Bev Desjarlais

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. He was praising what was in the budget for education. I am wondering if a more substantial approach in the budget for education might have been to give students who are in debt up to their eyeballs a break and maybe allow them to deduct their student loans.

However, the government says it will make it a little easier for those who are getting scholarships or bursaries. That is very commendable, but why not put something in the budget that gets to the core of the problem and allows students who are in debt up to their eyeballs because of the government's approach to cutting education dollars to claim that as a tax deduction?

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made reference to the pensioners in the area. She has highly supported the petition that came in. I am sure she recognizes that it was her Indian affairs minister who made an agreement that literally wiped away the benefits for those pensioners with no consideration for them. Obviously that is the approach the government has taken in a number of areas that reflect on ordinary Canadians. In this case it was workers who in a lot of situations gave their lives. Those who are left are now having their pensions wiped out.

If she truly supports this, how does she feel about her Indian affairs minister signing the agreement that wiped away those pensions?

[Petitions, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged on behalf of citizens from my home community of Thompson to add this list of petitioners to those that I have already presented.

They call upon parliament to preserve the reference to God in the Constitution of Canada. They recognize that it honours the faith of millions of Canadians, symbolizes an important part of our heritage, and reflects the diversity and plurality of the religions in Canada.

[Hepatitis C, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, very few Canadians have any faith in the health minister's promise to protect universal health care. Is it any wonder? Two years ago the same minister made another promise. Two years ago today was the anniversary of the health minister's promise to compensate some of the victims of the hepatitis C tainted blood scandal. Two years have past and the victims are still waiting; not a penny for victims but big bucks for lawyers. Is this the action of a caring government?

When will the health minister get the money to the dying people who desperately need it?

[Rail Transportation, March 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

The Liberal government has slashed VIA Rail funding by over $600 million. These cuts have hurt Canadian communities and destroyed jobs. They have jeopardized affordable rail service. They have hurt northern communities that are dependent on VIA.

Now we find that the Liberal government has secretly loaned $1 billion to Amtrak, the American passenger rail service.

Why is the Liberal government supporting American trains while abandoning VIA Rail?

[Health Care, March 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's aboriginal people have been held in captive poverty for decades, robbed of their culture, robbed of their families, robbed of their economical opportunities.

The most recent budget failed to provide sufficient dollars for aboriginal housing and health care. If that was not bad enough, now they face the danger of private health care because of this health minister's failure to take on Ralph Klein.

What is this minister afraid of? If the minister truly supports universal health care, why does he not tell Ralph Klein today that Bill 11 must go and why does he not put sufficient dollars into our health care system?

[Westray Mine, March 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion put forward by the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. Our leader, the member for Halifax, has already put in place a private member's bill which has not yet been drawn.

Although Judge Richard's recommendations came down on December 18, 1997, sadly we have not seen the government come up with any answers to his recommendations. Nothing.

There was no doubt in anybody's mind whatsoever what happened at Westray. There was negligence on behalf of the corporate executives and the owners of Curragh Resources, namely Clifford Frame. There was no question, but what was missing was the law to hold them accountable.

At one time we did not have laws that strongly enforced impaired driving charges. At one time we did not have laws which brought criminals to justice when they raped women. At one time we did not have laws in place in regard to spousal abuse. At one time we did not have laws in place for child molesters. But what did we do to improve those situations? We brought in laws.

A government with any degree of conscience, leadership or vision would have come forth with a motion or bill to address this issue. It should not be left to the members of the opposition, but thank God members on this side have seen fit to address the issue because the government has not.

We heard a lot about what happened at Westray. Canadians nationwide were appalled. They could not believe that when workers go into their workplace they give up the right to be treated equally. They give up the right to be treated as human beings, as any other Canadian citizen, if someone's negligence and outright disregard causes their death.

Workers in this country are not treated fairly, not on this issue nor on other issues. It does not happen. They give up that right. Why are those rights not there? It is to protect corporations. Why do we have worker's compensation legislation in Canada? It is not to protect the workers. It is to protect the corporations from being sued by their workers if there is negligence and they become injured on the job.

There were supposed to be no-fault insurance plans to protect the corporations but what has happened? Workers do not have the same rights. They cannot sue their employer for outright negligence. What is even worse, we now find out that even if there are numerous deaths as a result of that negligence there are no laws that can bring those executives to task.

This is not about whimsical approaches. This is not about a one time instance where something happened and the worker died. This was chronic negligence. This was repetitious disregard for health and safety legislation. This was as a result not just of the company but of the conflict of interest of provincial governments and federal governments because they had been involved in making sure that project took place, that the mine operated.

How can we expect justice when there was provincial and federal government involvement in that whole Westray Project? How can we ask for justice?

Let us not let the lives of those 26 miners and the hardship and grieving of their families go for naught. Let us at least see one inkling of good come from that disaster. Let us see the criminal laws in this country change to bring those negligent employers—I do not care whether they are large employers or small employers—if they have been negligent, let them be taken to task before the courts of this country and be held accountable.

[Stanley Knowles Day, March 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I hope there will be alternate ways that we can go about recognizing great parliamentarians. I certainly intend to pursue them in the future.

[Stanley Knowles Day, March 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all the members who have spoken tonight on behalf of Stanley Knowles and his great accomplishments. I thank them for the support.

I want to clarify a couple of areas. My colleague who just preceded me indicated we could run out of days. The United States of America recognizes Washington, Lincoln, Martin Luther King and I think there may be one other politician in all their years of history and they have not run out of days so I think in Canada we are probably fairly safe. The United Kingdom has Guy Fawkes Day and maybe the other odd one. I do not think that is the real problem.

As parliamentarians we can get beyond the partisan aspect and have support for parliamentarians who have done a great job. I want to clarify it was intended that it would be parliamentarians or politicians who would be recognized. So often all that is ever recognized of politicians is any wrong that they may do. Very few people will have a good thing to say about any politician. There are very few of us who could honestly say that we hear something good about us all the time. I think we can get beyond that for parliamentarians who have done a great job such as Stanley Knowles did. There may be others as well.

There is no question there are other ways of recognition. The reason to recognize a day is that it becomes that day on the calendar. Every time a child or an adult looks at the calendar on that day, they will think of Stanley Knowles.

St. Jean Baptiste Day has been on the calendar for heaven knows how long. We do not recognize it. We did not do anything with St. Jean Baptiste Day where I grew up but we recognized it and we learned about it and we understood it as we did other holidays that get recognized. To me there is very great significance in putting the day on the calendar and officially recognizing it.

The leader of the New Democratic Party said on Stanley's passing that we have all lost a friend, one who fought with courage and vigour for equality, for social justice and the dignity of all Canadians. Stanley Knowles is a Canadian worth honouring. He should be held in high esteem in our collective memories so that we may never forget his integrity as a man and as a politician.

I was very disappointed that the motion was not made votable. I am going to take this opportunity to correct that wrong and ask if I could have unanimous consent of the House to make it a votable motion.

[Stanley Knowles Day, March 2nd, 2000]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should commemorate Stanley Knowles by declaring June 18 (birthday of Mr. Knowles) of each year to be Stanley Knowles Day throughout Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here this evening to speak to the motion respecting a day to recognize the late Stanley Knowles. Stanley Knowles, the parliamentarian and the man, goes beyond partisan views. His work here in the House over the years received great acclaim from all parties.

I wanted us as Canadians and as parliamentarians to recognize Stanley Knowles. As well I am looking to our recognizing other great Canadians by designating days for them. We fail to do that as Canadians. We recognize Victoria Day. Certainly we have historical connections to England and to the Royal Family. The U.S. recognizes numerous days. It takes pride in its history and in its great leaders that brought that country over the years to a democratic system.

I think as Canadians we fail to do that. We fail to take pride in our country. As a result we see some of the problems we are in today. We do not take the time to be proud of the people who have worked for our democratic country and have led it through the years. I will speak a lot about Stanley Knowles because it was my intent that it would be the opportune time as we go into the new millennium to recognize him as the man that he was.

Without question Stanley Knowles is a legendary Canadian. He was a pioneering New Democrat with an intergenerational voice who spoke for all and still speaks to us now. My colleague, our health critic, mentioned in his speech today what Stanley Knowles gave us in 1958. Does that still speak to us today about our going through the same things in the House of Commons. He said:

We welcome the beginning of a hospital insurance plan. But if it is a good idea to cover hospital bills by an insurance plan, why not do the same for all medical bills? The Liberals promised health insurance in 1919 but had no intention of starting it until 1959. Apparently, it was Mr. Mackenzie King's reading of the Bible, about the children of Israel having to wander the wilderness for 40 years, that prompted him to require the people of Canada to wander in the wilderness of high medical costs for 40 years before making even a start in this field.

He went on to say:

And now we have the spectacle of the present Liberal leader promising, all over again, what the Liberal Party first pledged itself to 40 years ago.

Here we are, another 42 years later. Does it not sound familiar? He further stated:

But Pearson's promise today is even more vague and misleading than most Liberal promises have proved to be.

I think Stanley Knowles definitely speaks to us even today. As well I will take this opportunity to comment that Stanley Knowles also said:

Debate is not a sin, a mistake, an error or something to be put up with in parliament. Debate is the essence of parliament.

What have we seen as parliamentarians in the House of Commons in the last while with this government? Numerous time allocations and probably the most horrendous thing today is that regulations will be passed once again to stifle the voice of parliamentary debate. I am sure Stanley Knowles would be turning over in his grave.

My colleague from Winnipeg—Transcona said in his eulogy to Stanley Knowles:

He was the last of a line of prairie ministers whose view of politics was shaped by their belief in the social gospel and biblical prophecies...Stanley was an exemplary politician. His knowledge of parliamentary rules and proceedings superseded that of many of his colleagues on either side of the House.

To understand Stanley Knowles we must understand the indissoluble link between Stanley Knowles the politician and Stanley Knowles the man. This was Stanley Knowles' integrity, his ability to bring together his belief system and his unwavering faith in our parliamentary system.

Growing up, Stanley had faced challenges that led him to follow the path that he did. As stated in the Montreal Gazette a few days after he passed on:

His social-democratic views were formed the hard way: by the death of his mother, Margaret, to tuberculosis and poor health care when he was 11. His father, Stanley Ernest, lost his job during the Depression without pension or benefit.

Stanley Knowles was on a lifelong mission. He himself stated “This became more or less the goal of my life, to correct what happened to my own family”.

Is that not often what it takes to get us going, to really fight for the things we believe in, that we do not want to see other people suffer some of the problems, illnesses and tragedies that we had to go through. We want to make a better life for the people around us and for our families.

Stanley's political career with the CCF began in 1934. He held various positions throughout those years including that of national vice-president from 1954 to 1961. His son David said that his father initially decided that he would work to save people's souls through the church but he soon realized that preaching from the pulpit was not going to put food on the table or get people hospital care. He realized he was in the wrong place and he should be in parliament.

According to historian Susan Mann he had to change laws rather than souls. Stanley Knowles went out to preach from a different house, the House of Commons. He ran for parliament in 1935 and again in 1940. He was elected as the CCF member for Winnipeg North Centre on November 30, 1942.

I now have two colleagues, the member for Winnipeg Centre and for Winnipeg North Centre, who represent the riding that Stanley once represented.

Stanley succeeded the late J. S. Woodsworth. He was elected in 1945, 1949, 1953, 1957, 1963, 1968, 1972, 1974, 1979 and 1980. How would any of us feel to have the support of our constituents the way they stood behind this man because of the man he was? His integrity was never at question. That we should be elected that many times, we would definitely deserve to have our name recognized within Canada, a day recognized on our behalf, if we were able to make that kind of commitment to our constituents.

Stanley's career as a parliamentarian was brilliant. Many honours were bestowed upon him in recognition of his knowledge of parliamentary procedure and his integrity as a social democrat.

In 1957 John Diefenbaker offered Stanley the Speakership. According to the Montreal Gazette , the new Tory prime minister, the highly partisan John Diefenbaker was so impressed by Mr. Knowles that he offered him the job as Speaker of the Commons. Mr. Knowles declined. Why did he decline? He declined because it would constrain his ability to fight for pension reform on behalf of his constituents. That was a parliamentarian.

For Stanley Knowles the politician, government and its laws were to become his instruments of transformation and education to make Canadian society a better place for all. He fought persistently for the elderly and more specifically for the national pension plan. He also fought for the poor, for children, for women and for veterans.

During his 42 years in the House, Stanley not only gained respect for the role of parliament and its procedure but a sound understanding of it. It is no wonder that his career as a parliamentarian did not end when he ended his term as an active member of parliament in 1984.

NDP leader Ed Broadbent suggested that the House honour Stanley. Prime Minister Trudeau at that time followed through on the suggestion with a lifelong membership in the House and a seat at the clerk's table.

On March 13, 1984, the House voted unanimously and Stanley was able to keep living in the house that was his home, the House of Commons. In October of the same year Stanley Knowles was recognized as an officer of the Order of Canada.

Regardless of his health needs and his frailty, Stanley still attended question period daily. I am sure all of us would be thrilled to say that we had been in question period daily for our whole time here in Ottawa. He enjoyed the ritual, the rules and the history of parliament's hallowed halls which he has now joined.