Stan Keyes

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 15th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I have listened intently to the debate on the bill before us and quite frankly I am astonished at the opposition party and in particular the Reform Party and the lack of debate that has actually taken place on the bill before us now.

The member for Kootenay—Columbia whines and complains about the time allocation motion. Yet only two members of the Reform Party almost came close to addressing directly the government order of the day, Bill C-65.

For the folks at home, in case they have become confused, we are supposed to be discussing an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act or the equalization program.

The member for Kootenay—Columbia says he represents 85,000 constituents to whom at this moment I will apologize on his behalf. I know he has to be completely embarrassed by the fact that he has not addressed the issue we are supposed to be debating in this place.

Did the member for Kootenay—Columbia touch on any of the changes to the equalization program? None. Does any member of the Reform Party really and truly understand the importance of the equalization program? No. Given the level of debate on the floor of this place by members of the Reform Party, what an embarrassment.

For members opposite I will try to explain that a co-ordinated team effort produced this cornerstone of the Canadian federation called the equalization program. Many of my colleagues on this side of the House have articulated the definition of the program, the manner of payment in the program, the basic structure of the program and the positive constructive improvements which will increase the cost of the equalization program.

Reform Party members tell us they need more than the 48 hours being provided to debate the bill. The member for Kelowna said that he would strike out on the details of the equalization program. Did he address the fact that the program includes changes to the ceiling and floor provisions of the equalization program? I heard it on this side of the House. It will protect against unusually large fluctuations in equalization transfers. Was that addressed by members of the Reform Party? No, they did not touch on that.

At the time of the 1998 budget it was projected that equalization in 1998-99 would amount to $8.5 million. The last official estimates released last October showed an increase to $8.8 billion. Did they address that or ask why it has gone up to $8.8 billion? Did they examine the equalization program and its importance to the country? No, they did not.

The member for Kelowna—

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 15th, 1999]

Oh, nonsense.

[Social Union, February 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations to the Prime Minister, the premiers and the territorial leaders for signing the health and social union framework. This deal will go down in history as one of the high points in federal-provincial co-operation.

The government has agreed to (1) a statement for the equality of every Canadian wherever they live; (2) the commitment not to erect barriers to mobility; (3) give Canadians a greater voice in monitoring social programs; (4) work together on new social programs; (5) provide guidelines for dispute avoidance and resolution; (6) establish provisions for a review of the framework in three years; and (7) provide commitments from the federal government to work with the provinces to identify Canada-wide priorities and objectives.

Canadians are the clear winners in this process. On behalf of the constituents of my riding of Hamilton West, I thank the Prime Minister for initiating a process which will result in Canadians from coast to coast to coast being better served by their governments.

[Business Of The House, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hesitate to interrupt the remarks of the hon. member my colleague in the House, but we hope to take care of a little business before you call us to a vote.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that you will find consent for the following motion. I move:

That, when the House begins proceedings under Private Members' Business later this day, and for the duration of the debates on C-316 and M-300 today, no quorum calls nor dilatory motions shall be entertained by the Speaker.

[Railway Safety Act, December 4th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I do not want to interrupt the member's speech. I think it is valuable to hear what he has to say. However I am rising to seek unanimous consent.

Maybe some of my colleagues across the way will bear with me. The hon. member has about four or five minutes remaining. In order that we may hear his concluding remarks, and in order that we may have the bill at report stage, I ask for unanimous consent of the House that we not see the clock at 1.30 p.m.

[Violence Against Women, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians commemorate December 6 as the national day of remembrance and action on violence against women. 1998 marks nearly a full decade since the tragic deaths of 14 promising young women at École Polytechnique in Montreal.

Let us remember them by name: Geneviève Bergeron, 21; Hélène Colgan, 23; Nathalie Croteau, 23; Barbara Daigneault, 22; Anne-Marie Edward, 21; Maud Haviernick, 29; Barbara Marie Klueznik, 31; Maryse Leclair, 23; Annie St. Arneault, 23; Michele Richard, 21; Maryse Langanière, 25; Anne-Marie Lemay, 22; Sonia Pelletier, 28; and Annie Turcotte, 21. These are the beloved daughters, sisters and friends who are deeply missed to this day.

Canada is that much more poorer because of the remarkable promise lost in these young lives. By remembering them and acknowledging our collective loss, may we be inspired to create a peaceful society, a society where gender based violence must never again cut short the lives of women.

[Abortion, November 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I share the outrage of many North Americans concerning the brutal and senseless shootings of Canadian abortion providers and the recent murder of American Dr. Barnett Slepian.

There have been four shootings in the last five years in Canada and the U.S., all occurring on or close to Remembrance Day.

Since 1997 the RCMP has been co-ordinating a national task force which is investigating the shootings. This task force includes members from the Hamilton-Wentworth, Vancouver and Winnipeg police forces as well as the RCMP, and now the FBI.

The Department of Justice's resources are being made available to the task force as are the services of the Canadian Police Information Centre and Criminal Intelligence Service Canada.

I would like to acknowledge the hard work of Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Chief Kenneth Robertson and the international task force for providing advice and assistance to physicians who are concerned for their safety.

Police believe there is someone out there who can provide information. They are urged to call the task force through their local police department.

[Privilege, October 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises from question period. I beg the indulgence of the Speaker to bring forward my point because quite certainly it is unrehearsed and unprepared. However I am going to try to make my point as succinctly as I can.

It has much to do with my privilege being breached in that there have been many times over the course of the last several weeks, and maybe even months, that during question period there are very important questions being put by the opposition. Just as weighty and just as important are the answers being put forward by members from the government side.

Unfortunately during the point at which one is trying to hear a question or hear the answer, we are cut off by the 30 second clock. Quite frankly, in a day when we are speeding through time—we have the one minute egg and the 30 second breakfast and everything else—I think this place deserves more than to have the Speaker moved by a time limitation. It stops me from hearing the question—

[Presence In Gallery, October 7th, 1998]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[Right Honourable Ellen Fairclough, October 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Women's History Month gives us the opportunity to recognize the contribution of great women who played a vital role in our national heritage.

I have the distinct privilege to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a great Canadian, my predecessor as the MP for Hamilton West, a personal friend and constituent, the Right Honourable Ellen Fairclough.

First elected in 1950, Mrs. Fairclough was only the sixth woman to sit in this Chamber. On June 21, 1957 she became Canada's first woman cabinet minister. First as secretary of state, then as citizenship and immigration minister and finally as Postmaster General, she came to be one of the Diefenbaker cabinet's most resilient ministers.

Mrs. Fairclough is credited for such initiatives as introducing legislation to give status Indians the right to vote and reforming immigration policy to eliminate racial discrimination. Having no role models for guidance, Ellen Fairclough always made her own rules and chartered her own course. She was a pioneer in virtually everything she did and today she is a model for parliamentarians and all Canadians.