Lost his last election, in 2006, with 40% of the vote.
Petitions June 7th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from a large number of my constituents on Bill C-68 respecting firearms.
The petitioners believe that the legislation does not put enough emphasis on controlling those who illegally use firearms, whereas it puts too many controls on individuals who legally use firearms. In particular, the petitioners do not believe it is appropriate to introduce mandatory and universal registration.
Ontario Election June 7th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow Ontario goes to the polls to elect a new government.
The Liberals have promised not to increase taxes but to balance the provincial budget within four years. They have presented a responsible and prudent plan that recognizes both the government's fiscal responsibility and its social responsibility not to place the burden of reducing the deficit on the backs of the least advantaged in society.
It is one thing to hold the line on personal tax increases. It is irresponsible to substantially cut them when facing a large deficit. Ronald Reagan showed us in 1981 what happens when taxes are cut without a sound economic plan. The rich get richer, the debts get larger, and the middle class becomes poorer.
The people of Ontario know that it will require leadership and not gimmicks to guide the province. Lyn McLeod and the Liberals will provide that leadership.
Budget Implementation Act, 1995 June 6th, 1995
Madam Speaker, it is very important that we remember that all Canadians, all parts of our society are going to share in it. Have there been reductions in Saskatchewan? Surely there have been, as there have been across the country. Everybody has to pitch into this equally everywhere. Provinces, individuals, businesses, agriculture and industry, we all have to work together on this.
Budget Implementation Act, 1995 June 6th, 1995
Madam Speaker, if I referred to the Reform Party as the official opposition, I certainly apologize for that. I certainly did not mean to provide that party with a status it does not have and never will.
No one is suggesting that the federal government does not need to balance its books. It needs to eliminate its deficit and in time bring its debt down. Similarly, as individuals if we were overcommitted at some point in time we would want to bring our individual debt down and to spend only what we were bringing in in a given year. The Reform Party is suggesting that we do this at a pace and in a manner which totally ignores the needs of individual Canadians.
I can go to any budget for a business, an individual, a government or a province and I can look at certain lines, rip them out and come to a balanced budget. That is easy. It is simple. However, we have to remember that behind each line on the budget, behind each stroke of the pen, there will be an impact on people. We have to remember the impact it will have on people and not simply do a number punching exercise.
The same thing holds true for the government as holds true in our personal lives. We have to be responsible, we have to be prudent and we have to remember the consequences of our actions. The government will balance its budget. It will bring its financial house in order, but it will do it in a responsible manner which will recognize the needs of individual Canadians.
Budget Implementation Act, 1995 June 6th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity at third reading to discuss the federal budget and specifically the implementation legislation that we have before the House today.
There is no question in my mind that I fully support this budget. I fully support Bill C-76, the implementation bill that will bring it about. I believe that the actions the Minister of Finance has taken and the actions this government has taken are appropriate and necessary.
I understand that not everybody in Canada is happy with everything in the budget. However, the important thing is that most Canadians, although there are things in the budget they might not like, realize that the action that was taken was necessary, given the fiscal situation the country found itself in.
The average Canadian out there understands what members of the opposition do not understand. That is, if we are to have the government act responsibly and if the government is to cut back expenditures, then there will be an impact on individuals. Canadians understand that and know that is to happen. Because they realize the necessity of it, this budget has widespread support in the country.
This is a good budget because in it government recognizes that it has two basic responsibilities and that both responsibilities have to be fulfilled if the country is to operate efficiently and with a social conscience. Those two responsibilities, quite simply put, are fiscal responsibility and social responsibility.
We have a fiscal responsibility. We have a responsibility as a government to operate in a prudent manner. We need to be businesslike but remember that we are not a business. We must ensure that each Canadian taxpayer receives full value for each dollar that is spent.
However, in addition to this fiscal responsibility, the government understands and Canadians understand that government also has a social responsibility. We do things not to earn a profit from doing them but because they are the right things to do. We fund medicare as a federal government not because we can make money at it but because it is appropriate to provide Canadians with medical care. We have an old age security system not to make a profit on it but because we believe, as Canadians, that it is appropriate that we collectively provide for the security of those in our society who have reached 65.
It is important for us to understand that government has this social responsibility in addition to this fiscal responsibility. It is also important for Canadians to understand, which I believe they do, although I do not think the opposition understands, that we cannot have one of these responsibilities without the other.
Before I came to the House I had a job in the private sector. I had the opportunity to work with people who were in financial difficulties. In a large sense what we face as individuals in our family budget is not a whole lot different from what the country faces today. The options on how to deal with it are frankly not a whole lot different. I have had individuals who have come to me in financial difficulty. Perhaps they bought a house that was larger than they should have and their mortgage was bigger than it should be. Perhaps they bought a larger car or a second car and went into debt more than would have been prudent. Perhaps they ran up their credit cards on things that maybe they should not have bought. At the end of the day they find themselves overcommitted financially, much like Canada today finds itself overcommitted financially.
There are a number of options you can take as a financier, just as there are a number of options the government can take. You can be, as some members in the Bloc have suggested, like the bank and
say: "Oh, you are in difficulty. You are having difficulty with your finances. I will tell you what I will do, I will just increase your credit card limit by another $5,000 so that you can go out there and maintain the level of expenditures you have always had." This might work for a month or two, but it is not going to work in the long term and it is not the fiscally responsible and for that matter the socially responsible thing to do, either as a government or as the individual banker who might be dealing with that client.
Or you can take a different approach, the approach the Reform Party has often talked about in the House in terms of how to handle an overcommitted debt situation. We can say to a person: "You are going to absolutely stop spending now. We will go down your budget and hack out. It does not matter whether you are going to have enough money to feed your family or to keep at least one car on the road so you can get to work, or whether you will be able to buy clothes or pay for your kids' education. No. The only thing we are going to think about is that you are overcommitted financially. We will cut that all out right now and at least balance your budget. You might starve and you might not have any shelter, but by Jiminy Cricket, we will have your financial situation in order".
That is what the Reform Party suggested in its counterbudget. It said we should slash everything and get it all down into a nice neat package in three years. It just does not work that way, just as it would not work for the bank client to simply cut everything at once.
There is an appropriate middle course to take. It is one we would take as individuals and one we have taken as a government. It is simple. We would come to an understanding that we have spent too much, that we are overcommitted financially and that we do need to put our house in order, but we must do it in a responsible way. In the case of an individual the debt would probably be consolidated and the payments spread over a number of years so the payments could be made according to the level of income. In time the problem would be resolved.
A fiscal regime is not imposed that is impossible to live with. The federal government has taken this approach. It is understood that our expenditures were too high. It is understood that we were spending too much money. It is making the adjustments in a gradual, prudent, responsible way that Canadians can afford.
This is the essence of the budget. It is what makes the budget work. It is why the budget is accepted across the country. Canadians instinctively understand that we have taken an approach they would have taken in dealing with their own family budgets.
I want to compliment the minister and the government for having seen clear to take this approach. We will move ahead in the next fiscal year and the following fiscal years. We will improve our financial situation and improve Canada's fiscal situation year after year. We will do it in a manner that understands our social responsibility and which maintains the social safety net for Canadians. It will maintain the Canada we have built over the last 50 years, a Canada we are proud of and a Canada which the Liberal government is committed to protect.
Mining Exploration And Development June 5th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the northern Ontario caucus I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Motion No. 292 put forward by my colleague from Timiskaming-French River.
Mining in northern Ontario is of historical significance. It has provided significant economic growth in northern Ontario and is the source of a significant number of jobs. It is a very important industry in northern Ontario. The motion talks to the need and the logic of government continuing to support the industry.
Canada's mining industry is the third largest in the world. It employs over 330,000 people and adds over $20 billion to the Canadian economy. The Canadian shield which covers northern Ontario is one of the richest ore bodies in the world. We produce over 60 different commodities. We have almost 500 mines and quarries. Unlike many other industries, when jobs are created in the mining industry there is a spinoff effect of almost 6:1 as compared to several others where it is 2:1 or 3:1.
However, mining is different from many of our resource based industries. It is not a renewable resource. One thing that is known when a mine is open is that eventually it will close. That is why it is absolutely essential that we search out, seek and explore for new supplies.
Canada is fortunate to have the reserves. We can continue to mine far into the future but we need to take action. We need to provide the incentives that will enable our companies to go out there to search out these areas of new supplies. Government should and will create a climate in which the private sector will be able to do so. Government needs to invest in exploration and in development.
There are three broad areas in which we should be doing this. First, I mention creating an environment that allows the industry to prosper; second, creating a tax regime that is conducive to exploration; and, third, providing technological and other assistance to the industry.
In respect of the environment, creating the budgetary climate in which business and industry as a whole can prosper is important. Our budget of last February brought in government expenditure controls and brought in a firm plan to reduce the deficit. It will help not only the mining industry but all industries in Canada.
Trade must be encouraged and international barriers must be decreased and relaxed. The Ministry of Natural Resources program to encourage trade by going to Europe and Asia and explaining to the world what is available in Canada is an important initiative. We have to go out there to create an environment by co-ordinating environmental assessments between the federal government and the provinces and to provide certainty to companies so that they
know how long and exactly what is going to be necessary to develop a particular find.
We need to create a tax regime in the country that is competitive with the world so that when a company is deciding to invest in exploration it will choose Canada because it receives treatment that is equivalent or similar to that in the rest of the world. I am referring to things like accelerated depreciation, research and development tax credits on technical research, and moderate source deductions. We need to do something about source deductions such as our reduction in the UI premium. We need a competitive tax regime on profits. As was mentioned earlier by one of my colleagues, contributions to mine reclamation were made tax deductible in 1994. We need to look at the income earned within those funds being tax deductible.
We need to help the industry in terms of technology and other areas. Seeing as we are coming to a close of private members' hour, let me conclude by saying that we need to support the mining industry. It is a large employer and important source of international trade. For many areas of rural Canada, including northern Ontario, it is the backbone of our economies.
Contraventions Act June 1st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
When the minister spoke to constituents in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka last summer he assured them a boating infraction ticketing procedure would be in place by June of this year to protect boaters on waterways in my riding and across the country.
What plan does the minister have to effectively enforce boating regulations on Canadian waterways this summer?
World No Tobacco Day May 31st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, today marks World No Tobacco Day. I wanted to take this opportunity to offer my support to the call for reduced use of tobacco products.
When I was in the riding last week I had the opportunity to take part in a special event to acknowledge World No Tobacco Day. I helped launch the Muskoka-Parry Sound health unit's anti-smoking campaign to highlight the importance of maintaining the momentum toward smoking reduction in Canadian society.
The federal government initiated its own tobacco demand reduction strategy not long ago as a major component of its anti-tobacco smuggling action plan. This strategy includes legislation, enforcement and public education.
A recent survey conducted by the health unit in my riding indicates two of the high schools in our riding have over 30 per cent usage of tobacco on a regular basis. This is much higher than the provincial average and is a trend I would like to see reversed.
I ask my colleagues to join with me today to encourage young people to stop smoking.
Petitions May 17th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I am presenting four petitions signed by over 200 constituents from various parts of my riding.
The petitioners are calling on Parliament not to amend the human rights act or charter of rights and freedoms in any way which would indicate societal approval of same sex relationships.
I am also presenting a fifth petition signed by some 50 individuals calling on the government to amend the human rights act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.
International Day Of Families May 15th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to recognize the United Nation's International Day of Families which is being celebrated today.
The United Nations calls the family the most crucial link between generations, the purveyor of human culture, the primary source for love, sustenance and shelter. I too call the family the most important grouping of people in our society. On this day to honour families I want to take a moment to honour my own.
The family unit is fundamental to our society. Through our families we strive to make the world a better place. Through our families we hope to achieve harmony in the world by promoting healthy values and instilling tolerance, understanding and compassion in our children.
Families struggle to maintain cohesiveness in these stressful times of social and economic change. Households are changing but the family unit remains intact and strong as each member supports the others.
The family is our strongest bond. I invite my colleagues to join with me today in honouring our families.