Dennis Mills

[Committees Of The House, May 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is aware of my deep respect for her. However, I think there is something she said earlier that might be misunderstood by the millions of people who are watching this debate.

Yes, this is a place where nearly every day of the week one can experience frustration. However, I would not want my community in Toronto or other communities across Canada to think that I am opposed to Human Resources Development Canada. Do we have mistakes and do we—

[Committees Of The House, May 16th, 2000]

What is wrong with it?

[Committees Of The House, May 16th, 2000]

You just want to take shots but you won't let me speak.

[Committees Of The House, May 16th, 2000]

Do I get to speak?

[Committees Of The House, May 16th, 2000]

Did you call me?

[Canadian Tourism Commission Act, May 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I could not disagree more with the Bloc Quebecois in terms of its assessment of the bill.

Tourism is one of the greatest galvanizing agents in the country which encourages Canadians to travel from coast to coast and to interact coast to coast. It is an instrument that pulls us all together. It is an instrument that helps us to understand each other in a better way. When we think of it logically the separatists would not want to support an enhanced tourism commission, especially one that has had the success of our tourism commission over the last few years. It would work against the separatist ideology.

I want to focus today on tourism as it pertains to my constituency in downtown Toronto. We are going through a massive renewal of the waterfront in downtown Toronto. I have a document in front of me that was recently released entitled “Our Toronto Waterfront: Gateway to the New Canada”. I am sure members have read assessments in the papers of some of the work of the author, Mr. Fung, in recent weeks not just in Toronto but in different parts of the country.

This will be the biggest infrastructure renewal project in our country's history. In terms of dollars it will probably be more than what we spent on the St. Lawrence Seaway. Some members of the House might feel a little uncomfortable about the fact that all three levels of government are considering a major investment in the centre of downtown Toronto, but at the anchor and core of this thinking is the whole tourism realm.

The tourism industry is the fastest growing industrial sector on the planet. When we talk about tourism we are not only talking about leisure tourism. We are also talking about business tourism. In other words, when a city wants to compete today for trade shows and business events it must have not just the convention facilities and hotels that are part of the business experience, but it must also have all the supplementary activities if the city is to be considered a world class tourist destination location.

I am appealing to the House, as we look into the whole realm of tourism, that consideration in time be given to the notion of revitalizing the waterfront in downtown Toronto. It is not a waterfront that is used exclusively for the residents of the greater Toronto area. It is a tourism destination which economically benefits the entire country.

In other words, there are times when certain cities in our country have to compete on the world stage. For example, when Calgary put in its bid for the Olympic Games, it was not just a benefit to Calgary when it staged the Olympic Games. It was a benefit to every part of our country.

What we are attempting to do in Toronto with our waterfront is primarily a tourism objective, tourism that will serve in an economic sense every region of the country. That is how we have to look at major projects like this one, especially around tourism.

The multiple spinoffs that happen in tourism are something that we tend to forget at times. We will see only the initial capital investment, but we will not see all the ancillary benefits of businessmen and women coming to a city. It might be for a convention or a trade show. Inevitably, if they have the opportunity of to enjoy other components within the particular destination, it can have a dramatic effect on business investment. It can have a dramatic effect on reputation as we deal in a global market more and more, as our life and business experience evolves.

When we look at capital investment today we tend to want the immediate return to be the driving force as to whether we make a decision in terms of investment. It is the responsibility of the House to not just look for the short term, but to look for the long term effects.

In a beautiful city like my own city of Toronto, where it would cost a lot of money to revitalize and renew the Toronto waterfront, the temptation would be to forget about tourism and raise money by selling parcels of land so that we could build condominiums. This would do a number of things. It would take a beautiful jewelled location in downtown Toronto and allow only a few people to enjoy it. Whereas, if we think of tourism, not only could all of Canada enjoy it, but as well all of those visitors who want to enjoy not just the hotel room or the convention centre, but all of our community.

One of the models for rejuvenating a downtown area for tourism is the Tivoli Gardens in Copenhagen. As one member of parliament for the downtown area, I would love to see a Tivoli Gardens treatment in our downtown waterfront corridor because when we as a community show all Canadians and anyone who is visiting our country our respect for the environment, our respect for all of our community having access to special areas, that has a profound long term tourism impact.

With this legislation we are renewing our commitment to the Canadian Tourism Commission. I appeal to all members to continue to support the good work that the Canadian Tourism Commission has been doing over the last five years. I continue to urge all members to reinforce not only their budgets, but to use their influence in cities across the country which have the potential to be world class tourism jewels. I urge them to use their experience in tourism to ensure that those spaces are there not only for the good of the whole country, but for the benefit of all those people who visit our cities.

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, May 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member said that there are virtually no government members listening to or participating in the debate. The record will show that is not accurate.

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, May 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate. I find it a very tough issue.

When I decided to become a member of parliament 13 years ago, one of the things I said I would try to do as a member of parliament from downtown Toronto was not just to talk about issues or concerns that were specific to my community or my region, but to attempt, from time to time, where it was appropriate, to speak on issues that concerned every region of the country and especially speak on issues where people's voices really needed to be heard.

I think that is the essence of this Chamber. We respect, we admire and we do not want to hold back those in our community who are advantaged. Ultimately we are here in this Chamber to speak out for those men and women in our country who are experiencing a moment when they are truly disadvantaged. That is why I am in this Chamber. I am here for no other reason.

We have in front of us today a situation where we have 1,500 families whose voices need to be heard. I applaud and I want to let the member for Yukon and other members know that we on this side of the House have a duty and a responsibility, even though we are in government, to listen and to care about what is happening to those 1,500 families.

We should let Canadians know that after the debate in the House today this bill will go to a committee of the House of Commons. We all know that in committee the government has the opportunity to amend, alter or change legislation if constructive and creative ideas are put forward that can meet not only the local interests but also the national interests. It is important for us today to let Canadians know that when we go into committee that some of those creative and constructive options can be explored.

I want to put on the floor of the House of Commons two ideas today that could be explored in committee and which the government might consider the possibility of accepting. The first idea has to do with the board of directors that will be managing the pension fund for those 1,500 miners, those 1,500 families that are involved in this.

I come from downtown Toronto where pension boards and pension situations are constantly being upgraded and renewed in this day and age. I do not think it is an unreasonable request, an unreasonable consideration that we have a representative from the coal miners on that board. If that is an instrument by which we can create hope, transparency and some feelings for those families, then we should debate and explore that idea in committee.

The other idea that I believe needs consideration has to do with the tar ponds, the environmental disaster with the toxic pool that exists in that community. There is a real environmental opportunity that might exist in this disastrous situation that we are facing. Why could we not consider the idea of giving many of those miners, those who want to be involved in environmental renewal and environmental change, the opportunity of working on the tar ponds disaster?

We will have to deal with this crisis sooner or later. Why could we not begin considering using some of that highly productive and useful workforce from that island? Why could we not employ them as part of an environmental force?

Quite frankly, when that disaster is ultimately cleared up, it could give them a capacity to work not just in their own community but it would give us an expertise that we could use in other regions, not only of Canada but other regions of the world. In other words, we could use that environmental disaster as a test case where once we do clean it up, the men, the women, all the environmental engineers and so on who were focused on dealing with that problem could be an export possibility in terms of the human capital.

By the way, some of these ideas are not my ideas. They are thoughts and ideas that have come from members of parliament who have served that community and served that region.

In the three minutes I have left I want to tell a story about an author I have grown to love over my years as an MP. His name is John Howard Griffin. He wrote a book entitled Black Like Me . He was a white author from southern Texas who wrote in the mid-forties. He specialized in discrimination and racism. One day some of his black neighbours and friends said to him “You will never understand what black is about until you are inside our skin”.

John Howard moved to New Orleans where he had his skin pigmented. He lived and worked in a very tough situation. Six months later he went back to his own community where he used to do the Sunday mass collections. His own best friend rejected him because he did not recognize him.

We in the House have to understand the difficulties faced by those 1,500 families in Cape Breton. We have to use the House and the committee of the House to come up with constructive and creative opportunities so we can continue as a nation to always be there for the people who really need a voice when they are up against difficulties.

When we take this bill to committee, I appeal to members to design some constructive and doable ideas so that the people in Cape Breton will feel as proud, as excited and as hopeful about their community as any other community in Canada.

[Supply, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would not want to suggest the real specifics, the process or the technique. I do not have that in my mind, nor do I believe anyone else would today. We are debating today. However, I think that the concept of designing a system whereby Canadian family farm products would be identified in a way that the consumer would realize that a percentage of the product they purchase would return in a royalty format to the farm community has merit.

By the way, I would exclude from that those farmers who are part of supply management. As we know, most of those farmers are very well protected. I am not suggesting that we enhance that sector, I am thinking more of those farmers who are outside that realm.

I think we have to sit down to figure out a way to have a royalty system. We do it in other sectors of the economy. We do it with artists who perform. They get royalties for their work on top of their basic wage. They get a royalty, a bonus or a dividend. We do it in many other sectors. We do it in business. I do not see why we could not design a Canadian family farm dividend, which would really be nothing more than the consumer recognizing and realizing that they want to keep a secure, high quality farm system in this country.

We have a huge problem in urban Canada waking up certain consumers to the fact that the food supply which they see when they go into a Loblaws, a Knob Hill, a Sobeys or a Dominion might be in short supply a year from now from a Canadian source point of view. They have a difficult time imagining that.

I do not want the House to think this would be an easy sell, but our duty as members is not just to take the easy sells. Our duty is to take hold of an issue that we know is going to hit us between the eyes in 14 to 15 months, and we may have to go against the wind of certain consumers who may resist. We may have to tell them that they will have to do this in order to maintain that security of Canadian family farm supply. I for one would be happy to take up that challenge. Once we educate and inform them of what the long term benefits would be, in terms of health and everything else, most Canadians would buy in.

[Supply, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I believe passionately that we should deal with this issue in a comprehensive way, and I think we should have done it yesterday.

We have a health care challenge in this country and one of the ways we will repair, rebuild, renew our health care system is by making sure that we focus on diet and nutrition. At the basis of that is food production. If we do not have our heads around the quality of food production and the impact of certain types of genetically modified foods it may have a disastrous effect on our capacity to renew our health care system. I see food and health as being inextricably intertwined.

I know that the Minister of Industry, who is in the House today, feels passionately about this issue. But as the member for Louis-Hébert mentioned, this is not just a health issue and it is not just an industry issue; it is everybody working together. I am confident that all of us in the House will deal with this. I think I can say on behalf of everyone in the House that we are all pretty sensitive about the food we eat.