Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was reform.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Liberal MP for Simcoe—Grey (Ontario)

Lost his last election, in 2004, with 40% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Post-Secondary Education February 23rd, 2004

Mr. Speaker, on February 16 it was with great pleasure that I signed an accord, on behalf of the Minister of HRSD, with my colleague, the Minister of Education for Newfoundland and Labrador.

This integration agreement commits to a new level of federal-provincial relations between the Government of Canada and the people of Newfoundlands and Labrador. The accord provides for an amalgamation of services for students securing student loans and will create a much more efficient method for students to access financial assistance.

I would also like to add that the Prime Minister's commitment to strengthening federal-provincial relations was recognized by the Minister of Education as a welcome and appreciated gesture.

I offer my thanks to the Prime Minister for his unprecedented support of students in this country in accessing post-secondary education. One thing is clear. The students of Newfoundland and Labrador will now receive better service when accessing financial assistance as a direct result of the efforts of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development.

Auditor General's Report February 13th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay praise and tribute to Auditor General Sheila Fraser, and to fully support our Prime Minister for his decisive actions in response to Ms. Fraser's report.

We recognize that without doubt there are those who have abused the public trust. As elected officials, we are privileged to serve our constituents who must have unquestioned confidence in our government. I can say that this elected official is deeply disturbed by Ms. Fraser's findings, as is this entire government.

Now is the time for strong leadership in the country and Prime Minister Paul Martin has displayed tremendous leadership by taking decisive and immediate action in response to the Auditor General's report.

Indeed, last fall, one of his first actions as Prime Minister was to cancel the sponsorship program. He has accepted all the Auditor General's recommendations concerning the sponsorship program. Moreover, he has pledged to take the necessary steps to uncover what happened to ensure those who are responsible are held to account.

Reinstatement of Government Bills February 10th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you would include my vote with the government's on the vote just taken.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply February 5th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, congratulations to the very thoughtful and insightful remarks made by my hon. colleague. As my colleague made mention, in his previous life as a municipal councillor and mayor, he was what is affectionately known as the mayor of mayors for Canada.

It is important to mention for the record that in this Parliament and in the previous Parliament I know of no other colleague who has put forward the level of support and encouragement to this federal government to play a more active part in the life of municipalities. For that, I commend him. On behalf of my municipalities, I thank him.

I am interested in knowing what the hon. member's thoughts are with respect to some of the municipalities in his riding and how the elimination of the GST may help them.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply February 5th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to provide my comments to the address in reply to the throne speech. I should mention at the outset that I will be splitting my time with my distinguished colleague, the member for Oak Ridges.

It is with an incredible sense of excitement that I stand here today and pass along my comments on the Speech from the Throne. It is a very exciting time for Canadians. They are at the leading edge, based on this throne speech. They are embarking on new territory. They are going to witness change that will make the country better. The Prime Minister has articulated a bold, creative, aggressive vision for the country. Canadians expect that because Canadians are bold, creative and aggressive. They expect no less from the government and this is exactly what the government has offered them.

I am going to touch on a number of different topics within the throne speech over the next seven or eight minutes. The first one I would like to touch on is municipalities.

The communities in my riding of Simcoe--Grey need help. We have played a very aggressive and complementary role over the last number of years in helping them address the infrastructure challenges they have had to face. There are a number of different cases. We have invested as much as $5 million in an individual municipality to help it offset the challenges that it faces. Those municipalities rightly expect and deserve more. That is exactly what happened when the Prime Minister in his response to the throne speech outlined how he was gong to do that. It comes in two forms.

One is the GST. I have contacted, not the municipal councillors that do not necessarily deal with the budget directly, but I have taken the time to contact some of the treasurers in my riding. The treasurers are telling me that this cash injection is instant. It provides them and their councils with the flexibility to make the choices they feel are important. It eliminates the federal and provincial governments from telling them what they should be doing versus empowering them to make the choices that the municipalities know are best for them.

It is not a small amount of money. The town of Collingwood will save over $180,000 in this fiscal year. This will be money it can reinvest in roads, parks, ball fields, multi-use facilities, wherever it feels there is a priority. That will be $180,000 now and forever more it will be able to spend on what it thinks is important. It does not have to apply to the province or the federal government, it will have the money in hand to apply to the priorities it feels are important.

Just two days ago I spoke to the deputy treasurer in the town of Wasaga Beach. It will have $400,000 a year. Imagine what that can do to help offset debenture costs if it wants to embark on new roads, waste treatment or deal with some of the environmental challenges it is facing with the Nottawasaga River flowing through the municipality. Four hundred thousand dollars a year in 10 short years will be $4 million that it will be able to invest in its community. There are no strings attached, because the municipal government knows best within its own municipality and this achieves that objective. It empowers municipalities to make the right decisions, the decisions they know are right, the decisions the municipalities have made in supporting priorities.

This is exactly what the mayors asked for. I listened to the rhetoric across the floor about this being a political buy, that we are sending our pictures out. That is rhetoric. It is sheer nonsense. This is what the mayors asked for. We simply provided them with what they asked for.

I might suggest quite frankly that hon. members take some time away from reading the rhetoric and talk to some of the mayors because the mayors are so incredibly positive about this. Mayors all across our great country are saying, “At last, the federal government is stepping up to the plate and is playing a responsible role in supporting our municipalities”.

What is even more interesting is the fact that the Prime Minister is saying that we are not stopping here. The Prime Minister eloquently stated that we were prepared to work with lower tier levels of government, the municipal government, the provincial government, to ensure that there was even more funding to address the challenges municipalities were facing, as we could afford to do so.

It is not simply a one-time deal. The funding from the GST is long term. It will provide them the sustainable cash flows to deal with their priorities. They also have the commitment from the Prime Minister, who is quite frankly unparalleled in Canadian history when it comes to the level of support in the country, to work with them. That is one heck of a powerful statement, and municipalities can take that to the bank.

I would also like to take a few moments to talk about what I would suggest is our most precious resource, and certainly that is not gasoline or roads; it is our children, our youth.

Without doubt, the most aggressive and the most bold statement made in that throne speech, in my mind, was the Prime Minister's commitment in his response to the Speech from the Throne and the throne speech to address access need for post-secondary education. This is not simply universities. These are trade schools, colleges, polytech and most certainly universities as well.

Never in Canadian history have we seen such an aggressive approach to tearing down the barriers to post-secondary education.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, with a special emphasis on the Canada student loan file, my responsibility is to ensure that I hear what the people in the industry are thinking, that I hear some of the solutions that are coming forward, that we do a cost-benefit analysis on these things and that we recognize that lower, moderate and middle income Canadians should not have barriers to post-secondary education as a simple result of finances. My job is to ensure that the Prime Minister knows that and that he is listening.

The fact that so much time was spent in his address on access to post-secondary education provides a bright star for the students in the country, whether they be 18 or 58. As we know, lifelong learning is an integral part of a growing economy.

More specifically, on the Canada student loan program, we are hearing a commitment from the Prime Minister. It should be mentioned that the Prime Minister is the first again in Canadian history to actually designate a parliamentarian to be responsible for access to post-secondary education or to have a parliamentarian responsible for the Canada student loan program. Before, it has been left in the hands of the bureaucrats and the minister who is responsible for so much more. That demonstrates the focus, the drive the Prime Minister will have in supporting access to post-secondary education and lifelong learning in this country. It is unparalleled.

He has looked at ways that are incredibly creative. He has listened to the over 14 associations that I have had an opportunity to meet with in the past few weeks, representing tens of thousands of students, representing colleges and universities and representing faculty. We have heard, we have listened and we have acted.

The Prime Minister has made unbelievable commitment to the students in the country to tear down the barriers that are restricting their access, raising the level for middle income families to qualify for the Canada student loan program, increasing the amount that one can borrow through the Canada student loan program to meet unmet need, extending the terms of repayment so that those coming out of university have some flexibility with respect to repayment, having the debt forgiveness and the interest forgiveness for those who simply cannot afford it and offering a new grant, a new learning bond, for students who need it most in the first year.

These are without doubt the most bold and creative focuses a government has shown in many years in addressing access to education. All parties in the House know two very important things. Our most valuable resources are our children and if we want to be a competitive economy in the 21st century, we better provide them access to education. The Prime Minister has done exactly that.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply February 5th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for a well thought out and passionate speech about supporting smaller communities.

I do not disagree with the premise that the federal government needs to play a larger role in helping to offset some of the costs that municipalities have been asked to bear. I would suggest there are more reasonable ways to do it than simply allowing the provinces to make the decisions as to how the municipalities are going to spend their infrastructure dollars. In that regard the elimination of the GST puts money in their hands immediately.

I would ask the hon. member to take some time and call some municipalities within his own riding. He should ask the treasurers about the financial impact the elimination of the GST will have on some of the smaller communities. To use mine as an example, according to the treasurer of the town of Collingwood it is going to save somewhere in the neighbourhood of $200,000 a year. He said that this is not a huge burden, that there is not a lot of red tape in dealing with it. Wasaga Beach is going to save almost $400,000 a year.

I can only assume that like-sized municipalities in the member's riding are going to save the same kind of dollars. Has the member taken the time to call the treasurers? If he has not, would he make a commitment to the House today to call the treasurers to find out what the financial impact will be?

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply February 5th, 2004

Child tax benefit. You're not answering the question.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply February 5th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech of my hon. colleague across the way. Certainly one listening to that could only take out of it that apparently there are a lot of villains on this side of the House: that we are not interested in Canada's future, we are not interested in supporting Canadian children, and we are not interested in making this country the best that it can be. Of course Canadians clearly recognize that as a lot of rhetoric and as something that they quite simply do not believe. It is the sour grapes mudslinging that party is famous for, whatever name they run under.

My question falls in two areas. First, the member talks about the number of tax increases that take place, yet it was only two years ago that the largest single tax decrease in Canadian history was announced by the former minister of finance, now our Prime Minister, to the tune of $100 billion. I heard his party comment that we actually stole their tax reduction policy, so it was quite interesting. The opposition clearly felt that we had a very aggressive tax reduction policy and they felt we had just stolen their taxation policy. I am curious to hear the member comment on that.

The second point is this. If he is so interested in helping children, how in the world is it that his former party, the Alliance, the united alternative or whatever it was, voted against the increases the government brought forward for the child tax benefit program, the increases that provided the funding for families most in need? I am curious about that, if he would comment.

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply February 3rd, 2004

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague on many things with respect to parliamentary reform. I even make mention of the fact that he commented on the NDP being on the move. I remember them being there and then moving to the right over there and then moving farther to the right, up against the wall. I just hope he is recognizing the trend of movement to the right and where he will end up next.

It is imperative that we make our arguments in here based on fact. The hon. member made mention that the PMO has the right to unilaterally or arbitrarily remove people from committee if they disagree. I would ask the hon. member to recant that comment simply because it is no longer fact based. Those changes were made and the PMO no longer has the ability to exercise that type of authority. Members are able to express their opinions without fear of intimidation or of being pulled from a committee.

Clearly, the hon. member erred in his information. It was outdated and I would ask him to recognize that point.

Points of Order October 7th, 2003

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for your indulgence for a couple of moments while I ask you to rule on a point of order arising out of debate this week on the third reading of Bill C-36.

I would ask the Speaker with all due respect to rule out of order the third reading of Bill C-36, based on the fact that it was brought forward to the House under what I believe to be false pretences.

On June 10 and June 12 of this year while we were debating at committee Bill C-36, better known as the library and archives act, several members of the committee took exception to certain provisions that were included, namely provisions that touched on the Copyright Act. It was more of an omnibus piece of legislation rather than simply the library and archives act.

Based on an agreement with members of the opposition and myself, we were informed that those provisions with respect to the Copyright Act would be removed and that we would simply be voting on and dealing with the library and archives act. That agreement was made on June 12. The committee was reconvened by the chairperson on June 17, at which point the chairperson said “We have before us an amendment to clause 26, which is the copyright section, which has been presented by the parliamentary secretary acting for the government”.

The parliamentary secretary clearly stated on June 17:

Mr. Chairman, I was involved in all of the discussions of this committee. One of the reasons why we decided that we would remove them is, as you remember, the outburst of our Alliance colleagues who, at one point, accused us of turning this bill into an omnibus bill. They were very uncomfortable with us including these sections. So in an attempt to come up with a consensus, with the agreement of the department, I more or less gave my word to the committee members who are not here today that these clauses would be removed.

The parliamentary secretary made that commitment to our committee, the permanent members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. With that word we went back to our ridings once the House rose for the summer.

The chair on June 17 called the committee back and asked it to vote clause by clause on Bill C-36, the library and archives act. After great debate it was decided, with the support of the parliamentary secretary and with the support of the chairperson, that they would allow those to remain in, regardless of the fact that the promise had clearly been made and was read into the record on the previous sitting day.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that you rule to disqualify this particular piece of legislation as it stands right now and refer it back to committee. Let the committee do the job that it is charged to do. Let us fulfill our responsibilities as members of Parliament and have a good, frank, open discussion about this and do not allow either the department or the minister to bring this bill forward under these kinds of pretences.