Brent St. Denis

[Mining, November 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize for my parliamentary colleagues the importance of mining to Canada's economy.

In 1995 the metals and minerals sector accounted for $23 billion worth of economic activity, an amount equal to 4.4 per cent of Canada's gross domestic product. These numbers represent 340,000 high quality, high paying jobs of the future. Indeed, over 85 per cent of those working in the mining industry use advanced technology every day.

Mining pays a higher average wage than any other industrial sector in Canada and these are not seasonal but year-round jobs.

I applaud all those who are working to promote mining in Canada, including the mining industry representatives and labour we saw this week, as well as the Minister of Natural Resources.

I look forward to continuing my work with this industry, especially in Elliot Lake and Bruce mines, both located in my riding of Algoma. Each has undertaken important local projects to preserve and promote Canada's mining history and heritage with tours, historical sites, museums and the Canadian Mining Hall of Fame in Elliot Lake.

[Sea Lamprey Control Program, October 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, commercial and sport fishing on the Great Lakes sustains 36,000 jobs and adds $1.5 billion yearly to the economy of Ontario. Uncontrolled, the sea lamprey parasite would decimate many fish species native to the Great Lakes and cause serious economic damage.

This year marks the 40th anniversary of the Canada-U.S. sea lamprey control program and the 30th anniversary of the Sea Lamprey Control Centre in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. Since 1954 the work of the program, the centre and its dedicated staff has resulted in a significant reduction in the sea lamprey population.

The federal government recently announced its renewed commitment to sea lamprey control with a contribution of over $5 million in each of the next two years. Our government will work with concerned stakeholders toward a long term funding arrangement for this program. All beneficiaries of this effort are being called upon to contribute to its continued success.

I commend the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for his commitment to the sea lamprey control program and trust that those who benefit from healthy fish stocks in the Great Lakes will work together to ensure this good work continues.

[Petitions, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by several dozen of my constituents in the Desbarats, Echo Bay and Sault area of Algoma riding.

The petitioners are totally opposed to convicted criminals profiting from their crimes by the production of books, videos and other means by which it would be possible for average Canadians to make money off reasonable activities. They wish to express their support for Bill C-205 which would prevent convicted criminals from profiting from their crimes.

[The Economy, May 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is among the top 10 countries in the world when it comes to economic competitiveness, according to study of 49 countries released yesterday by the World Economic Forum.

This reinforces the message to foreign investors that Canada is an excellent place to invest. It also offers a positive sign that Canada can expect continued strong economic growth over the next decade.

Among its G-7 partners, Canada is ranked the second most competitive and much of the credit for this goes to this Liberal government. Since assuming office, the government has taken concrete steps to get Canada's fiscal house in order. Inflation and interest rates have remained low and personal taxes have not been raised. Furthermore the deficit is on its way out.

Further, the new national sales tax harmonization initiative will lower costs for businesses and increase the competitiveness of Canadian products and services in the global marketplace. In short, the government is creating the ideal climate for real and sustained economic growth and job creation.

I congratulate the Liberal government on the steady and sure progress it is making in ensuring opportunity for Canadians and Canadian businesses all over the world.

[Income Tax Budget Amendment Act, May 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my hon. colleagues, in particular the member for St. Boniface, a colleague of mine on the finance committee, in discussing and debating Bill C-36 which implements the 1995 budget measures.

The details of this legislation should not be overlooked but the big picture is also very important. In that regard I draw to the attention of the House an article in today's Globe and Mail . The headline is: ``Bond buyers give Canada new respect''. Let me cite the opening paragraphs:

Something remarkable has happened in the Canadian bond market in recent weeks-and Canada's finance ministers can take most of the credit.

When interest rates on U.S. bonds charged upwards, Canadian rates followed, but at a lesser clip. When U.S. rates levelled off two weeks ago, Canadian rates fell sharply.

The result? The spread between Canadian and U.S. rates-a key measure of how the world's investors feel about Canada-has plummeted, indicating that bond buyers believe Canada is a lovely spot to put their money these days.

There is another paragraph I wish to set on the record:

Bond buyers who shunned Canada as a high debt, high deficit, fiscally irresponsible country for most of the 1990s have done an about-face. And it takes only a quick look at what Canada's federal and provincial finance ministers have done to understand why.

The article makes clear that fiscal restraint has become an embedded aspect of the Canadian political landscape. It is this government and this government's finance minister who have played a key role in this transformation. The legislation before us helps demonstrate a central aspect of that national sea change. It does so in a most interesting way, not only by what is in the legislation, but by what is not.

It will be noted that the 1995 budget did not include any increases in personal income tax rates, nor did the 1994 budget before it. That was again the case in the 1996 budget which contained no tax increases of any kind.

The point here is that deficit reduction and debt control are made in government problems and it is government that must be the source of the solution. I am convinced that in the years to come Canadians will look back at the 1995 budget, the source of Bill C-36, as the turning point in our fiscal history.

The actions that budget introduced totalled $29 billion over three years, more than in any budget since post-war demobilization. It set a course so that by the end of the current fiscal year, program spending will be $10.4 billion lower than when we started.

Just as important, this budget also changed the very structure of how government operates. Through focusing on structural change, not tax and revenue measures, this government made sure that spending will be restrained beyond the two-year target period. The deficit will continue to fall, reflecting our commitment to eliminating it completely.

To achieve these results, the 1995 budget took fundamental action across government programs and operations. It implemented the results of program review, a comprehensive examination of departmental spending. The budget also acted on a new vision of the federal government's role in the economy, one that includes substantial reductions in business subsidies. Subsidies will drop from $3.8 billion to $1.5 billion per year by 1997-98. The 1995 budget reformed major transfers to the provinces, modernizing the federal-provincial fiscal regime, making it more effective, flexible and affordable.

Today's Globe and Mail article shows that the commitments we have made and the fiscal actions we have taken are being recognized in real bottom line terms. They have brought lower interest rates and greater confidence in Canada. That is being translated into growing employment.

The inflation rate remains at a very nice low level in Canada. What has added resonance to our commitments, what has helped win over the world markets is the way we have approached our fiscal dilemma. Our action has been dramatically weighted toward the spending side, not added to the high tax burden of Canadians. That is why the 1995 budget did not increase personal income tax rates. However, it did propose measures to improve tax system fairness, many of which we see in Bill C-36 today.

The budget proposed eliminating the deferral of taxes on the investment income earned by private holding companies. We are also eliminating tax advantages for family trusts. We are temporarily reducing the upper limit on RRSP contributions to $13,500

per year so that extra benefits do not go to people who earn more than two and one-half times the average wage in Canada.

Even with these measures we would fall short of our deficit targets. That is why the 1995 budget moved to increase the large corporations tax and the corporate surtax. The budget also introduced a temporary tax on the capital of large deposit taking corporations, including banks.

Clearly, the 1995 budget was still a budget that placed an absolute priority on expenditure reduction. It delivered nearly $7 in spending cuts for each dollar of new tax revenue.

Again let me underscore our fiscal philosophy and the philosophy that guides our tax measures, such as those found in Bill C-36. We are tackling Canada's fiscal problem not as a narrow goal in and of itself, but rather because it is a fundamental component for national growth, new jobs, economic security and sovereignty. As the Globe and Mail article highlights, our fiscal progress and other actions are paying off. Canada's economic fundamentals are strong.

With our first two budgets we established rock hard foundations. With these measures our 1995-96 and 1996-97 deficit targets which will bring the deficit down to 3 per cent of GDP are secure.

The steps in this year's budget consolidate and extend our first two budgets and further contribute to our economic and financial objectives. We have maintained our focus on reducing program spending. Because the debt is a problem created by government, the solution should focus on cutting in our own backyard. The government has shown great leadership in handling public service cuts. That is why of the cumulative fiscal actions we will have taken from 1994-95 to 1998-99, a full 87 per cent have been expenditure savings, not tax measures.

Together the three budgets will contribute $26.1 billion in savings by 1997-98. This action, together with the reform of the employment insurance program, will ensure that we hit our new deficit target of 2 per cent of GDP by 1997-98. Our combined budget plans will deliver a further $28.9 billion in savings in fiscal year 1998-99. This means the deficit will continue to drop and the debt to GDP ratio will continue to fall.

I have had numerous town hall meetings in my riding of Algoma over the last number of weeks and I plan to hold several more. I have already had meetings in towns like Espanola, Thessalon, Hilton Beach, Little Current and Gore Bay. I plan to hold others in Elliot Lake and Goulais River.

When people attend the meetings, while they have concerns about one issue or another as is appropriate in this day when governments are under close scrutiny, they also express confidence in the way in which the country's fiscal affairs are being managed by the government. There is evidence of it every day. The Canadian dollar is remaining stable relative to the U.S. dollar. Interest rates are remaining at a very credible level. Inflation is well in hand. The economy is producing jobs.

We all agree that when unemployment reaches 9.5 per cent it is too high. However, our economy is producing jobs. In the months and years ahead we will see the unemployment rate decrease by many more percentage points because the fundamentals are very strong.

Bill C-36 expresses the philosophy of the government. It focuses on the credibility this government has been able to achieve compared to the past government. This legislation will help to sustain the successes we have experienced. It will only add to our credibility. It will add to the confidence investors have in our country, both domestically and abroad. It will improve the equity of our tax system and ensure that affluent Canadians and corporations do not escape paying their fair share of the Canadian tax burden.

For these reasons, I hope we have the co-operation of the majority of members in the House in supporting Bill C-36. The government is securing the financial future of the country. We are trying to get government right and in so doing we are preserving the social programs that are a hallmark of our society. These are social programs that Canadians have come to count on, health care, social services and pension plans. These are elements of our society which make us very special and unique.

Those of my colleagues who have had a chance to do any travelling outside this country will know we look quite wonderful from outside. Sometimes we tend to take it for granted what we have here. However, we are the envy of the world. As the Prime Minister has often reminded us, the UN has for a number of years in a row declared Canada to be the number one nation in the world in which to live. We know that in our hearts but we forget it sometimes.

I urge members to look carefully at how much we have and at what the government is doing to make the country an even better place not only for our children but for our grandchildren.

With that I call on the House, in a majority way, to place its trust again in the government.

[Committees Of The House, May 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the first report of the Standing Committee on Finance, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 6, 1996.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this debate on amendments to Bill C-33 and Bill C-33 itself.

I want to make it categorically clear that I support amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act which will provide for the inclusion of sexual orientation in the list of those grounds on which discrimination must not take place.

I believe we can all agree in the House that in an ideal world and in an ideal country we would not need a human rights code because everybody would be treated equally. There would be no worry in the courts or elsewhere that minorities would be discriminated against.

In spite of the reality that Canada is the best country in the world by many measures, we still have discrimination. Therefore we must have a code. If some of the comments by some members of the House in the last week are any evidence, it is sadly a fact that we must have a code. I believe it is time we included in that code sexual orientation.

This is an issue of human rights. I respect my colleagues who see this as a moral issue. They have come to that decision and that place for their own very good reasons, and I do not dispute that. We can disagree but that does not change my mind that this is fundamentally a human rights issue.

I will include in my remarks excerpts from an editorial in a community newspaper in my riding of Algoma. I will not read the whole text into the record. I invite any of my colleagues who have not seen this full editorial to contact me and I will be pleased to share it with them.

From the Manitoulin Expositor , Wednesday, March 27, an editorial entitled ``Discrimination Irrational'':

Those who would argue against adding such a right to the human rights act (where it will join bans against discrimination on the basis of age, gender and race) will cite, for example, the contentious issue the Ontario New Democratic Party raised when, as Ontario's governing party, it introduced legislation that would have recognized in law same gender relationships and, in particular, would have opened the doors to same gender family adoptions.

It was this point-adoptions-that divided MPPs in Ontario from both the Liberal and New Democratic Party benches. The Ontario Progressive Conservatives were universally allied against the legislation.

The Prime Minister can look forward to the same thing because those opposed to the new legislation will raise the same sorts of issues-like adoptions-to argue in favour of some a-wink-and-a-nod type of discrimination: it isn't official, but it's there anyway.

It must be pointed out that most of the objections will be red herrings.

We will hear arguments that the official sanctioning of the right of a homosexual person not to be discriminated against (quite a concept, when one thinks about it) will somehow be undermining Canadian society and moral values; that this will, in some fashion and by implication, lead to more homosexual relationships.

It is hard to imagine, in view of the extremely negative feelings mainstream society holds toward homosexuals, that people of this persuasion or orientation would actively choose their lifestyle.

And while it is a sensitive issue to suggest that homosexuality can't possibly be a matter of choice, but innate, it seems to most-that this must be the case; Darwin and biology teach us that, for any species, the most basic instinct is to preserve itself through reproduction.

This is clearly not a priority for those people who choose same sex partners, perhaps through free will but surely most probably through their own particular chemistry, the point is: they're a part of our society.

They are a minority, to be sure. But they're with us and, just as the United Church of Canada bravely determined that being a homosexual person was in and of itself not a good reason to be denied ordination, so discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is simply not a good idea in the Canadian society that we think is special in the world.

Most of us will continue to be put off by the idea of same sex relationships. That, like homosexuality itself, is very probably some sort of instinctive response. That's the way we are probably made.

But we also have the advantage of being sensible beings, capable of rising above our irrational fears and responses.

The Prime Minister's support for changes to the human rights act will not do the heterosexual majority any harm, and will do the homosexual minority much good.

I applaud the editor of the Manitoulin Expositor for what I think are very insightful remarks.

In the few opportunities I have had to travel abroad in my life, like members of the House, I have travelled in other countries with great pride. We know Canadians are tolerant, understanding and caring. We have opened our country to people from around the world. I am much more proud as a Canadian to say we tolerate minorities in our society, including homosexuals, than to say to those outside our country that we are intolerant of homosexuals.

That many of my colleagues and some Canadians will raise issues such as marriage, adoption and same sex benefits as part of this discussion really is simply part of fair debate from that side of the argument. However, I simply do not buy the argument that marriage, adoption and same sex benefits are relevant to the amendment. They are essentially private sector or provincial matters.

What we are doing by this amendment is ensuring that in the federal workplace and in those industries regulated by the federal government discrimination will not be allowed on the basis of sexual orientation in employment and in the provision of goods and services.

Eight of the provinces and territories have already dealt with this issue in their provincial or territorial codes. It is a matter of the federal government's actually catching up with other jurisdictions in the country. I am quite proud that the government is showing leadership and is moving forward on a commitment that has been a commitment of this party for nearly 20 years. It is about time we get on with it.

I fully respect those of my colleagues who see this as a moral issue. I do not. To me this is nothing more or less than a human rights issue. We are not changing the Criminal Code. Illegal behaviour before this amendment will be illegal behaviour after this amendment.

We can speculate ad infinitum or ad nauseam on what the consequences might be. That we can do with any piece of legislation that comes before the House. We can speculate. That is fair. However, it is for those of us in the House to judge whether the speculation is reasonable. In my view that speculation is not reasonable, but I respect those who would use that in fair debate.

I do not feel in any way haunted by what will happen as a result of this amendment. If anything bad were to happen, why did we not see that as a consequence of the changes made in the provincial legislatures when they made changes to their codes? I do not recall hearing any terrible things that happened when those codes were changed over the last 10, 15 and 20 years. I feel strongly that no such consequence will be realized in this case.

I caution my colleagues to measure their words carefully when they argue against this, not to suggest the sky will fall because of this amendment, and to remember this is not about creating a special status for any group of people; this is about protecting the fundamental human rights of a minority in our society.

We have seen evidence of it in the last week already in the message the courts and Canadians get through the human rights code that intolerance of any minority is not acceptable in society. We are a modern society which is the envy of the world.

I encourage my colleagues, even those who think this is the wrong way to go, to reconsider their point of view and do the right thing.

[Sentencing And Parole, May 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, recently I hosted two town hall meetings in different parts of my large riding of Algoma to discuss a wide variety of issues with my constituents.

A number of them voiced their serious reservations about how we deal with those who perpetrate particularly violent crimes which lead to life sentences upon conviction. Of concern was section 745 of the Criminal Code which provides for a review of life imprisonment sentences for first degree murder after 15 years. This can be the case if they apply under the faint hope provisions of Canada's parole legislation.

I agree with my constituents that this can sometimes send the wrong message about our justice system and the seriousness of murder.

I call on our government to address this issue by amending the Criminal Code to provide society and especially the victims of crime with assurances that life sentences given to those who are the most violent have little likelihood of being reduced.

While I am supportive of maintaining the faint hope provision for most offenders, I would ask that judges when sentencing have the authority to remove the faint hope review for certain criminals.

[Trade, April 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade who has already distinguished himself in this role since his appointment in January.

In view of Canada's important role on the world stage, can the minister advise the House of the progress that has been made as a result of the recent quadrilateral meetings in Japan?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1996, April 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to join my colleagues in a few words about Bill C-31 and the related issues of the March 6 budget.

The hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca made much about his party's commitment to a zero deficit in three years, the so-called zero in three program. We heard a lot about that when the Reform Party introduced it. However, this year as preparations were being made for the federal budget the promised Reform Party alternative budget never materialized. We really have to ask ourselves whether zero in three has gone by the boards. The program should be renamed zero in one. If the Reform Party continues to behave as it has recently, in one year there will be zero members of the Reform Party in the House.

We are here to work together for all Canadians. We understand the cut and thrust of Parliament and the need to criticize, but that criticism must be fair. It must not be designed to confuse people so they do not know where a party is going.

Good government can be best exemplified by the historical expertise this party has brought to government in Canada. We have the best country in the world. The Prime Minister has said that many times. I have said that many times. My constituents know we have the best country in the world.

In December I spent a few days in Russia observing the parliamentary elections to the duma. I can confirm that even though that great superpower has an important political place in the world, few of us would choose to live there or in many other countries. Canada is a beautiful country, built on the honest effort of people around the world who believe that working together and co-operating is the only way to build a country. I dare say to my colleagues across the way that we have the best country in the world because we have had good government for most of the past century. For that I think we should thank the Liberal Party of Canada and the excellent leadership it has provided.

Good government is not perfect government. During the next election campaign I will be questioned on certain matters but I know I will be able to stand proud in front of my constituents and say that we did a good job in this last term. We did not do a perfect job but I suggest that nobody could do a perfect job. Anybody who said they could do a perfect job would be attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of voters. We have done a very, very good job.

Our approach to the problem of getting Canada's deficit in hand has been very responsible and reasonable. We have not done it on the backs of middle and low income Canadians. We have not done it on the backs of those who can least afford it. We have provided a transitional means of cutting back on federal expenditures. It is our commitment to have the federal deficit down to 2 per cent of GDP by the end of fiscal year 1997-98 which literally is just around the corner. We will have achieved that without putting the country in a state of confusion and uproar.

The Minister of Finance reminded us in his budget speech that we went into our mandate with four very key principles or areas of concern.

The first is to secure our financial future which means that we provide stability for those in the business sector who must plan for the future. We provide stability for Canadians who unfortunately find themselves out of work, who must themselves plan for the future. In so doing we have introduced the employment insurance legislation. As they study it more and more, Canadians will find it is the right answer to the dilemma this country is facing as far as balancing the need to protect those who are unemployed against those who are able to work but who must be more able to respond to the changing workplace.

The second major principle we must pursue is to secure our social programs, and Canadians agree with us on this point. Another signal or sign of a good government is one that does not sacrifice in this process those least able to take care of themselves: the handicapped, single parent families, those who find themselves at the lower end of the economic scale, those who are disadvantaged for one reason or another. These people will not be forgotten under a Liberal government. Other parties might not be able to accomplish what we have been able to accomplish thus far in this regard.

The third key area the finance minister outlined in his budget is investment in the future. This is where we recognize the importance of high technology for the future of this country and for the future of the world. We must not only engage business and all

Canadians in general, but more specifically our young people who find themselves facing a workplace that has changed drastically. It changes dramatically year by year.

When I graduated from engineering school more than a few years ago there were jobs for all the graduates. The world of work was more stable, more predictable. One could expect to be with a company for their full career. It is the nature of the world that this has changed. With the flow of information, the vast improvement in the availability of high technology and the fact that these things change almost every week, it is true that graduates now must be flexible, adaptable and prepared for a workplace that will require them to learn throughout the rest of their lives. Our young people are prepared for that and it is our job to assist them in their preparation.

The fourth significant area, which is the subject of Bill C-31 which we are debating today, is getting government right. I remind my hon. colleagues across the way that my constituents, and I am sure Canadians from coast to coast, in expecting good government do not expect perfect government.

As the Prime Minister outlined the other day, we have already completed three-quarters of our campaign commitments. I would expect that by the next election call we will have nearly completed the balance of those commitments.

I look forward to standing in front of my constituents during the next election campaign at various all-candidates meetings and saying that we accomplished the vast majority of our campaign commitments and the only reason we did not complete the others was that the opposition parties would not allow us to do so or the province of Ontario would not allow us to do so. I will be able to say that the Reform Party was full square behind the idea of harmonizing the GST and the provincial sales tax but it made so much to do about the issue it made it more difficult for us to get the agreements with the provinces. It gave Canadians the wrong impression about where we were going.

This is a good government for Canada.