Pat O'Brien

[Housing, November 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, co-op housing in Canada has a long and successful history. This type of housing has given hundreds of thousands of Canadian families their only realistic opportunity to buy and own their own home. In the city of London and in my riding of London-Middle-

sex, co-op housing is the best solution to the housing needs of many of my constituents.

For many years the federal Government of Canada has played a vital leadership role in ensuring this important housing option is available to Canadians. As the provinces of Canada seek to assume the lead role in the field of housing, it is absolutely necessary that the federal government retain some involvement. My constituents feel that consistent and acceptable national standards in co-op housing will only be assured if the federal government maintains a presence in this vital field.

The irresponsible attacks on the health care system by the governments of Alberta and Ontario have caused serious concerns that the next victim of the right wing slashers will be co-op housing. This government must never let that happen.

[Questions Passed As Orders For Returns, November 21st, 1996]

For the past two years, which departments, agencies or crown corporations have ( a ) contributed funding to UNICEF and ( b ) in what amounts?

Return tabled.

[Zaire, November 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, because of the tragic situation in Zaire and the horrible potential for mass starvation, it was absolutely necessary for the United Nations to intervene.

The Secretary-General of the UN, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, called on Canada to step forward and lead this crucial humanitarian effort. Canadians believe that this nation has a moral responsibility to do all that we can to prevent the loss of life in central Africa.

I have had considerable input on this crisis from my constituents of London-Middlesex. While there are dissenters, the vast majority of my constituents, and I believe of all Canadians, support our leading this humanitarian effort.

Although we have economic problems at home, Canadians know that our so-called problems pale in comparison to the tragedy in central Africa. Given the rapidly changing nature of this crisis, obviously there is uncertainty about the exact nature of this mission. However, there is no uncertainty about the fact that

Canadians are proud that the government and the nation will do all they can to prevent the loss of life in this troubled region of the world.

[Petitions, November 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by several hundred people in southwestern Ontario, including my own constituents of London-Middlesex. I want to put this on the record on behalf of these Canadians, although the government has acted on this matter.

The petitioners call on the government not to tax books. I am happy to present that petition.

[Petitions, November 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my duty and pleasure to present two petitions to the House today. The first is signed by a number of my constituents and also other Canadians in the region of southwestern Ontario.

The petitioners call on Parliament to enact legislation to define marriage as the voluntary union between one man and one woman.

I am happy to present that petition.

[The Senate, October 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, allow me to congratulate you on your appointment to the chair. It is a much deserved appointment and I know you will serve this House and the people of Canada very well.

Canadians have mixed feelings about the Senate. There are three attitudes: those who feel it should be abolished; others who say no, it should be maintained but elected; still others who are happy with the status quo.

Let me remind everyone that this House cannot simply act unilaterally to abolish the Senate. That would require a very complex series of constitutional negotiations involving the provinces and could only be affected through an amendment to the Constitution. Therefore Motion M-221, which proposes that the government should abolish the Senate, is not something that we can do and it should be rejected by the House.

I find myself wondering how many letters the members of the Bloc have received from their constituents recently demanding that they spend their time pushing for the abolition of the Senate. Are the cafes on Quebec's Grande-Allée or Montreal's rue St. Laurent abuzz with discussions on the future of the upper Chamber? I think not.

I suspect that if the members sitting opposite to me listened to their constituents with a little more care they would find that the people in their ridings are much more interested in other issues: economic growth, job creation, government deficits, protecting our social programs and medicare, and relaunching the economy of Montreal to name a few.

Their constituents would be pleased to know that the Liberal government shares these concerns, even if their elected members in the official opposition have become somewhat out of touch.

Since elected, the federal government has been getting its fiscal house in order. During the election in 1993 it was clear that this was a major concern for all Canadians. We responded.

According to forecasts the objective for 1997-98 of reducing the deficit to $17 billion or 2 per cent of GDP will be met, down $25 billion from 1993-94 when the deficit we inherited represented 6 per cent of GDP.

Thanks in large part to the measures taken by the federal government to put public finances in order, interest rates have dropped 17 times in the last 17 months. Lower interest rates mean that more benefits will be generated than any program or tax cut could possibly bring in. For ordinary Canadians, this means that

someone renewing a $100,000 one-year mortgage will save over $3,000 a year. In addition, the lower interest rates have been a big help to the provinces in reaching their deficit reduction objectives. Between January 1995 and June 1996 the provinces saved $1.3 billion in debt servicing charges. Quebec alone saved some $625 million.

The Liberal government knows that Canadians want to work. That is why we have been working so hard with our provincial partners to promote a climate favourable for job creation. Our efforts I am pleased to say have met with success.

Certainly there is more to be done. We all know that. But no less than 650,000 new jobs have been created in the Canadian economy since the government took office. Unemployment is under 10 per cent for the first time in half a decade. These are achievements of which all Canadians can feel proud.

Internationally Canada's reputation as a country with low inflation is beginning to attract notice. In December 1993 the federal government and the Bank of Canada set a target to keep inflation between 1 and 3 per cent through the end of 1998 and we are on target.

Having a good international reputation like this is vital for Canada's economy and that of the provinces.

In recent years, exports have been the main engine of the economic growth necessary to decrease our unemployment levels even further. An important part of our strategy for promoting exports has been our Team Canada trade missions.

Their value is widely appreciated. It is certainly hoped that all 10 provincial premiers this time will be accompanying Canada's Prime Minister and a large delegation of Canadian business people on the next mission to Korea, Thailand and the Philippines.

During the missions to date, Canadian businesses have announced 369 business deals worth some $20 billion. Furthermore, Canadians have had the opportunity to see what the federal government, the provincial governments and the private sector can achieve when working in a spirit of co-operation.

Canadians want their country to work like this. They want their governments to work together efficiently and effectively to respond to their concrete everyday needs. I hear this all the time: "Why do the governments of Canada not work more effectively together?"

With the leadership this Prime Minister and this government have brought to bear on this situation, that is exactly what we are starting to see, and it is high time.

This motion under consideration today does not address the real, everyday fundamental concerns of Canadians, including those Canadians in Quebec, their economic concerns. It certainly does not address the concerns of the member's constituents. Therefore, with respect, I cannot support the motion.

[Fanshawe College, October 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Fanshawe College is an excellent community college located in my riding of London-Middlesex.

In September a team of their student chefs represented Canada at the 1996 International Culinary Olympics in Berlin. They competed against 30 teams from around the world and won a silver medal for Canada.

Congratulations to the six student chefs: Nicholas Burrell, Julie de Vroomen, Chris Haynes, Brad Hirtzel, Adrien Melillo and

Ashley Millis. Congratulations to their coaches, Peter Greuel and Steven Evetts and to the project manager, Kirk Patterson.

These young people are a credit to themselves, to Fanshawe College, to the city of London and to Canada. Well done. We are very proud of you and we look forward to sampling your cooking in the near future.

[Pledge Of Allegiance, October 9th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, last week in the House I had the opportunity to ask the Minister of Natural Resources to comment on the proposal by Atomic Energy Canada and Ontario Hydro to import plutonium from the United States.

That question was generated by several concerns that have been brought to me as the member of Parliament for London-Middlesex from the city council of London, Ontario, the county council of Middlesex County and other people in the area of southwestern Ontario who could be affected.

There are several concerns that I would like to speak to briefly. The first and most important in my mind is the issue of public participation. The councils that I just mentioned and the private citizens who have contacted me are very concerned that there would be full public opportunity for input.

Indeed the minister did assure me that would take place and I was very pleased with that answer. However, I am looking for a little more of a guarantee that there will be a full environmental assessment held before such a proposal would be approved and that throughout the province of Ontario there would be several opportunities for public input.

The second concern is the issue of public health and protection of the environment. I think the question that needs to be asked after considerable analysis is whether we should even allow the importation of plutonium to Canada from foreign nations. There is consideration of importation from the United States and apparently from Russia as well.

Third is the question of security and cost if such a proposal were to go forward. In all probability there would be importation through the city of Sarnia and transportation of such fuels to the Bruce nuclear plant some two to three hours drive, depending on the time of year and road conditions, along a very busy highway 21, which is certainly not a major roadway. It is at times a dangerous and very busy highway. There is the question of security in the transportation of these fuels.

Then there is the question of the need to enhance security at the plant itself, given the nature of the materials that would be stored at the Bruce nuclear power plant.

Finally, there is the whole matter of radioactive waste which would be generated by the use of plutonium fuel. This obviously would become the problem of Ontario Hydro. That would then lead to the dangerous precedent being set that perhaps we would allow the importation of other radioactive wastes into Canada.

That leads me to the issue of how one deals with such radioactive waste. There is a proposal being studied now that such wastes should be buried somewhere in the Canadian shield. There is a full environment assessment underway right now about that idea, but it all very uncertain.

In conclusion, I would simply say that there are a number of very serious concerns which have been brought to my attention and to other colleagues in the House from southwestern Ontario in particular.

While I appreciated the assurances the minister was able to give me last week on public participation, I am anxious to hear these other concerns addressed because my constituents are anxious as well to hear from the minister.

[Criminal Code, October 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked me a question and now he does not seem to want the answer.

The fact is that statistics prove that the misperception that we are on some rampant, runaway course of increase in violent crime in Canada today is simply not the case and it does none of us credit to fuel that misperception.

[Criminal Code, October 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am not given to long statistical arguments. I would invite my colleague to review my comments. I did not cite specific statistics. I did speak to the misperception which has been statistically proven as a misperception by experts in the field, both in the justice and law enforcement system.