House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 42% of the vote.
Petitions March 31st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a petition signed by approximately 100 residents of Fredericton-York-Sunbury and neighbouring ridings which calls on Parliament to ensure present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in law that would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or any activity designed to terminate human life.
Gun Control March 31st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Obviously my Reform colleagues did not understand the importance of the decision and the resolution taken yesterday by the Canadian Police Association in response to its appreciation for the safety to be brought to communities by the legislation.
Would the minister explain to us exactly who the Canadian Police Association represents? Is it not the policemen who work on the streets in our communities from coast to coast?
Petitions March 29th, 1995
The second petition, Mr. Speaker, requests that changes be made to the charter of rights to enable residents to be notified when repeat sex offenders are released into our communities in order to protect the safety of children. This petition was signed by 500 constituents.
Petitions March 29th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise today to present two petitions on behalf of constituents. The first is on behalf of 63 constituents of Fredericton-York-Sunbury who request Parliament to amend the Divorce Act to offer protection to grandparents in the case of a divorce action.
Public Service Of Canada March 16th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I speak today on behalf of our friends and colleagues of the federal public service. Several members of that employment sector are now entering a period of significant change and transition. As the governing body in this House we must fulfil our commitment to ensuring sensitivity, compassion and caring during this passage.
We have asked so much of our people and they will rise to the challenge. However, we must empower decision makers at the local level so they can do their jobs right to ensure that those affected by this change are treated fairly and with dignity and that the best possible course of action is determined one by one, according to the needs of each individual.
Those at the local level are the ones best able to determine how the changes we have asked for can be brought into effect. We must all do our part. I know this government will honour its commitment to ensuring fairness, compassion and flexibility at the local level for the betterment of our people and our nation.
The Budget March 14th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I was quite happy to see the hon. member for Sherbrooke here because I wanted to discern his party's position relative to the budget. I was a little disappointed last week when his colleague from Saint John supported the Reform motion calling for the elimination of the deficit within the time of this Parliament.
I did not discern in his speech where he was going in terms of whether it was too tough or not tough enough. Before the last election he proposed the position that the federal government had to work with the provinces to come up with a joint strategy. Do I assume that is no longer the position? Certainly that was indicated last week.
Does the member for Sherbrooke share his colleague's position that the Government of Canada should eliminate the deficit inside this Parliament?
The Budget March 14th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, it is merely a question of balance. It would be ridiculous to annihilate social programs in the interests of saving them. Consequently, we have to find the place in the system where we strike the balance that allows the programs to be affordable.
I have great faith in the wisdom of Canadians. They were presented with the option put forward in this budget of a target of 3 per cent at the end of the third year and were also presented with the option put forward by the Reform Party. They picked our solution. I have some faith in the good judgment of not just the Minister of Finance and my colleagues in the government, but also the good judgment of Canadians who chose a balanced approach.
The Budget March 14th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Kootenay East for his question.
I am painfully familiar with mortgages. I was not kidding when I said my banker knows I am not obsessed with debt. Having said that, I do not think that in the interests of making a payment on the principal of my mortgage that I would be prepared to feed my family any less or take away from the college trust fund or my life insurance.
The reality is we have to engage in this exercise in a very practical, common sense way. Perhaps it is a regional problem, I am not sure but over and over again we hear particularly from our Reform Party colleagues that we are not moving quickly enough. I can only say as an Atlantic Canadian that to move any quicker would place us exactly in the position we are trying to escape from in terms of generating economic activity in our region. We benefit from social programs. We benefit from transfers.
To respond to earlier analogies with regard to chickens, the fundamental problem with the argument that if we give every province the chickens is that not all chickens are the same size. Consequently, part of what this nation is about is sharing the coop so to speak.
The Budget March 14th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I am anxious to participate in the debate on the 1995 budget because I believe it represents an historic occasion in our country's evolution.
It is not the kind of budget I would normally want for Canada. I would rather enhance programs than reduce them. I would rather be involved in introducing new programs than analysing the effectiveness of existing ones. As Liberals I am sure most of us agree that the budget was born of necessity, not ideology.
Our social programs are threatened by our cumulative debt and our annual deficit. I am not one of those obsessed by debt. My banker can attest to that. However, I am very protective of our sovereignty as a nation and our ability to design and implement public policy and programs that reflect Canada's values as a generous and civilized nation.
Because we borrowed to finance our programs we have allowed foreign lenders to affect domestic policy in a manner that simply is unacceptable. We must reclaim our ability to pursue a style of governance that reflects Canadian values: compassion, equity, tolerance and pluralism. These are Canadian values. Many elements of the Canadian way of life may be uniquely Canadian. Our responsibility is not only to these ideals as they affect us as a nation. Our responsibility is to these ideals as a world leader, as a country that others turn to.
Another threat our social programs face is much more practical. In 1995-96 debt charges will consume $49.5 billion of our annual spending. Over the last 15 years interest payments have grown from $8.5 billion to $42 billion and have devoured over $445 billion of taxpayers' money, dollars I would much prefer to
see placed in the hands of Canadians in need, dollars better spent on social housing or literacy instruction, dollars we need to eradicate child poverty, and dollars we need to meet our international obligations as a nation of great wealth and advantage. The thought of how much better we might use these dollars causes me to accept the need to reduce the deficit.
The unproductive nature of interest expenditure is partially responsible for the resistance of Canadians to broad tax increases. Our citizens pay more but see less in return as we finance past expenditure.
Even as I speak in favour of deficit reduction, I call on our government to exercise compassion and creativity as it implements the budget over the next 12 months. All Canadians must share in the mission of reclaiming our fiscal and monetary autonomy. In return, government has the responsibility to be fair, creative, thoughtful and forthright.
The approach I endorse contrasts dramatically with that outlined by the Reform Party in its recent attempt at a budget proposal. While the Reform Party's position does not surprise me, I do find shocking that my colleague from Saint John would support it. Does the fact that she supports the view we have not eliminated the deficit quickly and decisively enough also mean that she supports the approach as outlined? The Reform agenda would destroy the fragile but real recovery we are experiencing in New Brunswick. It is sad its prescribed medicine would only push us back into the sick bed of dependency it speaks of so often.
The government is committed to a balanced but disciplined approach to deficit reduction. Canadians have been asked to help and I believe there exists an acceptance of the need to bring revenue and expenditure closer together.
The Minister of Finance is committed to seeing social tax expenditures scrutinized with the same vigour as has been applied to other social spending. He has acknowledged the need for more comprehensive tax reforms.
The government has spoken of Canada's commitment internationally on the need to come to terms with currency speculation and sharing more fairly the benefits of new technologies.
Not only does the government need to balance spending reduction with tax fairness, it is also necessary to be prepared to do things differently, to be more creative, to consider solutions quite outside conventional thinking in the application of the budget.
Significant change does not come easily in large bureaucracies. Through no one's fault inertia is a powerful force and change, particularly dramatic change is seldom seen. Canadians from all walks of life have been asked to change their thinking, to expect less and contribute more.
I believe we will meet that challenge but in return, government must be prepared to change its thinking, to listen seriously and consider outside, sometimes unconventional, solutions.
As a member of the parliamentary committee on human resources development, I can attest to the fact that many Canadians believe for example that the federal government should show leadership in eliminating overtime and considering a shorter work week. This would soften the effect of expenditure reduction on our employees while setting an example for other governments and the private sector with the view of sharing better the jobs that currently exist in this country.
A second area where government must show leadership is in our approach to economic development. We must carve out clearly in a mixed economy the role of government and apply available resources and regulatory power toward that end. We must be prepared to use our legitimate power to make the market work for as many Canadians as possible, whether it is increasing the availability of capital to small and medium sized businesses, direct financial support for community development, pushing more forcefully the need for private sector retraining and upgrading, or taking a more vocal stand internationally on questions of employment standards or tax fairness.
If the government can no longer afford to offer as much protection to those for whom the market does not work, it must accept a larger role in ensuring that the market works for more Canadians.
I said at the start that I was anxious to participate in this debate because it marks the beginning of a new era for Canada. Some Canadians have said we are getting meaner. Others, unhappily, say we have not been mean enough. I am an optimist. I believe we can find that place where we gradually disentangle ourselves from the vulnerable relationship we have with the money markets but where we also recognize the vulnerable relationship many Canadians have with us.
Yes, we can find that balance but ultimately it is not in the numbers. The balance we seek and must find lies in the hearts and minds of Canadians, in our compassion, our creativity, our generosity and ingenuity.
As a member of the committee that travelled Canada for the social security review, I can assure the House that Canadians have ideas, ideas born of a desire to eradicate poverty, to teach people to read and offer shelter and jobs. They want us to listen,
to work with them, to be more inclusive both in our policy development process and in the results we hope to achieve.
Over the coming months the government will be engaged in discussions with the provinces among others on the question of the social transfers. Much of what Canada will look like in the future will be affected by these discussions. They must be driven by a vision for the kind of Canada we want and can afford for our children.
To engage in the exercise without considering affordability would be irresponsible and frankly silly. However, to engage in the exercise without a national vision would be equally irresponsible. What is more, it would be an abdication of our responsibility to those whose vision and determination have brought us to where we are: the country recognized objectively as the best place in the world in which to live.
What is better than that? We have to stop beating ourselves up. We have to stop beating each other up. All this talk of crisis and catastrophe should not cause us to lose sight of the comparative credibility and objectivity between the United Nations and some analyst with the Wall Street Journal.
We have a debt and deficit problem. We will fix it. We are a wealthy, safe, generous nation with a magnificent future. For those who think otherwise I can only turn to the vocabulary of my 10-year old son and say get with the program.
The Budget March 2nd, 1995
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
Monday's budget, as has been mentioned, announced a reduction of 45,000 positions within the public service over the next three years. There is much uncertainty about the impact of these reductions.
Could the minister indicate what measures will be offered to these employees and assure the House that every effort will be made to accommodate employees through early retirement, early departure and other programs?