two tier Americanized system, and that is something Canadians reject out of hand.

I was somewhat disconcerted when I read in the Hansard of March 2, 2000 that the hon. member for Shefford who is a Progressive Conservative also seemed to indicate that privatization was something that should take place in Canada. I was astounded because I would have thought better of the Progressive Conservatives. This after all is their motion today.

I also noted that the member for Chicoutimi was quoted recently as saying that perhaps the Conservatives and the Reformers should get together in some sort of holy or unholy alliance. I think his words were: “Let's find common ground”. If they are to find common ground on that kind of issue presumably they will on health care as well.

I would caution Progressive Conservatives not to go down that path. They should be careful when it comes to these kinds of things. We saw them flip on the clarity bill. Heaven help us if they flip on something as important as health care.

I listened to the speech of the member opposite. Why would her leader under the platform of the NDP in the last election commit $79 billion to new spending over five years, only 10% of which or $7 billion was committed to health care? It does not add up. NDP members talk about the importance of health care yet their commitment was absolutely outrageous in terms of what they were proposing. It is unbelievable.

Let me conclude by giving the record. What Bob Rae and the NDP and Glen Clark and the NDP in B.C. did was outrageous. My question to the member is simple. Why does she not work with all of us, our provincial and territorial partners and the health minister, to try to find a solution instead of all the nonsense they keep raising and all the rhetoric they keep stirring up, all this sky is falling kind of nonsense? Why will she not commit the NDP to working with us to get a good solution for the all important health care issue in Canada?

[House Of Commons, March 16th, 2000]

They might even vote twice on the same amendment.

[House Of Commons, March 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona for his discourse and for what I consider to be his wise comments. He is a member of longstanding in the House and has a great insight when it comes to matters such as these.

I was going to ask him if he was part of the World Wrestling Federation because he mentioned things in his speech about wrestling matches and such. I did not think that was salient to the debate so I will not ask that. What I would rather do, given his long and distinguished career in the House, is ask him for his view and thoughts on some of the misguided barbs that came the Speaker's way.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, I want you to understand where I stand on this matter. You have done a very effective job in the House. It is a tough and difficult job. It requires patience, good judgment and the kinds of things that are necessary to keep 301 people reasonably in fashion and informed in a manner consistent with what I believe Canadians want the House to represent. I commend you in terms of the kind of approach you have taken, the attitude you display and quite frankly, the professionalism that is yours as a result of the kind of experience that you bring to the position.

I think the member referenced this somewhat in his speech. I want to ask the member whether or not some misguided barbs that came the Speaker's way perhaps were displaced anger and frustration and the Speaker happened to get in the way of that. There are all kinds of reasons and motivations for why these things occur.

I did want to get the hon. member's perspective on that. Perhaps he would oblige the House by answering that question.

[Witness And Spousal Protection Program Act, March 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to say that I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight and also to share some of the concerns of the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River with respect to victims of abuse.

I have a long history when it comes to issues such as this. I spent 10 years on the police services board and as chairman of the Waterloo regional police. We worked very closely with victims of crime and tried to do the kinds of things that are necessary to ensure that people who have found themselves in that kind of position and in that kind of situation were given every assistance in a way that was meaningful not only to them but to their families as well, and to ensure that an effective method of dealing with them was in place.

I must admit that we were pioneers in this area and tried to do it in a way consistent with the values not only of our community but also in terms of Canada.

I would point out that while Canada's equitable and effective justice system is one of the reasons this country remains a very successful place and a very attractive place in which to live and raise a family, no system is perfect. It is a sad fact that despite criminal code measures, broad preventive initiatives and assistance from shelters and transitional homes, vulnerable Canadians still have not found the solace and protection they need in society. Often, and unfortunately, these people are women.

Bill C-223 attempts to assist the victims of violence and the threat of violence in the home or from a spouse. I commend the member for taking the initiative in this area.

However, I also point out that violence in the home affects not only women but children as well. It is insidious and it tends to be self-perpetuating, transferring from one generation to the next. It is very sad.

A woman who leaves an abusive relationship must often move out of the province, moving from one safe haven to another, living a life of fear of discovery and fear for the safety and lives of not only herself but her children as well.

As members of the House we are all concerned with this very important issue. For far too long society has tended to ignore the facts of violence in the home. Because we have ignored it, it is more prevalent than it should otherwise be.

And so it is that I respect the hon. member's intentions in introducing Bill C-223. I believe it is right and proper that we should be focusing our attention on the issues of domestic violence and the protection of our children, and the victims associated with that violence.

That being said, I think we must consider that Bill C-223 may be the wrong instrument in this case. Bill C-223 recognizes that even after relocation some victims continue to be stalked, threatened or even killed. Sometimes the only remaining last resort and course of action is a change of identity. Bill C-223 would therefore extend the provisions of the witness protection program to victims whose lives are in danger because of domestic violence. That may be far from a perfect solution. I would argue, given the experience I had with the police in the Waterloo region, that it would be the wrong solution.

First, the objectives of the witness protection program are wrong for these victims. The program is run by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as an aid to law enforcement, in particular against organized crime. Participants are people who have information that could incriminate themselves, but who would risk their lives by testifying. The program to provide protection to them is administered by the police, for police reasons. This is a far different group of people from that of the victims of violence and domestic violence.

Here we have a group of people who are desperate for help and, aside from protection, need counselling, self-esteem building and psychological help. I believe it would be a mistake, therefore, to lump these very much at risk and vulnerable people in with a quite different group of witnesses to organized criminal activity.

To be effective a program to assist victims in life threatening relationships must be quite different from the witness protection program. Such a program must involve provincial and territorial partners, because of the jurisdictional issues, to address the issues of security, health, counselling, safe housing, employment and the future of the children. In fact we should be assured by the fact that the Government of Canada has for some time been working toward such a program.

In previous discussions of this bill mention has been made of the ad hoc process begun by Human Resources Development Canada some time ago, of the experience gained and the evolution toward a national federal-provincial-territorial program for providing new identities to victims in life threatening relationships. This process, initiated by HRDC and the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, helps victims and their children, providing them with new social insurance numbers and re-created federal social benefits.

Experience from this process has taught us some very valuable lessons. A change of identity is definitely a last resort. In the beginning there were not many cases. For example, from 1992 to 1997 there were 52 victims who were helped, but growing awareness has since increased the number to a total of 206 victims, with more than 300 children involved.

The ad hoc process was meant to be a compassionate government response to an obvious need, but the lack of formal co-ordination and interjurisdictional complications of changing a person's identity has made it necessary to seek a permanent solution. The government, therefore, is working with stakeholders to do precisely that in looking at the possibility of a more effective, specifically mandated national program.

Consultations have begun in this very important area. During these consultations there was unanimous agreement on the need for a co-ordinated new identities program. Governments everywhere that were involved were praised for bringing the issue to the forefront. Provinces and territories seem to be looking to the federal government for leadership in this area and that is precisely what we will be doing.

A federal-provincial-territorial working group has been established and is working in consultation with victims' representatives, operating under the umbrella of the social services ministers in consultation with the justice ministers.

Unlike many other fields of endeavour, there is a willingness to co-operate and get on with the job in this important area. That makes sense. Surely we should wait for it to complete its work before any legislation on these issues is put into place.

Therefore, while we respect the hon. member's intent, and we know that he has the best of intentions in bringing this to the forefront, we on the government side think that it is premature at this time. I would urge all hon. members to vote accordingly, knowing that there are other ways and other venues to approach this very, very important issue.

[Agriculture, March 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, members in the House are well aware of the tough times that farmers in Canada are facing. One of the pressures is cost recovery fees. Can the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food update the House with respect to cost recovery fees and how it pertains to his portfolio?

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I want to resume my debate on this very important bill, Bill C-20.

I was talking about the kind of stalling tactics the Bloc members are implementing on this very important and historic bill. It saddens me. I heard the member for Quebec East call me a liar while I was speaking. I suppose that is part and parcel of where some of those people come from which is too bad. I do not think it is appropriate. I think it is quite unparliamentary.

I want to say in review it really is shameful when we see something as important as this bill come forward that there are now amendments to amendments being proposed. It is a shame that 300 press clippings were read in the House and 1,000 amendments were proposed. It shows nothing but contempt not only for the House but for the Canadian people wherever they live in this great country of ours. It really is undemocratic.

For the record indicate I want to indicate that on December 13, 1999 the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry said that everything they can do to slow down the bill to prevent its passage will be done. That really is shameful. That is not what democracy in Canada is all about.

Let me say what the leader of the Bloc said not so very long ago on February 7:

I can tell you that it's going to be a long process...very, very long...The record was 471?....more than that.

The implication is that this is going to be stalled, this is going to be dragged out, this is going to be extended, all at the expense of democracy. That is unacceptable and that is not the Canadian way. It is simply outright rubbish.

On February 8 the hon. member for Roberval said that there was no way whatsoever that the Bloc would co-operate in passing Bill C-20. Again, it is crystal clear where these people opposite are coming from and that is in an undemocratic way to simply tie up the business of the House, using every procedural trick in their arsenal, when Canadians want to talk about other things. They want to talk about jobs. They want to talk about trade issues. They want to talk about globalization. They want to talk about transportation in the west. They want to talk about farmers. They want to talk about health care. They want to talk about education. They do not want to get stalled by those people opposite who want nothing more than to stall the business of the House, to tie it up, to do whatever they can procedurally or any other way to hog-tie the House of Commons.

We on the government side will not allow them to get away with it. Why? Because it is not in the best interests of Canadians, wherever they live in Canada. We on this side of the House will ensure that does not happen.

That is why we are crystal clear when it comes to Group No. 1, which we are debating today, which deals with the preamble. The House should not forget that this is a very simple bill that has three statements to it. It is very simple, very straightforward and very uncomplicated. It is those people opposite who are making it into something far greater than it was ever intended to be, and that is unacceptable.

Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the amendments in Group No. 1, which deal with the preamble, and now the amendments to the amendments which they are proposing, simply go counter to what we have in mind.

The bill closely reflects the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec secession reference. Each of the preambular clauses is drawn from elements of the court's judgment. Despite the attempts of the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Bouchard, to conveniently ignore certain parts of the judgment, it is all important that all of its elements be reflected in the clarity act preamble.

That is what we on the government side are doing. We are being straightforward. We are being simple. We are being clear in terms of what we are doing, because Canadians expect that kind of common sense approach when it comes to government. Canadians expect that of us. We are here elected from across Canada to represent every region and every area of this country. No matter where we come from, we are here to govern in an appropriate and solid fashion, and we continue to do that. Why? Because it is expected, it is required and it is necessary.

When we brought in as a government the clarity legislation, Bill C-20, we did so with great intent, with great purpose, to ensure that people throughout Canada, and the world for that matter, who are watching this process will know that we come from a very solid and straightforward foundation, knowing that this is a time to act in a meaningful way on behalf of Canada. That is precisely what we on the government side, with the help of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, will do.

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 13th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I will tell you what I am saying. It astonished me, and the member reminds me of what the leader of the NDP did when we first brought in the clarity bill. Outside she was quoted as saying that the bill was stupid and provocative. Those were exactly her words. I find it shameful that the NDP would take that kind of attitude on such an important bill, the clarity bill which underpins the very importance of not only who we are but what we represent.

I say to my hon. colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party opposite, the party of Sir John A. Macdonald and Cartier, imagine how they would be spinning in their graves. Imagine how they are today listening to the Progressive Conservatives not standing up for Canada, not being on the right side of history, being on the wrong side of history, and their leader Joe Clark saying the kind of nonsense he has been saying with respect to this all important bill. It is shameful that the party of Sir John A. and the party of Cartier has come to that. It is absolutely disgraceful.

I had to give my head a shake to really understand what the Bloc member who spoke before me was trying to say. Imagine having to bring in an amendment to an amendment. Imagine threatening, as Bloc members have now done, a thousand amendments on three clauses. Imagine getting up day after day in the House of Commons, in this great place of democracy, and reading 300 press clippings and always caterwauling away. They say they represent the democrats when in fact it is quite the opposite. They are undemocratic. All they are trying to do is stall the business of the House, stall what Canadians want us to do which is to bring clarity to the debate once and for all.

But what do they do? They keep stalling. Even at the committee they went on for five hours to try to talk it out so that the business of the committee could not take place. Imagine the disgrace and the shame. Quebecers and Canadians wherever they live want no part of that kind of nonsense because it is ridiculous. It undermines the very Canada for which we stand.

I cannot believe that they—

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 13th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it is with great honour that I enter the debate today. What we are discussing is very important. It seems to underpin the very democratic process not only of parliament, but of the Canadian way in terms of how we do things and the importance of what it means to act in a democratic fashion.

I listened with great interest to the Reform Party and the member for Macleod. The one thing with which I agreed was his congratulations to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. The minister has done a tremendous job in this whole process and deserves our congratulations, respect and thanks. Not only is he a great Canadian but he is also a great Quebecer. It bodes well for us as we move confidently into the 21st century to have a person of his calibre leading very positively in the way he is along with the Prime Minister.

The Reform Party really flip-flopped on this issue. It is always disturbing to see how it never stands for Canada when it counts.

I listed too to the NDP and the member for Winnipeg—Transcona. He got a little outraged and put on a little theatre for us in the House. Really what he did was quite trite. I assume he knows his constitutional history but he certainly did not show it today. If he knew his constitutional history he would know that the aboriginal peoples are covered off in the constitution. They will be very much at the table when it comes to making these kinds of decisions not only for themselves and for whom and what they represent, but for Canada as a whole.

I say to him and all Canadians, that process is in place and in hand and we will do it in a manner consistent with the values—

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 13th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that is unduly provocative and unparliamentary. I think it is uncalled for and the member should withdraw what he just said.

[Supply, March 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The other day it was ruled that hypocrisy was unparliamentary. I would ask the hon. member to withdraw and while he is at it, he should remember that Mike Harris is nothing more than a two tier health care lover and so are they.