Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
A new softwood lumber agreement has gone into effect. Can the minister assure the House that this agreement with the United States will benefit Canadian producers?
Lost his last election, in 2006, with 40% of the vote.
Trade May 31st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
A new softwood lumber agreement has gone into effect. Can the minister assure the House that this agreement with the United States will benefit Canadian producers?
Youth Employment May 28th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank several high school students and others in my riding who took the time on Friday to provide their views on youth employment initiatives. The chair of the ministerial task force on youth was good enough to stop in Parry Sound-Muskoka to listen to the ideas of youth representatives in my riding.
I thank Mike Sporar from Bracebridge and Muskoka Lakes Secondary School, David Lamy and Marc Baron from Huntsville High School and Danielle Gliddon and Lynn Kameka from Gravenhurst High School for their insightful presentations at the forum.
The government remains committed to improving the environment for youth in Canada so that our younger generations have access to the training, tools and support they need to prosper as adults.
However, improving the process starts with feedback from the young people themselves so I encourage young people from across Canada to participate and to provide their input.
Supply May 16th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that what my ethnic origin might or might not be or what the ethnic origin of anyone who sits in this House might be is totally irrelevant to the debate today and at any other time. The member ought to realize that.
The member asks what kind of a nation are we and what kind of a nation will we be. We are a people and a nation that for 130 years have worked in the northern part of North America to build a strong and vibrant country. We have not done it because we are all the same, that we all look the same, that we all speak the same, that we are all the same colour. No, we have done it because we have learned the importance of partnership. We have learned the importance of working together. We have learned the importance of addressing our challenges together.
We have done what many nations in this world envy. We have succeeded in creating a country that, although it has its problems from time to time, is admired as the best nation in the world, according to the United Nations.
Members of a family are different. I am different from what my brother was. I am different from my sister. My parents are different from each other, as are my children. We do not allow those differences to divide us. We celebrate those differences. It is what makes us unique as a family. It is what makes us special. We build upon those differences so that together we are more than what we are individually. That is what we do as a family. That is what we do as Canadians and that is why we are a great nation.
Supply May 16th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, continuing with my speech, I will make two final points.
The first point is that Canada has a Constitution which has evolved over 130 years. In fact many of the conventions and concepts which are incorporated in the Constitution had evolved before Canada officially became a country in 1867. A constitution is the base law on which this country and other countries around the world operate. It is incumbent upon us as a nation, as a people, to adhere to the Constitution.
As was said in the speech from the throne not that many weeks ago, the whole issue of Canada, our Constitution and our political make-up is a discussion for all Canadians. It is not for just one segment of Canada but for all Canadians no matter where they live, no matter what their ethnic background is, no matter what their language is. It is an issue for all Canadians. That is important to remember.
The second point is a personal one. It deals with the work I am undertaking in committee, a study on rural economic development. When I talk to Canadians, whether they are from British Columbia, Manitoba, the maritimes or Quebec, we share values as rural Canadians. It is not as rural Canadians from English Canada or rural Canadians from French Canada, we share values as rural Canadians. We share that special quality of life which is rural Canada whether it is in the Laurentians, the Eastern Townships or my area of Muskoka. We share important rural traditions which stretch from coast to coast to coast whether it is in Quebec, Ontario or somewhere else in Canada. Together we share our attempt to overcome those special challenges as rural Canadians.
Canada and Canadians are a nation and a people from coast to coast to coast. Although we have specific challenges to solve as Canadians we know and experience this nationhood every day. It is time for members of the Bloc Quebecois to stop their political posturing and to do their duty and take actions which are in the best interests of all constituents, people who live in Quebec and people who live in the rest of Canada.
Mining May 16th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, mining is vital to the Canadian economy. The minerals and metals industry provides some 341,000 direct jobs to Canadian men and women and more than $20 billion to our economy.
I am pleased to rise today to draw attention to National Mining Week and to acknowledge the importance of mining to our economy.
Ontario accounts for 30 per cent of Canada's mineral production and contributes more than $4.5 billion to the provincial economy. Some 14,000 people are employed in mining nickel, copper, gold and other minerals in the province.
I am pleased to acknowledge the importance of the minerals and metals sector during this 1996 National Mining Week. I salute those Canadians in Ontario and across our great country who have contributed to building and sustaining this valuable industry.
Supply May 16th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise on debate on today's opposition motion. I to make a comment on behalf of all of my constituents. It refers to a comment made by the former leader of the Bloc Quebecois. He basically said Canada is not a real country.
On behalf of my constituents and I believe the vast majority of Canadians, I state clearly and unequivocally Canada is a country, Canada is a nation and will remain so, absolutely, not only in the months and weeks ahead but in the years, decades and centuries ahead. It will because we are a nation.
Despite what we hear from the other side, Canada is a nation. It is a nation because we share many things in common and we share this great land is Canada. We share a common geography from coast to coast. We share our natural resources such as mining, whether it takes place in Quebec or in Ontario, and the development of energy and the development of agriculture. These natural resources are things we share as a nation.
We have a common history on the north side of the North American continent where together Canadians of all stripes, of all ethnic origins, have built a strong distinct Canada, a distinct nation with values and beliefs unique to us as Canadians.
We share some very important concepts from one end of Canada to the other. We believe in the rule of law and we share this belief among all Canadians. We believe in social justice. We believe as a nation, as a government and as a people there are responsibilities we hold to each other. We believe as Canadians that below a certain level we will not allow people to fall.
When people walk into a hospital they are not asked how much money they have. They are simply asked how sick they are. People do not go hungry for a lack of food or shelter. We help those people. Those are values we share as Canadians from coast to coast whether one happens to live in the English speaking part of Canada or in the French speaking part.
We believe in certain freedoms. We believe in the freedom of thought, belief, expression and assembly. We share those core beliefs as Canadians and they make us a nation.
We have differences in Canada, but they are not differences that need divide us. They do not separate us one people from another people. They are differences which make this country unique among nations.
Canada in its history, for 130 years, has shown the nations of the world what can be accomplished, what can be done with a nation of several peoples. We have shown the world our success. We have shown the world we are a nation that works and can sustain itself.
As a nation Canada recognizes that it has differences. The people of Canada recognize there are two founding peoples, the English speaking Canadians live in Quebec and francophone Canadians live outside of Quebec. We are an integrated nation, English and French from coast to coast. We have been joined by many peoples from around the world to make the fabric of Canada strong, a nation which is integrated, open to change, one which accepts and evolves over time.
As a nation, as a government, as Canadians we recognize we need to make accommodation for different peoples. We recognized and made the clear statement that Quebec is a distinct society. We have recognized the importance of regional variance and evolved a veto system. We have come to understand that different institutions work differently in different parts of the country. We understand there needs to be a division of power, that some things are done better at the provincial level as opposed to the federal level.
When Parliament as recently as December made these suggestions and showed we will evolve as a nation, that we will accommodate our differences, the Bloc voted against it. Members of the Bloc voted against the fact that Quebec was a distinct society. They stood in the House and said: "No, Quebec is not a distinct society. No, Quebec should not have a veto. No, Quebec should not have its own institutions". Those statements were made by their votes. That was terribly wrong.
What is at stake here? Canada. What is their base argument for wanting to destroy the country? Politics is a big part of it. They want to destroy the country over whether Mr. Bouchard is to be called a premier or a president. Those are grounds to break up the country? I think not. Those are not valid grounds for breaking up the country.
Members of the Bloc said we need to have a more efficient federation. Are we to break up the country because of the mathematical formula for transfer payments?
National Unity May 9th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate two high school students in my riding for their contributions to the pursuit of national unity. To Sarah Boyd and Michael Holmes, both students at Parry Sound High School, I say well done.
These two young constituents tied for first place in an essay contest that I launched in all of the high schools in my riding to promote pride in Canada.
In her essay Sarah urges Canadians to speak out and to contribute their skills to helping Canada remain strong and united. She suggests linking towns of similar sizes to promote understanding and strengthen community bonds.
In his essay, Michael advocates encouraging corporations to make unity their responsibility. He advocates pairing community newspapers to facilitate a shared letters to the editor venue that fosters kinship and understanding.
I am proud of the efforts of all those who entered my national unity essay contest. Today I ask my colleagues to join with me in saluting Sarah Boyd and Michael Holmes.
Canadian Human Rights Act May 7th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, before I comment in general on Bill C-33 I will comment on some information that has been conveyed from the other side of the House about censorship and not allowing debate.
If I remember correctly, when second reading of this bill came to a free vote, some government members voted for and some against. The Reform Party voted as a block with no free votes, 29-zip. We will have to see where there is democracy and where there is not.
The issue before us is far too important for that type of suggestion from the member. Let us talk about the substance of this bill which I think is important. I agree with the member when he says that it is controversial.
Some of the words in the legislation worry people, they scare people. Some people feel, I do not think accurately, that their lifestyles and beliefs are threatened. They are not threatened.
This bill is not about special rights for anyone or even about special privileges for individuals. It is about equal rights for all of us. It is about protecting through the law the rights of our fellow humans not to be discriminated against, not to lose their jobs because of their sexual orientation, their race or their religion.
If ever we needed to fight for this legislative protection, we saw that reason very clearly last week when we heard the comments of some of the members who sit opposite. Some of their comments reflect prejudice and intolerance. We heard outrageous comments. Those comments have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that discrimination exists in Canadian society and it is imperative for government to deal with that. That discrimination is shameful.
Discrimination is a total violation of all that we as Canadians hold dear. Firing someone, sending someone to the back of the shop because of who they are or what they are, be it race, gender, sexual orientation or religion is simply wrong.
As a government we need to show leadership on this issue. It is our duty to lead by example and to amend the human rights act to outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation. As I said earlier, the recent press reports of last week make that very very clear.
I am a strong supporter of the family and I wholeheartedly believe that families will continue to act as pillars of strength and unity in our society. I also wholeheartedly believe in human rights for all and that is why I speak in support of these rights for all Canadians.
The Canadian Human Rights Act already contains a list of prohibited grounds of discrimination. Adding sexual orientation to that list would help ensure that Canadians cannot be discriminated against in such areas as employment, accommodation, access to goods and services solely because of their sexual orientation.
This is not about the extension of benefits to same sex couples. It is not about changing the definition of marriage, family or spouse. The bill we are debating today simply guarantees the rights of individuals to live their lives free of discrimination.
We are also affirming the importance of the family as a foundation of Canadian society. I quote from the preamble to the bill:
And whereas the Government recognizes and affirms the importance of family as the foundation of Canadian society and that nothing in this Act alters its fundamental role in society;
I could vote against this amendment to the human rights act. I am sure that voting against it would make some of my constituents happy, just as it would disappoint others.
However, at the end of the day my time as a parliamentarian will come to an end and I will have to answer to myself. Was it right what I did? Did I do what I believed in? Did I do what I believed was right for Canada and for Canadians?
I will be able to answer yes because discrimination is wrong and saying it is wrong is exactly what is right. Someone ought to tell the Reform Party that.
I wish to tell the Reform Party that discrimination is wrong and just saying it is wrong is simply not good enough. It is the actions we take in the House as parliamentarians that people will remember and act on. It is the action that we take in passing the bill that will clearly demonstrate to Canadians that discrimination is wrong and will not be tolerated in Canadian society.
I ask the members of the Reform Party to join with me in voting for this amendment so that their actions state clearly, as their recent words have, that they also believe discrimination is wrong.
There is a pressing need for this legislation. I hope the members opposite will do what is right and support the passage of this amendment.
As parliamentarians we have an obligation to Canadians. We have an obligation to our constituents. We also have an obligation to do what is right for the nation, which is to state clearly and unequivocally that discrimination is not acceptable and will not be tolerated.
If supporting this legislation costs me votes in the next election, so be it. If it costs me friends, I will have to live with that as well because I believe discrimination on any grounds is wrong. I will back that belief with my vote and the vote of my constituents who share this conviction and who want their children to grow up in a world free of hatred and bias. For those reasons I will vote in favour of this at third reading.
Employment Insurance Act May 2nd, 1996
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to talk about the reforms to the unemployment insurance program and the development of the new employment insurance scheme.
Now would be a good time to reiterate that this reform is based on a number of broad, general principles to which the government is appropriately adhering. No doubt the best social security program a Canadian can have is a job. We have to keep that in mind in everything we do. At the end of the day the best way to ensure the security of individual Canadians is to ensure they have jobs.
We have to realize, as we certainly do in my part of rural Canada, we need to create an environment within which the small business sector can create wealth and employment.
This program goes a little further than that. There are proactive measures within the employment insurance program to help with the creation of jobs. We see proactive measures such as wage subsidies, the self-employment assistance program, which I have seen work well in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka, the earning supplement and job creation partnerships.
Job creation partnerships are of particular importance in a rural riding like mine where we have an opportunity to marry the need to provide experience for individuals who are temporarily out of the workforce with programs that will pursue economic development within our communities.
This combination of providing experience for people while they work on projects to help develop the economy of my rural part of the country, although applicable across the country, is an excellent approach to achieving the principle of maintaining support for individuals who find themselves unemployed. At the same time, it creates the infrastructure and the environment where long term jobs can be created and people will be able to find sustainable employment.
One of the things we have come to realize in dealing with reforms to the unemployment insurance program is that the situation is very different today than it was 30 years ago. At that time much of the employment created was of a temporary, cyclical nature where because of a downturn in demand for a short period of time an individual might find himself unemployed for two, three or four months.
Today that has changed significantly. Much of our employment is not the result of a temporary decline but because an industry or a job may no longer exist.
The need for a properly operating employment insurance program goes far beyond creating income support. It needs to address the whole issue of creating long term employment. Obviously this assists by working on infrastructure and by helping communities develop long term economic development goals.
The program deals directly with the small business community. In my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka it accounts for almost all the jobs. It accounts across Canada for most of the new job creation.
It is important that we realize components in this reform program will assist the small business men and women who work every day in the riding to create wealth and employment for my constituents. The whole idea of creating a surplus in the UI fund is so we can have a stable UI rate and do not end up with a recession.
There is at least one economist in the House now who knows full well the very wrong thing to do during a recession is increase premiums to pay for the increased demand on UI.
What makes far more sense is to ensure we have a surplus so that when there is an extra demand during an economic downturn we will not have to exacerbate that demand by increasing UI premiums. This happened during the last recession.
We have also helped small business men and women with a number of other measures connected to this plan. We have a far more simplified system. Small business people become very frustrated, and rightly so, when they spend more time on paperwork and on adhering to regulations than they do doing their jobs and what they do best, creating wealth and employment.
This program, particularly the conversion to an hourly rate from a weekly rate, significantly reduces the administration cost to the small business community. This is a very positive step.
We saw a decrease in the premium rate business will have to pay. This is a positive step. Those types of taxes are job killers. It is positive that we are able to modify that rate, as is the whole idea that the maximum insurable earnings rate will give a break in terms of taxation to the small business community.
It is clear what we are trying to do with this reform. We are recognizing absolutely that the world of the 1990s is very different from that of the 1960s. It is not only an issue of income support, although that is very important and this program deals with that. This is an issue of making sure long term job creation occurs.
We are doing that by providing individual workers with a number of tools in this program. The committee had an opportunity to review those and we enunciated many times in the House that they are very positive initiatives. They will help individuals acquire the skills and experience they need to move into areas of employment that are long term and sustainable. On the other hand, an economic environment has been created that will allow the small business community to create wealth and those jobs which unemployed individuals need.
This is an excellent reform. The members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development have worked hard on this bill over the last few months. I congratulate them and I look forward to seeing it passed in the House.
Supply April 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the hon. member for Fraser Valley West which may be a first and perhaps a last. I do not agree with the opinions of the legal people he quoted.
Many of the lawyers and judges I have talked to who operate in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka share the feelings I have just expressed about the concern toward victims and their rights.
The member asked how we should go about this. The House of Commons has to set the national standard. My suggestion is that it be placed in the preamble of the Criminal Code. However, I suspect the justice committee will look at many options. The preamble should clearly state the national will. That is what this Parliament is all about, stating the national will through its elected representatives.
The preamble should state that we believe the rights of victims are important, that they are of primary concern to us as a country, that they are of primary concern to us as parliamentarians. We want to ensure that when people look to the Criminal Code for guidance, they will find the rights of victims in the code.