Karen Redman

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this has not been the finest hour in this House. As a matter of fact, I am disappointed to stand and take the floor today to talk about some of the rhetoric that surrounds this issue.

There are a couple of points that I would like to make at the outset.

Members of the official opposition have been speaking to the effect that only small desk flags would be the result of the passing of the motion before us. However, the motion clearly states that the flag would be no larger than that of a standard recognized flag. This indicates that a flag of any size would be permitted to be displayed on desks. I would ask why members opposite are being so selective as to the flags they are referring to in the debate we are having today.

Another point is that members of the official opposition have been stressing the importance of flags being permissible in the House of Commons. I remind these members that it is difficult to sit here in the House today and not see the two Canadian flags proudly displayed on either side of the Speaker's chair.

These two points aside, I have thought about this issue a lot over the past week and a half, as I know many of my colleagues have. I was in the House the day the flags were spontaneously waved and our national anthem was sung. I was in the House to see a member of the official opposition throw a Canadian flag on the floor of this Chamber.

I understand the emotion of members of this House and of Canadians upon learning what the hon. member of the Bloc said about the display of our national flag in the Olympic village. Her comments were, at least to say, unfortunate.

However, the actions in this House upon her return have also done damage. They have further politicized our national emblem. It has been used as a mere prop of nationalism.

This motion does not suggest that flags be mandatory. My question to members opposite is if I do not have a flag on my desk and my seatmate has a flag on his desk, does the logical extension then say that he is more nationalistic, a prouder federalist than I am? I think not.

Nationalism and patriotism run deep. They are not limited merely to the display of our national flag. They are demonstrated in numerous ways, too many to count.

Need I remind our colleagues that just over two months ago regions of Ontario and Quebec, just across the provincial border, close to the Hill where we now are, were stricken by an ice storm? Need I remind members of this House how Canadians of all political stripes, from all regions, from all backgrounds and ethical beliefs banded together in a massive demonstration of nationalism of the strongest kind, nationalism of action?

We are elected representatives to the House of Commons. We are elected to represent the people of our constituencies. We are elected to use our best judgment when dealing with sensitive issues based on our firsthand knowledge. We are elected and sent to this House to debate government policies and to initiate action.

I do not deny members of the official opposition the right to introduce any motion of their choice on their allotted day. I do, however, regret that they have decided to further debate the issue which was ruled on yesterday in this House by our Speaker; an issue which most parties represented in this House recommended be directed to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for further study; a study based on precedent and the conventions of this and other parliaments, particularly those of the Commonwealth countries.

The fact that members of the Reform Party do not support this recommendation, which is based on respect for the institution and the procedures of our democracy, further demonstrates that their motion is not about patriotism but merely about politics.

Members of the Reform Party are using the flag as a lightening rod to attract the attention of the media, overshadowing larger issues, issues which need to be discussed in the House, issues of job creation, health care, child care and industry development.

Let us not allow politics to be ruled by sound bytes used by the media, short clips heard on television and printed in newspapers. Yes, these things do provide information, but it is only a snapshot, not the whole picture.

The issues we deal with in the House are much larger and much more substantive than the way this whole issue has been portrayed.

I ask the House to return to the issues of importance to all Canadians. I ask Canadians to see this motion as one that will not move the envelope of Canadian unity toward a lasting stability for the country. Canada's future lies in a strong society.

I ask that the orders of precedence be respected and that we return to work on the important substantive issues facing the country which will make longlasting differences and help shape the future for all Canadians.

[Petitions, March 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians, including many from my riding of Kitchener Centre.

The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that as we near the 21st century it is ever more important that Canada take advantage of the inspiring recommendations made in the final report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, released in the fall of 1996, to further the process of reconciliation between Canada and its aboriginal inhabitants.

The petitioners therefore ask Parliament to continue its political dialogue in a negotiation process with First Nations to address the royal commission's report and recommendations in a spirit of goodwill, with justice and fairness as its guide.

[International Women's Week, March 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House today to join Canadians and the world in marking March 8 to 14 as International Women's Week.

The theme for this year's celebration is: The Evolution of Women's Rights: A Lifelong Commitment. This theme highlights the importance of women's human rights while emphasizing the long term commitment necessary to further women's equality.

In my riding of Kitchener Centre we celebrated the contributions of women to Canadian society by holding the first annual International Women's Day breakfast featuring two women who have demonstrated vision in their fields.

As we honour International Women's Week, let us reaffirm our dedication to the challenge of promoting fairness, equity and respect for human rights here in Canada and around the world.

[The Budget, March 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the member opposite for some clarification of his comments.

He talked about having an exclusionary budget and then he went on to talk about regional initiatives. I see those two things as cross purposes. I would like to hear his response as to the lifting of the surtax and the benefit that is to all Canadians.

How could he possibly speak against an initiative such as that, as well as the contingency fund which when it is not needed will go toward paying down the debt? That is exactly what Canadians asked for and this government delivered.

[Grammy Awards, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to join with all Canadians in congratulating the successes of our artists last night at the 40th annual Grammy awards in New York City.

The number of Canadians represented at these awards reflects excellence in Canadian artists. The awards they won are prestigious international recognition of this talent.

Let me first congratulate Sarah McLachlan for winning both best female pop vocal performance and best pop instrumental. Let me also congratulate producer Daniel Lanois who shared awards with Bob Dylan for album of the year and contemporary folk album of the year.

Congratulations are due to Alanis Morisette for best long form music video and to folklore professor Neil Rosenberg for best liner notes.

Congratulations also to Céline Dion for her superb—

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I simply acknowledge that education is a partnership between both levels of government. I would say lucky are the students who have two levels of government working in partnership in their best interest.

Education and health care are priorities of the government. If we were to ask the students if they would rather have two levels of government looking after them, which means more money and better access to education, they would be in full agreement.

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right. The CHST is made up partially of cash transfer and partially of a taxing authority given to the provinces through tax points. That is predicated on the growth of provincial economic conditions, so there is more money going to them.

The budget is one of several budgets brought in by the government. Bill C-28 is the legislation that entrenches the commitment the government has made. The government made an increased commitment of $12.5 billion during the last election. All members opposite refused to support that legislation in the standing committee, so I wonder what they are talking about.

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Conestoga College in my riding works with the sectors the member is talking about to offer those kinds of programs. Through access to the RRSP and the RESP they will now be able to access funds to help with that portion of their education. I see this as very forward looking and very cognizant of the kinds of skills training they need.

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that this government has done something that no other has accomplished in over 30 years. Through the direction of this government, the Canadian people have achieved a balanced budget.

In response to this achievement, the finance minister delivered a budget balance on Tuesday. This budget is visionary. Its recommendations are sustainable. Its foundations are predicated on fiscal stability. Its scope reaches all Canadians in a fair and responsible manner.

As a member of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, I had the opportunity last fall to hear from Canadians from Vancouver to St. John's. I also hosted a consultation session in my riding of Kitchener Centre. I submitted those recommendations to the Minister of Finance.

This budget speaks to the requests made by Canadians, made by my constituents. It speaks to our children, our youth, our unemployed, our working families, our businesses, our disabled people, our aboriginal population and our elderly.

This budget is in the best interests of all Canadians. It invests in community, the community of Canada.

The budget is multifaceted. I could not hope to touch on all of its merits. Instead I would like to highlight four themes: feasibility, fairness, focus, and the future.

We heard that Canadians were pleased that the deficit had been brought under control. We now find that we are even ahead of that target. However there was also an expressed concern that the government would revert to the program spending ways of the past. This government in the budget sets out a course for a continuous mandate of sensible reinvestment for Canadians without jeopardizing all we have been able to accomplish together.

Along with the previously committed programs of previous budgets, as well as Bill C-28 which will receive debate in this House in the next few weeks, we are committing to a course which is sustainable.

Canadians wanted to see us bring down the deficit. This budget fulfils that wish through designating our $3 billion contingency reserve to this purpose if it has not been required.

The current budget commits 60% to debt reduction, which is slightly more than we said we would do in the last election. This was among the recommendations made by my constituents in Kitchener during my prebudget consultation.

I would like to point out that the contingency reserve has not been required for the past four years. As a result, we have been able to reduce our marketable debt by $13 billion. This plan remains within the context of Canada's budget, interest rates and the debt to GDP ratio.

In addition to securing an enduring reduction in public debt burden the government has also reduced its exposure to increases in interest rates by restructuring the composition of our public debt. Sixty-five per cent of our debt is at a fixed rate. This is in the face of 50% in the early 1990s. This saves Canadians almost $1 billion in debt charges per year and will help us to manage our debt over the long term.

This government is committed to the feasible delivery of what Canadians said they needed and what Canadians want.

On fairness, this government is committed to meaningful consultations. I see the issues and the concerns expressed by the people across Canada addressed in this budget. This budget spans generations, provinces, and all of Canada's many ethnic communities. It truly is a budget for all Canadians. It offers visionary approaches to issues which Canadians hold dear to their hearts.

As a demonstration of the government's commitment to ensuring fairness in taxation, it has removed the 3% general surtax introduced by the Mulroney government. In addition, the government will increase the basic personal exemption by $500 for single taxpayers with an income under $20,000 and by $1,000 for a family with an income under $40,000. As a result 400,000 Canadians will be removed from the tax rolls and there will be tax relief for 4.6 million Canadians.

This budget is focused. While providing a fair approach which benefits all Canadians, this budget also addresses key areas for growth and improvement.

I would like to read a segment from my prebudget town hall report: “Education is the key to our future. Start early. Keep it accessible. Encourage lifelong learning”. This is what I heard from the people of Kitchener Centre.

A key focal point of this budget is on lifelong learning, encouraging Canadians to maintain and develop skills and knowledge.

There was a 24% increase in technological, computer and professional development as well as apprenticeship in short term programs across Canada in 1997, an increase over 1996. Due to a number of factors people are realizing the importance of ongoing lifelong learning. We are making those programs available to them through interest relief and being able to use their RRSPs for educational programs.

Part time university enrolment was down 10% to 18% in 1997 from 1996, due in part to rising costs, work and family commitments, the realization that a university degree is helpful in obtaining employment but specific skills development is also beneficial. This budget addresses these issues through offering ongoing support to lifelong learning by making the RRSPs accessible and by allowing for RESP contributions. The government will match 20% of those contributions.

Eligibility for increased assistance is also available for part time students and for students with families and other commitments. We are also opening up the eligibility to include apprenticeship programs. Generally, we are being more inclusive of the entire education spectrum. This is key to the skills development which is needed for our future workforce.

Studies in the Kitchener area indicate a desperate need for high tech and knowledge skilled workers. We have seen a shift from manufacturing industries to those in the high tech sector. This budget offers Canadians the tools they need to develop the skills that are necessary to carry them into the future and ensure increased employment opportunities.

In addition to the increased aid to students and those furthering their education, we have the Canadian millennium fund.

The government has also offered to help ease the debt burden on recent graduates by offering tax relief on the interest portion of the amount paid on loans approved under federal and provincial student loan programs.

This budget also offers an EI holiday which gives employers an incentive to hire young Canadians. This is an attempt to stop the no job, no experience, no experience, no job cycle.

Constituents at my town hall said that technology and innovation are the future. Our companies need research and development if they are to grow and prosper. Effective in 1998-99 this government has committed to restoring research granting councils to their 1994-95 levels and will continue to grow over the next two years reaching their highest level ever by the year 2001.

This budget will increase funding for research and development by more than $400 million over the next three years. This commitment to research and development will allow Canada's innovation sector to continue to be at the cutting edge. We cannot continue to lose Canada's best and brightest. We are much better off to have them make their medical discoveries and develop new technology in Canada rather than try to repatriate them after the fact.

Health care is also a key concern of Canadians. It is one of the reasons why in both Bill C-28 and this budget we have committed to having a floor of $12.5 billion going to the provinces for their CHST.

This budget looks to Canada's future by making strategic investments in areas I have mentioned. Studies indicate that over the next two decades the most critical economic challenge will be the supply of skilled labour. It is said that the attention paid in the past to address the deficit and inflation will be necessary to address this need for skilled labour in the future. The result of not addressing this would lead to a lack of economic growth with thousands of Canadians who want to work but lack the job skills to find employment.

Larry Smith, an adjunct faculty member in economics at the University of Waterloo, called this budget a stunning economic accomplishment.

Building on the theme of lifelong learning I would like to share an analogy made by one of my colleagues. If a man is hungry and you give him bread, he will eat for a day. But if you give him seeds and teach him how to farm, he will nourish himself into the future.

Truly, this budget has that kind of investment and that kind of vision both for Canadians and for the future of Canada. This budget is offering Canadians the seeds to gain the knowledge and the ability to reap the long term benefits.

[Supply, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite clear on the gist of the question, however this government has demonstrated that it is committed to looking at breaking down barriers within Canada as far as trading goes. We will continue down that road.

I would also point out that when something is done in partnership with the provinces, it is something that has to be worked out in concert with them. It is not something that can be done unilaterally. Of course, it is taking time.