Pat O'Brien

[Social Security System, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first of all let me congratulate the hon. member for his comments. While I listened with great interest I was glad to see him in the course of his remarks switch from the term day care to child care. In fact as we well know the more relevant term that reflects the reality of our society right now is child care. Many children need that care at various times throughout the day and therefore the traditional term is very much out of place. I was pleased to hear him shift to the appropriate term.

That is simply not a matter of political correctness. It reflects the reality in our society today and the fact that so many children need care outside the home. I say unfortunately because I agree with him that certainly a parent is the best provider of care for one's child, if that is possible.

This leads me to my question. I wonder if the hon. member would support a measure which would, through the Income Tax Act, reflect a credit to a parent? Let us be candid. Usually that would be the mother, but not necessarily always. Would the hon. member support a measure which would give a tax credit to a parent who, in fact, chooses to stay home and provide full-time care for the child?

[Pre-Budget Consultations, February 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Yukon for her kind good wishes, her remarks and for her question.

I think that small l liberals, the two of us, are probably of very like minds on this very question. Sure, the deficit is important and has to be slashed. I fully agree that any so-called recovery which leaves hundreds of thousands of Canadians unemployed is simply not a recovery by my definition of the word.

I fully support the idea that one ought to have specific targets to try to reduce that unemployment level just as our party has laid out specific targets in wanting to reduce the deficit. It is a logical suggestion and a good one. I will pass it on to the Minister of Finance.

[Pre-Budget Consultations, February 1st, 1994]

I thank the hon. member for his two-part question.

Dealing with the job creation situation, obviously he is aware of the infrastructure program of the new government. We hear criticisms of it. I heard criticism of it during the campaign and still hear it, but not from many of the unemployed I might add. Frankly, I can say that having come from 13 years in municipal government it is applauded coast to coast to coast in this country by municipal leaders of every political stripe. So that is a major step in the right direction.

Obviously we recognize that the private sector will and should create most employment in this country. The infrastructure seeks to look for a partnership with the private sector to help do that.

In terms of the second part of the question dealing with tax loopholes, quite frankly the statistics will show that since 1984 under the previous government those earning high incomes, in the top 3 per cent in this country, paid less in income tax. To me that is fundamentally unfair and immoral. It must stop. I am confident the Minister of Finance will do everything possible to address that what has to be the ultimate inequity.

[Pre-Budget Consultations, February 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my first speech as a member of Parliament, may I first congratulate you on attaining your important position of responsibility. I assure you of my full support and co-operation as we strive to do the people's business in a more orderly and decorous manner.

No doubt everyone will understand that my first thoughts are of my wife, Evelyn and our three children, Mark, Laura and Carl. During my 13 years of service as an elected representative in the municipal government of London, Ontario and now as the member of Parliament for London-Middlesex, I have always enjoyed their full love and support. I wish to thank them most sincerely.

As you well know, Mr. Speaker, the adventure of democratic politics is never a solo flight for no one achieves public office without the help of many people: family, friends and acquaintances alike. I wish to thank publicly in this House the army of dedicated volunteers who worked so indefatigably on my campaign and whose efforts produced the most decisive victory ever in the history of the riding of London-Middlesex.

To all of the people of our riding, to the 54 per cent who did support me and to those who did not: I pledge to you my very best efforts to represent you at all times with honesty, integrity and hard work. I am indeed honoured to be your member of Parliament in this the 35th Parliament of Canada.

My riding is most definitely a challenge to represent given its geographic size and the diverse heritage of its peoples. Indeed, in many respects it is almost a microcosm of Canada itself. Eighty per cent of our people live in the urban areas of east and south London, while the remaining 20 per cent make their homes in the very productive rural and agricultural settings of the four townships of Biddulph, London, West Nissouri and North Dorchester.

Demographically, London-Middlesex is an interesting riding encompassing peoples of many cultures, languages and religions. Although primarily of a sturdy Anglo-Saxon character, it is home to such fascinating peoples as the many descendants of the historic Irish pioneers. After World War II many Dutch, Italian and Portuguese immigrants came to our area and worked very hard for a better life. Most recently, significant numbers of Arabs and Poles, as well as Croats, Caribbeans, Southeast Asians, East Indians and Chinese have all made their important contributions to our communities.

As is fitting in this great nation we call Canada, some of our people are French Canadians who, though not many in number, are both proud to be francophone Canadians and are determined that this blessed land must stay united.

Economically, the range of activities in my riding includes many different types of farming on some of Canada's richest soil, a plethora of small businesses of every type imaginable, several major industries such as General Motors Diesel and 3M, and such important institutions as Parkwood Hospital, Fanshawe College and London's airport.

It is in juxtaposition to this description of my riding that I now offer my synthesis of the opinions and concerns of my constituents as well as my personal views on the state of the economy and possible budgetary decisions to deal with the crisis.

Having consulted widely with my constituents of London-Middlesex, which included a public pre-budget roundtable forum held in London last week along with my colleagues, the hon. member for London West and the hon. member for London East, I have received a very clear message that our government must do its utmost to encourage the creation of jobs while at the same time taking difficult decisions necessary to reduce the national deficit and debt. A balanced approach is the key to a true economic recovery.

In the field of taxation, it is readily apparent to middle income Canadians that they bear an unjust share of the tax burden in this country. The majority of my constituents favour the elimination of tax loopholes for wealthy individuals and corporations in order to create a more equitable tax structure. Across the board tax increases however would be beyond comprehension at this time.

It is a real concern to many that severe restrictions on RRSP contributions and the elimination in one fell swoop of the capital gains exemption could be unduly punitive and could actually slow our economic recovery.

I have heard the clarion call to establish better priorities for government funding as part of the overdue effort to reduce the national deficit and debt. Surely no priority can be more urgent than the need to invest our tax dollars wisely in the children and youth of Canada. To sell young Canadians short is to condemn this nation to a future of mediocrity, to a future in which Canada would experience horrendous social problems.

It is my personal view that one enormous problem dominates the economic landscape. That is the devastating unemployment crisis and the desperate need for new jobs. Yes, we must slash the deficit and the debt. Yes, we must make our system of taxation more equitable. But any so-called economic recovery which discards hundreds of thousands of Canadians onto the scrap heap of indefinite idleness is no recovery at all.

A Liberal government true to its principles can never accept the economics of indifference which preaches that 5 to 7 per cent unemployment constitutes full employment. We must never write off even one of our fellow Canadians as a faceless statistic for whom we offer no hope. Like many of my hon. colleagues in this House I have seen the human face of these unemployment statistics day after day in my constituency office. It is a face etched with fear and despair. Women and men, young and old, the highly educated and the unskilled, too many Canadians are crying out for the dignity of daily work and a chance to earn a decent living for themselves and their families.

Unfortunately, the cruel reality of our unemployment crisis offers no quick fixes, no easy solutions and no panaceas waiting to be discovered. But let us at least begin.

As a Liberal, one of my fundamental beliefs is that government must play a role in partnership with the private sector if Canada is to pull out of this economic nightmare. To deny that is to deny the lessons of history. And so let us with heroic hearts and strong in will strive, seek and find a better economic course for all Canadians.

In closing, as the member of Parliament for London-Middlesex, I pledge my best efforts to join in the fight to help create a new and better Canada.

[Immigration, January 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my riding of London-Middlesex has a growing number of new Canadians from several countries, in particular from the Arab nations and from Poland.

It has become very obvious to me and to these constituents that we need better co-ordination of services among the three levels of government to help new Canadians adapt to their new society.

My constituents who are new Canadians tell me that they simply are not given enough information about how the Canadian government functions and how they can access Canadian government services.

As their member of Parliament I plan to highlight this concern during the life of this Parliament. I would ask the new minister to make this a priority item.

[Cruise Missile Testing, January 26th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, like many members in this House I have mixed feelings on this question. I certainly appreciate the comments of my colleague. I am sure we all share the anguish he must feel representing the people most directly affected by this important decision. It certainly would not bother me to see Canadian foreign policy by this new government show a little bit of independence at this time from the United States.

I would like to ask the member if he could comment on what I am hearing as one of the strongest arguments in favour of the testing, at least in my opinion, and it is simply this. As a partner in NORAD with the United States are we not bound to some extent, if not very bound, to carry out this test as part of that NORAD partnership?

I wonder if the hon. member could address that concern. I listened closely to his comments. They were excellent comments, but I did not hear that particular argument mentioned. I sincerely would be interested in how he might respond to that argument because I think it is also a strong point.

[Foreign Affairs, January 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the thoughts of the leader of the Reform Party.

I would like to ask him if he could elaborate on his statement that we ought to distinguish between a conflict that is resolvable as compared to one that is not.

I think we have seen recently in our world some very ancient feuds such as the one between the Israelis and the PLO and indeed in northern Ireland which I remember hearing about from my grandmother. We have seen progress in some areas that perhaps people felt were unresolvable.

I ask the leader of the Reform Party if he could elaborate as to how he would make that very complex determination. I wonder if he could also address this fact. In his speaking to the humanitarian role we are playing there, that itself would seem to suggest that it is very difficult to determine when a conflict is resolvable and that we may well have a role to play as Canadians with our expertise in what superficially could appear to be thoroughly hopeless.

[Speech From The Throne, January 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, let me join in congratulating the hon. member for Simcoe Centre on his maiden speech and on his election to the House. He was the only member as we know to resist the Liberal juggernaut in Ontario and he is therefore extra due for congratulations.

I share one thing with the hon. member. Simcoe is the birthplace of Sir Frederick Banting and London is known as the city where he began to do his important work at the University of Western Ontario.

That leads me to my question for the hon. member. The Reform Party is very concerned with deficit reduction as indeed all members of this House are or should be. In the campaign it became clear to me that the Reform Party proposals on the health care plan for Canada would give too much leeway to the provinces, that in fact in the name of deficit reduction it would threaten the universality of our health care program. I have yet to hear that adequately explained by a member of his party.

I give the hon. member the opportunity now and I ask through you, Mr. Speaker, how they can ensure that when provinces are given such leeway to decide what health care would be like in their provinces that does not in fact jeopardize in an insidious way the universality of the health care system of which all Canadians are so proud.

[General Agreement On Tariffs And Trade, January 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian farmers have reluctantly accepted that it was impossible for the government to save article XI at the recent GATT negotiations. They are aware that Canada stood virtually alone on this issue. Also they realize that we inherited an untenable position from the previous government and they know that we fought as hard as we possibly could to save article XI.

Given that reality, they now expect this new government will be firm on tariff levels and that it will not cave in to bullying tactics by the United States or any other country. They look to us to champion their cause and not to cave in to these countries.

As the member of Parliament for London-Middlesex I intend to fight for my constituents today and every day. I am confident that this government will not let Canadian farmers down.