Lynn Myers

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, February 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the member opposite. I know he has had a long and I would like to say distinguished career because I understand he was first elected when he was in his twenties. Through opportunities he has made some changes over the years, in terms of to which party he has belonged and such, but I would have thought that given that long career he would have known the kind of process that we in Canada deal with when it comes to governing.

I would have thought, for example, he would know that parliament sets the rules and makes the laws. I would have thought he would know that the role of the civil service is to carry out those laws. I would have thought he would know that the role of the judiciary is to interpret those laws. Yet, again we hear from him, as we often do from Reform members opposite, judiciary bashing.

I spent 10 years on the Waterloo regional police force and as chairman I dealt not only with police, young offenders, pornography, drunk driving and all the things he was talking about, I also interacted with the judiciary. I want to ask the member what purpose he and his party have in repeatedly bashing one of the finest judiciaries in the world? People from around the world look to Canada for—

[Health, February 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, today representatives from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada and the Canadian Cardiovascular Society are meeting with members of parliament and senators as part of their annual Heart on the Hill day. Their aim is to raise awareness of heart disease and stroke, which is the number one killer of Canadians.

Cardiovascular disease kills almost 80,000 Canadians every year and accounts for almost $20 billion in direct and indirect health costs.

As we begin the new millennium, the burden of heart and stroke disease will continue to rise. This epidemic will become more pronounced as the average age of our population increases. Of particular concern are the growing number of Canadians who are living in a state of disability as a result of heart disease, especially congestive heart failure.

Heart and Stroke Month offers Canadians an excellent opportunity to learn more about heart disease and stroke. By fostering awareness we can increase preventive measures and hopefully save lives.

[Shipbuilding Industry, February 8th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is taking shots at one of the cabinet ministers. It is totally inappropriate and totally unwarranted. He should tailor his talk in a way that does not do that because it denigrates this whole House and all Canadians. That is absolute rubbish. He should withdraw it and get to his point.

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member opposite understands when I say how pathetic the Reform Party is as it twists and turns in its own self-flagellation. It is unbelievable how those people opposite are intent always on pitting Canadians against Canadians, region against region, group against group, people against people. That is all those people who are nothing more than disunity type people have in common. They deserve each other and they deserve what they get. However, we on the governing side—

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to offer my comments on this very misguided Reform opposition motion which we are debating today. I find it quite astonishing that some members, especially those of the Reform Party, would claim that the government is trying to hide something here when it was the minister herself who made the internal audit known to the public.

I heard the hon. member for Medicine Hat talk about pathetic. What is pathetic is what the Reform Party and others are trying to do in this debate, which is to misrepresent the facts to the extent they are. It is absolutely shameful but it is so typical of the pathetic Reform Party. What it is good at—

[Eating Disorders, February 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this week is eating disorder awareness week. It provides us with an opportunity to educate the public on the relationship between dieting, body dissatisfaction and eating disorders.

This week is an opportunity for all Canadians to evaluate the way our attitudes toward shape and weight impact the quality of our lives. Food and weight concerns should be taken seriously, and most women and a growing number of men in our society struggle with these issues. Some 90% of women experience body image dissatisfaction, 80% have dieted before the age of 18 years, and 15% have many of the symptoms of an eating disorder.

Informing the public about food and weight issues is only the first step in the fight against the development of eating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia. Healthy lifestyles, healthy eating and appropriate, enjoyable exercise are but a few simple preventive measures that can be taken by people of all ages, genders, shapes and sizes.

I encourage all Canadians to learn about food and weight issues and applaud the efforts of all those involved in this very important issue.

[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, February 7th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me that the party opposite says things like frighten and intimidate and tries to pretend that somehow Quebec has been a victim in all this when the reality is that Canada is a federation that works.

Time and time again not only have we proven it here at home but people around the world say that we are a country second to none because of our tolerance, our compassion, our assistance to others, and the ability to allow linguistic, cultural and religious groups to maintain what they believe and think is important. We have done that in a very meaningful way which allows the people of Quebec and all parts of Canada to live in a way and in a sense of harmony that is unparalleled in the world.

To the member opposite I say it is quite frivolous to hear that, but I want to directly answer his comment about the Government of Quebec question and how clear it was. Let me for the record say that in the 1980 referendum this was the question:

The Government of Québec has made public its proposal to negotiate a new agreement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations; this agreement would enable Québec to acquire the exclusive power to make its laws, administer its taxes, and establish relations abroad—in other words, sovereignty—and at the same time, to maintain with Canada an economic association including a common currency; any change in political status resulting from these negotiations will be submitted to the people through a referendum; on these terms, do you agree to give the Government of Québec the mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Québec and Canada?

Oui or non. Do you think for one minute, Madam Speaker, that is a clear question? I do not think so. When the member opposite tries to hoodwink us by saying it is, I say it ain't. It is not, and he should reread the question to find out and then he would know.

[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, February 7th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, this is a great and historic debate and I am very honoured to be part of it today. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

Canada is very important to me. It is important to my constituents. It is important, I would hope, to all members in the House and to people around the world. Although we have differences, Canada is place where people can live in harmony with and tolerance of one another. It is the envy of many countries worldwide because as a nation we can agree to disagree when and if necessary and yet coexist. We can work together and share values and resources.

Secession would be traumatic for all involved and it would certainly be difficult to negotiate. Bill C-20 which I support is intended to protect the rights of all Canadians if we ever have to tackle such an issue, and I hope we will not.

It provides a means to ensure that a decision which would have profound and irreversible consequences such as secession would be made only as a result of asking a clear and unequivocal question.

Canada is recognized as a model of openness and tolerance where disputes can be resolved through debate without recourse to force. This means that we can engage in discussion at many levels in our country and our lives and well-being are not threatened because of the points of view we express.

In this country it is possible for populations of different cultures and languages to respect each other and yet live together in harmony. This is not the case in many areas of the world where identity based decisions result in violence. One can only think of what has recently happened in the Balkans in the last number of years.

We must continue to express tolerance and openness toward each other, not only to serve ourselves but to serve as an example to other populations around the world that face ethnic, linguistic or identity based tensions.

Our ability to work out our differences has been recognized by our neighbour to the south. On October 8, 1999, President Bill Clinton, after having said that the United States values its relationship with a strong and united Canada, remarked as follows:

The partnership you have built between people of diverse backgrounds and governments at all levels is what...democracy must be about, as people all over the world move around more, mix with each other more, and live in close proximity more.

Here then is recognition of the success we have achieved as a great multicultural federation able to face its current challenges and those that the world as a whole will have to face more and more often in the future. We have done it and we are successful at it. Here is recognition of the fact that our country can be a role model for other states that are emerging or evolving, for states that are starting out on the path of democracy.

Ours is a large and diversified country where each province and territory can solve problems by finding and implementing its own solutions. We have learned from one another over the years. At times we share solutions and best practices and we can also choose to be distinct.

If we have differences, for example, they need not be irreconcilable, leading to the strife as is the case in many parts of the world. They can be examined and we can find common ground that suits all. As our federation evolves we must strengthen partnerships among all levels of government and ensure that all Canadians benefit from the strong economy we are enjoying now and that their rights are protected no matter where they live in this great country.

We have a federal government and provinces that are strong in their areas of jurisdiction. We respect certain principles and have mechanisms and programs in place to ensure that all Canadians enjoy the same rights and have access to a comparable quality of life whether they live in British Columbia, Nova Scotia, or any and all points in between.

Where regional differences create disadvantages we try to make up for them, most notably through our equalization program. Canadians know this and appreciate the choices and mobility afforded them by those programs. In 1996 our Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said:

That's what Canada is, and that's why it is respected and envied by so many on the international scene. It is the country that gives the best guarantee that human beings will be treated like human beings, with full dignity.

Truer words were never spoken. There are other ways to solve our problems and work out our differences. At the federal and provincial levels our first ministers and their officials meet and negotiate regularly. We see finance, health, industry and agriculture, to name a few, trying to address collectively the problems people in our society face.

Our courts also resolve disputes, examine issues and then render decisions and opinions based on fact and law. Elections that we often take for granted in a democracy are held and allow citizens to express their views on larger issues which affect them no matter where they live in Canada. This is the ultimate way we work out our differences, but it has allowed our country to thrive and to prosper. We are stronger as a result.

With Bill C-20 the federal government wants to ensure that we can handle the most difficult issue a country could ever have to face: the possibility of its own breakup. However, the country would have to go through this while making sure that the rights of all Canadians are protected. That is important to note.

Bill C-20 ensures that if Canadians are asked if they want their province to separate from Canada it is through a question they can understand clearly. We live in a democracy. Bill C-20 is our democratic response to the talk of secession.

In 1980 and again in 1995 the Quebec government asked its citizens questions that could have led to the separation of Quebec. If Quebecers are asked again, the federal government wants to ensure and needs to ensure that they know what they are being asked and what the consequences of their answers would be.

What would the impact be to Canadians, to Quebecers and even to the world if Quebec were to separate from Canada? A great nation would no longer exist, and that would be a tragedy. Our example to the world showing that minorities can coexist and flourish would be lost forever. Secession would break up Canada but it would also result in the division of Quebec society itself, a rift that history has taught us could last no more than a generation. Disagreements would continue for many years, long after formal negotiations would have been concluded.

In his speech opening the 18th Sommet de la Francophonie in Moncton on September 3, 1999, the French president, Mr. Jacques Chirac, expressed his admiration for our country. He said:

It is so symbolic to be here in Canada, a country which searches for and comes up with ways to live together in a peaceful and tolerant fashion. Today, Canada, this land of first nations, francophones and anglophones, provides an example of a cultural and linguistic diversity that is not only accepted but also valued.

The Canada we now live in would no longer be. The once exemplary federation decentralized and tolerant would now be a broken nation. It would be a major setback for the coexistence of minorities worldwide.

In the opinion on unilateral secession rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada on August 20, 1998, it was stated that only clear support for secession would give rise to an obligation to undertake constitutional negotiations should Quebecers decide to separate from Canada.

Support for separation would need to be expressed by a clear majority in favour of secession, answering a clear question on the very secession point. The question that would be put to voters would have to be straightforward and clear. It could not cloak a separation from Canada and its grave consequences in wordiness thereby allaying any confusion. That is totally unacceptable. Bill C-20 will ensure that facing the possibility of separation Canadians would know what they are being asked and would know how the government will uphold democracy.

In conclusion, the bill is an enormously important one. It is of historic consequence and one that all of us should support.

[Wilmot Township, December 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today it is an honour for me to rise and advise my colleagues of a significant event in the township of Wilmot located in my great riding of Waterloo—Wellington in the heart of Ontario.

The residents of Wilmot township will celebrate its 150th anniversary in the year 2000. Wilmot township holds a special place in my heart and my family's history. I was born, raised and still live on the family farm, my ancestors having first settled there in 1827. I also served there as a municipal councillor and as mayor of the municipality.

The 150th anniversary celebrations will include the opening of the Oasis in the Centre Park. This park will be located on the site of the original town hall where in 1850 my great-great-grandfather served as the first Clerk.

Not only will the park commemorate the history of the township by providing a place to reflect on the rich heritage of the township, but also the park will serve as a place to contemplate the yet unwritten history of the next millennium.

I would ask all my colleagues to join me in this great celebration and applaud the township of Wilmot on its 150th anniversary.

[Cruelty To Animals, December 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I was born, raised and still live on the family farm and, along with my constituents, feel strongly about cruelty to animals.

Canadians across the country have joined animal welfare organizations in condemning incidents of mistreatment of pets and other animals. People are making it clear that they expect the government to respond to the seriousness of this cruelty. Early intervention is imperative.

Police studies confirm that the motivating factors of animal abuse are related to anger, control and power. This is totally unacceptable.

Therefore, specific changes to the criminal code should ensure that we make it illegal to brutally treat or viciously kill an animal, raise the maximum penalty for intentional cruelty, give judges the authority to order anyone convicted of cruelty to animals to pay restitution for shelter and veterinarian costs, and finally, prohibit anyone convicted of cruelty to animals from owning another animal.

We must and we will protect our animals from such heinous acts. People all across Canada have indicated that they will not tolerate cruelty to animals. Accordingly, the government will act decisively in this matter.