Lost his last election, in 2006, with 40% of the vote.
Committees Of The House November 8th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting the first report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. The report details the committee's consideration of Bill C-23, an act to establish the Nuclear Safety Commission and to make consequential amendments to other acts. We have agreed to report it with amendments.
National Unity November 8th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, Remembrance Day is on Monday, so there is no better time for Canada and Canadians to reflect on what makes our country such a great place for our children to grow up in.
Just over a year ago Canadians from all provinces poured forth their support for a united Canada and Canadians living in Quebec voted to keep our country united. Since then we have worked hard to find a balance that will achieve lasting unity in Canada.
In advance of the day on which we join together to remember the ultimate sacrifices of our veterans, and in advance of the day on which we join together to honour their courage and their commitment to a free and peaceful Canada, I ask also that we take a moment today to value all that makes us Canadians.
I ask that we work together for a Canada that will remain strong, united and free. Let us leave a lasting legacy for future generations of Canadians and let us honour what our veterans fought so hard to preserve.
Supply October 24th, 1996
Madam Speaker, further to my question to the Minister of Industry, I wish to emphasize that tourism is one of the most important industries in my riding. It is an industry that accounts for half the jobs, that is one in every two jobs in the riding. It is a significant economic generator in Parry Sound-Muskoka.
It is also a significant economic generator throughout the rest of Canada, which is why our government increased to $50 million its support to this important sector. It is why our government established the Canadian Tourism Commission to stem the tide of the international tourism deficit.
Indeed, tourism is a $26 billion industry in this country and constitutes in my riding wholehearted support for the federal government's action to increase the economic spinoffs from this important sector.
However, I believe that through the Canadian Tourism Commission there is even more that can be done. It is true that in partnership with industry members, the private sector and federal and provincial governments the tourism commission has been successful in achieving a 13 per cent increase in international tourism receipts in Canada.
These initiatives have also generated an almost 2 per cent increase in employment in the tourism sector, which is good news for Canadians everywhere.
This is good progress, but I want to make sure that everything that can be done will be done to enhance economic development in areas that are dependent on tourism for their livelihood and, in particular, in rural and remote areas of Canada.
For example, in my riding the federal government will continue to support local projects and events through investments in infrastructure and human resources development.
Since 1993, through federal programming initiatives, I have facilitated an investment of more than $1 million for tourism in our riding.
The federal government has supported things like a snowmobile trail system to develop and lengthen our tourism season. We have supported cultural facilities and tourism centres in addition to the work that we have done with chambers of commerce through the promotion of events and attractions.
Our work in the riding will continue because tourism is such an important industry and such an important job source for constituents. I believe the work of the tourism commission will extend this support.
One of the commission's most important objectives, of course, is to reduce the international tourism deficit. Part of that goal is to divert some of the travellers from the United States and encourage them instead to travel to our many and varied tourism regions here in Canada. This is particularly important to the constituents in my riding. The reliance on partnerships is key to the success of that relationship.
In addition to its success in Canada as a whole, I want to ensure that the tourism commission works well in rural and remote Canada. We need to take the small business tourism operators into account with our policies and with the work of the commission. It is important that our government facilitate the creation of partnerships among local rural players like those in my riding.
Research and development in the tourism industry, new technology, access to capital and infrastructure are the things that will benefit rural tourism operators. The tourism commission will play a key role in that development through undertakings that expand on current initiatives and achievements to date.
I ask the parliamentary secretary what can constituents expect in a rural riding like mine from the commission in this regard?
Supply October 24th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, in his question and comments the hon. member requires that I repeat a couple of the things I said in my speech. If he wants to stand in this House and say through the television cameras to the people of Quebec and to the people of Montreal that the political climate and the political instability brought to that province through of the pursuit of the sovereignty option has absolutely no impact on the economy of Quebec, then he can say that. There is not an economist, not a reasonable person in Quebec or anywhere else in Canada or the world that believes that.
If the hon. member is going to suggest to me that the political climate in Quebec is conducive to economic activity, he is just plain wrong because it is not. In order to have an economy grow, move forward and create jobs it needs to have political stability.
The member forgets something else. Economies operate within a market system. They are not dictated simply by what the provincial government in Quebec City does. They are not simply affected by what a federal government might do in Ottawa. They are dictated in this country in large part by the markets within which we operate. Those markets are affected by external factors.
One of those factors is the political stability within which that market operates. Until that political stability is brought into line, until that sovereignty option is put aside and the concentration is on the economy in Quebec there will continue to be economic problems in that part of this country.
Supply October 24th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg St. James
I am pleased to have an opportunity to talk on this opposition motion offered by the Bloc in respect of Montreal. I have no doubt that its suggestion that the economic situation in Montreal is critical is a reality. However, I firmly believe and I know most Canadians, most economists and most people who know how economies work believe that the analysis that the Bloc has put forth in its opposition motion is at best flawed.
The situation in Montreal today is caused in large part because of the political uncertainty that exists in that province and in that city. If Bloc Quebecois members want to know why Montreal is
suffering economically today, I suggest they and their PQ cousins look themselves clearly in the mirror and they shall see the enemy.
For the economy in Montreal, in Quebec and indeed for the Canadian economy in general to prosper and move forward we need political stability. That means that this experiment, this flawed idea of sovereignty must be put aside. For Montreal to prosper as a community, for it to serve as the engine of the Quebec economy, political stability has to be brought to that province. The constant and continual constitutional debates must come to an end. The Quebec government must, as this government does, focus its energy on the economy, on job creation and on seeing the economy move forward. If it wants to identify a problem that is where it should be looking.
As part of the specific comments that were made in that motion, I am going to take the opportunity to talk a little about Natural Resources Canada and its R and D investment. I have the opportunity of serving as the chair of that committee. I know Natural Resources Canada is going to continue to fund energy research and development activities, those that are expected to generate benefits in the short and medium term. We are also not going to abandon the long term activities. We are placing a priority on research and development activities that will address critical long term issues like climate change and will be doing that sooner rather than later.
The natural resources portfolio of this government is doing a great deal of work. It is setting research and development as a priority. We see things across Canada. We see things like the oil sands where we are working to have sustainable development of the Alberta oil sands. We are looking at the area of energy efficiency where we are working to create alternative sources of energy which create no pollution. These are the priorities of Natural Resources Canada and they demonstrate that we are in fact investing in research and development in this country.
There is a great and lengthy story that I could espouse about in Natural Resources Canada's development activities, but I want to be more specific about the motion before us today. I want to point out very clearly that the investments that Natural Resources Canada is making are not just in western Canada, eastern Canada or Ontario; they are right across the country. No one would know it from reading this motion, but these investments are happening in the province of Quebec as well.
Natural Resources Canada is working on the advanced houses program, including two in Quebec, and is just completing its one year public demonstration period. These houses deal with the whole issue of air quality requirements. These are houses in which we are dealing with the whole issue of air quality requirements. We are looking at an advanced housing program that will see better and more efficient homes built in this country. This project is happening across Canada. It is happening in Quebec.
The expertise assembled at the Natural Resources Canada energy diversification research laboratory at Varennes, Quebec, was instrumental in the European space agency's award to EDRL of a $100,000 contract to evaluate the potential of advanced heat pumping technologies in space applications. That is happening in the province of Quebec.
Natural Resources Canada with Environmental Canada and the Government of Quebec funded a field trial of the combustion of old tires in a cement container at the St. Constant, Quebec, cement plant of Lafarge Canada. Again, that is new technology which is working to protect our environment. It is investment in research and development by Natural Resources Canada and it is happening in the province of Quebec.
Natural Resources Canada is working with the École Polytechnique at the University of Montreal and Canadian gas utilities to develop an energy efficient process which uses natural gas to reduce organic contamination in industrial waste water. That is important research and development that continues to occur in this country and it is occurring in the province of Quebec.
At Laval University's hydro-turbine test laboratory, Natural Resources Canada supported the development of a 120 kilowatt tubular S-turbine which has now been licensed for international manufacturing and marketing. Again, that is sound research development into future energy needs and it is taking place in the province of Quebec.
The suggestion that the Bloc is trying to make, that we are taking one part of the country and playing it off against another part of the country, is totally absurd. That is not what the government is doing. It is what the party on the other side of the House is trying to do. It is trying to play one part of Canada against the other. It is trying to play one part of Quebec against another part of Quebec.
It is clear on the research and development aspect that the government has not favoured one part of the country over another. The Minister of Natural Resources has had to make some tough decisions in this fiscal climate. She has had to govern. The Minister of Natural Resources has had to make those hard choices which any government is required to make. She has made them understanding what sound fiscal management is all about. She has made them understanding what leadership is all about. She understands that governing is for all of Canada. She understands that she must make decisions which are in the best interests of all Canadians.
The ministers that make up the government, and the Prime Minister in particular, understand their obligation to the whole country. That obligation is not just to Ontario, the prairies or the maritimes, and it is not just to Quebec, it is to the whole country.
The province of Quebec, as all other provinces in Canada, has the opportunity within this great nation to move forward. The
province of Quebec has, the province of Ontario has, the east and the west in Canada have as well.
As an individual who represents a riding in rural Ontario, I can say that I resent the insinuation in the motion that the government is ignoring its obligation in one part of the country. That simply is not true. The government recognizes its obligation to all parts of the country, including the province of Quebec. It has exercised that obligation in a sound manner. It has exercised its obligation showing leadership, making tough decisions when they have been required, but always remembering that we are one nation from coast to coast to coast. We govern that way and we govern that way effectively.
Small Business Week October 23rd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute small business in this country and to recognize Small Business Week.
Today in Canada all but approximately 2,000 of the more than two million businesses fall within the self-employed or small and medium size business categories. Ninety-nine per cent of the new businesses started up in the last decade have been SMEs.
Today in my riding the CFDC, in partnership with the BDC, local chambers and others, is conducting a conference for existing and new entrepreneurs. I applaud this community initiative to help the small business community adapt and take advantage of market opportunities.
On a national level, our federal government is working to help small businesses compete by streamlining regulations, improving access to capital and enhancing export opportunities. Canada is a great place to do business. Today I salute the small business men and women across this country for their entrepreneurial spirit.
Tourism October 8th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, tourism is estimated to be a $26 billion industry in Canada. To help it expand, the Canadian Tourism Commission was launched over a year ago to stem Canada's international tourism deficit.
Would the minister tell us, has the Canadian Tourism Commission been effective? Is it generating new tourism business in this country?
Gravenhurst Achievement Awards October 4th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, many of the constituents in my riding have special programs in place to honour their residents and volunteers for their outstanding contributions and achievements, which is one of our fine rural Ontario traditions.
In my hometown for example, through the Gravenhurst Achievement Awards the community honours people who have made their mark in things as varied as music, sports, art and architecture. The objective of the program is to publicly recognize the achievement of the townspeople, thereby promoting pride within the community.
I applaud this positive demonstration of community spirit. I encourage all the communities in my riding to keep up the good work.
I congratulate this year's Gravenhurst Achievement Award winners: Stephen Brackley, David Dawson, Erin Edwards, Christine Harris, Wayne Hill and Nancy Snider.
The Criminal Code October 3rd, 1996
After those comments, Mr. Speaker, I am glad I am not a lawyer. My goodness, they might get some mail from the law society tomorrow.
Let us talk about section 745 because I know the member has been up a number of times. I want to make sure the Canadian people understand exactly what the third party voted against. Section 745 has been in the Criminal Code for quite a while. The government changed it. Reformers voted against a bill that would stop somebody who was a multiple murderer from having eligibility of parole. They voted against that. If their vote had carried the day, it would mean that people who were multiple murderers would have eligibility for parole after 15 years. They voted against that change.
What else did they vote against when they voted against section 745? Under the old regime only two-thirds agreement was needed of the jury of the individual's peers from the community from which the crime had occurred to set the individual free. This bill made sure the jury had to be unanimous. Reformers voted against that. Since they voted against it obviously they thought it only necessary to have two-thirds of the jury in agreement.
There was a third component to the revisions of section 745. Judges would have the ability to disregard an application for parole that was considered to be frivolous so the victims in those types of cases would not be subject to the actual hearings. Reform Party members voted against that too.
It is unbelievable. They are here trying to suggest that they have the complete corner on the issue of wanting to control violence, wanting to strengthen the criminal justice system, but every time it comes to a choice, every time it comes to a vote where they have an
opportunity to see those types of laws strengthened, what do they do? They vote against it. It is unbelievable. They vote against justice bills over and over again.
It is this Liberal government that has pursued a policy of controlling violence in Canadian society. If the legislation put forward in the 35th Parliament is checked, one initiative after another works to strengthen the criminal justice system. It works at keeping criminals behind bars. It works at keeping society safer, communities safer and streets safer.
The Criminal Code October 3rd, 1996
Absolutely. Bill C-55 is legislation. It works toward controlling violent criminals in society. It provides a number of tools to the courts. It provides tools to crown attorneys. It provides tools to enforcement agencies to better protect Canadians.
The government is committed to a safer society, to ensuring that criminals are apprehended, to ensuring that criminals once apprehended who pose an ongoing risk to Canadians find themselves behind bars and that the tools are provided to monitor these individuals if and when they are returned to society.
This legislation deals with the issue of criminals. It deals with protection of Canadians. It deals with making our streets safer. It deals with making communities safer. It is good legislation. It achieves those important objectives.
Not only do I support that bill, but I believe in all good conscience every member of this House, including those opposite, should be supporting this bill because it does what we all want done. We all want a safer and more secure society and this bill achieves those important objectives. I will be pleased to support this legislation.