Mark Muise

[Employment, March 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on February 26 Human Resources Development Canada announced $750,000 for Joval International clothing recylcer of Toronto to relocate in Liverpool, Nova Scotia. Considering ACOA's recent losses of $2 million in two Bathurst textile companies, can the minister responsible for human resources development explain why his department would fund a company that will compete directly with the long established Nova Scotia clothing outfit, Frenchy's, which presently employs over 125 people across Nova Scotia and New Brunswick?

[International Women's Day, March 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today women throughout the world are being recognized for the enormous contributions they have made and continue to make toward improving humanity.

International Women's Day gives all citizens an opportunity to reflect upon the great strides women have made over the years to help improve their economic and social condition.

It is thanks to their courage and tenacity that they gained personal rights that men have always taken for granted.

Not so long women were not entitled to own property. The right to vote was only granted to women in 1918 after the famous five fought successfully to have women declared as persons under the law.

Women are still struggling for equality. The President of the Treasury Board would deny their rights by appealing pay equity. Under Canadian tax laws the Liberal government discriminates against women who stay home caring for their children versus those who work in the workplace.

I hope we can commit ourselves today to working together to help improve the lives of all women within Canada and abroad.

[The Budget, March 3rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am appalled at the level of poverty that still exists in the country. We have more poor children in Canada today than we had during the great depression.

The children are poor because their parents are poor. The Progressive Conservative Party in its last platform suggested that the basic personal exemption should be raised to $10,000. This would put much needed money in the pockets of those Canadians who really need our help, be it those who are negatively impacted by the downturn in the east coast fishery or Canadian farmers who are negatively impacted by the lack of support given to them.

Does my hon. colleague agree that with the federal budget the government has let down Canadian people who really need our help?

[Jean Mandé Sigogne, February 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 200th anniversary of the arrival in Canada of a great personage in Acadian history in the Clare and Argyle regions.

Jean Mandé Sigogne arrived in Nova Scotia to provide religious services to the Acadians returning from exile and taking refuge in one of the province's most inhospitable areas.

Despite many difficulties, he earned the respect and admiration of the entire population. According to Gérald Boudreau, who, in my opinion, is an expert in the matter: “He served Acadians devotedly and faithfully for 45 years as providential pastor, as builder of churches and schools, as educator and as defender of their civil rights”.

Jean Mandé Sigogne died in 1884 in the vestry of his church, at Pointe-de-l'Église, at the age of 81. I ask the hon. members to join all Acadians in my riding in celebrating the arrival of this great man who left his mark among the Acadians.

[Holidays Act, February 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise before the House to debate Bill C-401, an act to amend the Holidays Act to have a flag day and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

First I would like to commend the sponsor of this private member's bill, the hon. member for Durham, for his obvious sense of pride and patriotism in both our country and our Canadian flag. Most Canadians would agree with these sentiments.

When I look up and see the Canadian flag flying high, I proudly recall all those who, throughout our history, fought to make Canada the best country in the world.

I think of the Fathers of Confederation, with their vision of a great country, I think of our war heroes who fought courageously to defend our freedom, and I think of the millions of Canadians who struggle daily to improve not just their own lives but the lives of their fellow citizens. They are what Canada is all about and they are what make this the world's most respected and wonderful country in which to live.

The Canadian flag represents the tremendous efforts of all Canadians who have worked so tirelessly to make this such a great country. It is the embodiment of what we have achieved together as a nation. I love our Canadian flag and I am tremendously proud of our country and our achievements, but I do not believe the flag should somehow overshadow the celebration and recognition we already offer to our great country. Obviously I am referring to July 1, Canada Day.

Every July 1, millions of Canadians participate in Canada Day celebrations across the country. Whether they are joined together across the country by means of satellite or whether they proudly fly the Canadian flag at home, whatever the case the results are the same. Canadians want to show their pride in their country. It is not solely pride in the Canadian flag but what it represents.

The Canadian flag was first unveiled on February 15, 1965, at an official ceremony in Ottawa. Many of our fellow citizens will remember that the decision to adopt our flag was not reached without heated debate on both sides of the House, and without input from many Canadians. The intensity of the debate is a testimony to the significance of the flag as a symbol representing us as individuals.

I believe the government too often forgets just how important a symbol the Canadian flag is to our identity. The Canadian heritage minister believes that handing out hundreds of thousands of free Canadian flags at a cost of millions of dollars is enough to qualify anyone as a proud Canadian. Although most of those who receives these free flags were likely proud Canadians, I am certain that they would have been even prouder had the minister and her government invested the money into much needed programs such as education and health care.

Like many of our fellow citizens, I have had the opportunity to travel abroad. I met people who talked to me just because I was wearing a Canadian pin. I must say I find it heart-warning to hear people say nice things about our great country. Canada is highly regarded abroad.

A Canadian pin is a symbol of what Canada and Canadians are in people's mind. When they see the Canadian flag, they see a caring and generous country, where free citizens live in a democratic society. It bears repeating, the flag represents Canadians, and it is to them we must continue to pay tribute.

There is a number of questions we should be asking ourselves regarding Bill C-401. Should Canada create a specific holiday with the sole purpose of recognizing an important symbol of who we are as a people and what we stand for as a nation? Or, should we not focus greater attention on promoting ourselves through an existing holiday, Canada Day, in such a manner whereby we could focus greater attention on educating Canadians about our history and the importance our flag has played in it?

On November 11 we celebrate Remembrance Day. For days leading up to it and including Remembrance Day we hear countless stories of the exploits of brave Canadians during both World War I and World War II, along with those who fought in the Korean War and our various peacekeeping missions.

These individuals fought and in many instances died so that we could enjoy the freedom we have today. It is because of them that we can fly our Canadian flag. Although in most instances their exploits were done prior to the adoption of our official Canadian flag, it does not diminish the significance of the Canadian flag being flown during these ceremonies. The Canadian flag is the embodiment of their struggle and sacrifice for the country.

Do Canadians across the country want another national holiday? Have the proponents of the bill actually held comprehensive discussions with representatives of Canadian industry or boards of trade to see just how another national holiday would affect the Canadian economy? Can the Canadian economy support another holiday? Canadian taxpayers may already believe there are too many holidays. I am certain when approached they would likely say that politicians already have too many days off.

Our fragile economy continues to struggle from the effects of high taxes and high unemployment. The Liberal government continues to refuse to reduce taxes which would help stimulate growth in the economy. It is intent on continuing to gouge Canadian workers for refusing to significantly reduce EI premiums even though reports show that a greater reduction is possible and necessary.

These are serious problems that Canadian taxpayers are facing on a daily basis. Can they legitimately afford to sponsor another holiday no matter how good or how just it might be?

I think more consultation would be required from across the country before we systematically created a new holiday.

I appreciate the most sincere attempt by my hon. colleague to draw attention to the importance of our great flag. I commend him for that. However, at the present time we can work within the framework of already existing holidays to accomplish the same goal.

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, February 10th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise before the House to once again speak in favour of Bill C-55, the foreign publishers advertising services act.

Bill C-55 is a very important piece of legislation. Besides providing much needed support to our Canadian magazine publishers, it also sends a clear message to all Canadians that we are intent on protecting and maintaining our cultural sovereignty in the midst of ever increasing pressure from foreign influences.

A desire to protect our cultural integrity has always been a major Canadian priority in all business discussions.

The former Progressive Conservative government was always very concerned with the protection of our Canadian cultural industries which is why during the free trade negotiations we ensured that all cultural industries were exempt from the final free trade agreement. This exemption was also included in the North American free trade agreement.

Over the past three decades, successive Canadian governments have brought in legislation aimed at ensuring that Canadian publishers have sufficient advertising to maintain their competitive edge in the Canadian market.

The Canadian publishing industry has prospered during this period specifically because of these initiatives. According to Statistics Canada, in 1996-97 there were 1,166 publishers producing some 1,552 periodicals with a total circulation of 539 million copies. The result is that we have revenues reaching the billion dollar mark plus 7,000 full time and part time employees.

Canadian publishers rely on advertising revenue for anywhere from 65% to 100% of their income. Therefore, it is easy to see why it is imperative that we intervene to protect them against the potential of any unfair competition by our U.S. competitors.

The government introduced Bill C-55 to help protect our Canadian magazine industry following last October's World Trade Organization ruling against Canadian imposed excise tax and customs tariffs on split-run magazines entering from the U.S. It is very important to note that in its decision, the WTO was not questioning Canada's right to protect its cultural industries; it objected to a policy that directly targeted U.S. magazines. Rather than target U.S. magazines directly, Bill C-55 will focus its attention on advertising services.

Essentially, Bill C-55 will restrict the sale of advertising directed at the Canadian market to Canadian publications. It should be noted that U.S. magazines can still sell Canadian advertising in their magazines so long as these advertisements appear throughout their North American publications. They cannot be solely targeted toward the Canadian market.

Some people might be wondering why we should impose measures to protect our Canadian magazine industry. There are a number of very important reasons, notwithstanding the fact that each year the Canadian magazine industry pumps millions of dollars into our economy creating employment opportunities for thousands of Canadians.

For one thing, many of Canada's most distinguished writers have graced our magazines with thoughtful and entertaining stories about people, places and things that have helped make our Canadian culture unique. More specifically however, Canada's magazine industry plays an important cultural role in helping us to define who we are as a people and what we stand for as a nation.

A culture defines one's beliefs and values. We are not automatically born with a culture. We might be born in a culture but culture is something we learn. We need Canada's magazine industry to prosper so that future generations of young Canadians have the opportunity to learn and appreciate the value of our own distinct culture, one that is envied throughout the world.

From the very beginning, the Reform Party has opposed any kind of legislation that would call for the protection of Canada's unique culture. Obviously it does not believe we have a culture worth protecting. Well I believe and the Progressive Conservative Party believes that Canadian culture is worth protecting.

When Canada was rallying together to show the people of Quebec that we very much wanted them to remain part of this great country, where was the Reform Party? Its leader was busy in private discussions with the former American ambassador.

More recently, the Reform Party went to the U.S. to hire a kind of guru to help cultivate MPs' minds.

The Reform Party's heritage critic has introduced 21 motions on Bill C-55, none of which contains any constructive improvements. All the Reform Party wants is the total cancellation of the bill. Is the Reform Party blindly following our American friends while overlooking our own cultural needs?

For months Canadians have been hearing stories about possible U.S. retaliation directed toward such Canadian industries as lumber and steel if Bill C-55 is allowed to become law. Naturally we take these threats very seriously. Canadians are naturally concerned, as I am, of any possible sanctions that might be imposed against any Canadian company.

That is why as the Progressive Conservative heritage critic I made a point of asking on a number of occasions questions in committee, precisely to get assurances from the representatives of the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Department of Justice that Canada's industries would be protected if indeed the U.S. brought challenges before the WTO or NAFTA. I received these assurances from departmental staff, as well as from the minister herself during yesterday's question period. As the minister stated, Bill C-55 respects every one of our national and international obligations.

Canada has one of the most open markets in the world for imported magazines. Imports account for 50% of magazine sales in Canada and over 80% of newsstand space according to the Magazine Publishers Association.

This bill is not going to close the door on imported magazines. It is going to allow our Canadian publications an opportunity to continue to compete with other foreign magazines in a very competitive industry.

In April 1993 the first Canadian edition of Sports Illustrated successfully circumvented import prohibitions by electronically transmitting its magazine to a printer in Canada. Essentially this opened the door for unfair competition from U.S. publishers who began producing split-run advertising editions of their magazines, thus reaping the benefits of repackaging the editorial content of their U.S. editions with Canadian advertising which they could sell for considerably less than their Canadian competitors. This essentially is dumping of U.S. magazines in the Canadian market.

Advertising has changed more in the last 10 years than it had in the previous 60. This is mostly because of new technology and changing markets. That is why any threat derived through unfair predatory practices must be challenged. Canadian publishers need our support to maintain their competitive edge in this new global economy.

Bill C-55 may not be perfect, but it is my belief that we must be strong as a nation and protect our Canadian culture. That is why I will be supporting this bill.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, February 9th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is with great sorrow that I rise in the House to debate Bill S-11, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to add social condition as a prohibited ground of discrimination.

I say with great sorrow because as we continue to debate the merits of this very important piece of legislation millions of Canadians are still struggling to survive while living in poverty.

Based on figures for 1996, the UN report shows that 17.6% of Canadians, including 20.9% of our children, live in poverty; Canada ranks 10th out of 17 industrialized countries.

Putting all political differences aside, the fact is there are over 1.5 million children living in poverty in Canada. For such an affluent country to have such a horrendous record when it comes to poverty is truly unacceptable.

The Prime Minister himself said this was unacceptable, yet he is not doing anything to change the situation. I am not sure that the government grasps how dangerous it is for a society to have so many young people living in poverty. These children are part of our future and, unless we find a way to deal with this threat, a whole generation of Canadians may end up alone, rejected and poor.

It is well understood that children who are the products of families living in extreme poverty have significantly less opportunity to succeed than those who were fortunate enough to grow up in a more prosperous environment.

For those living in daily poverty, the possibility of a prosperous future is almost unimaginable. Every day, I receive calls from people facing the misery of poverty, and it seems the problem is not getting better but worse.

The prevalence of poverty within this country has grown in leaps and bounds in the past few decades. Food banks, which were nowhere to be found in the 1970s, now number in the thousands and can be found in 450 communities. Compounding the problem is the fact that affordable and adequate housing has now become a full blown crisis. Almost 400,000 Canadians live in substandard housing.

All Canadians deserve an equal opportunity to succeed in our society. However, this is unfortunately not the case.

Despite the often recognizable characteristics of poverty, there is another obstacle that is often less recognisable or understood by members of the general public but which is an unfortunate part of their everyday life.

I am referring to the prevalent discrimination these individuals are forced to live with on a daily basis. In addition to having to endure the material hardships that accompany poverty, poor Canadians are always having to face ostracism and negative stereotyping, particularly in dealing with financial institutions, as my hon. colleague from the NDP just mentioned, businesses and their staff, officials, the legal system, neighbours, strangers and the media.

Let us face it, as a society we are often very intolerant of the poor. This is why Bill S-11 is important. The Canadian Human Rights Act recognizes that some people within our society are vulnerable and must be protected against discrimination.

The Canadian Human Rights Act distinctly prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, marital status, family status, disability and sexual orientation.

Bill S-11 is simply asking that we ensure explicit recognition of poverty and its related attributes, such as being a welfare recipient, and to prohibit discrimination against the poor in areas under federal jurisdiction.

Adding social condition to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in sections 2 and 3.1 of the act will finally recognize a huge segment of our society that has been marginalized. It will provide it with the same protection presently offered to other groups within Canadian society.

The poor have nobody to protect them from the injustice of society, which too often wants to close its eyes to the reality of poverty. It is vital that these individuals be given protection under the Charter.

It seems that each day I hear horror stories of welfare recipients being unfairly treated when seeking essential services. I have been told of chartered banks that refuse to cash welfare recipient cheques because of insufficient pieces of ID. Others have been denied the right to open their own bank account.

Landlords, utility companies, the legal system and even the media routinely discriminate against the poor either by refusing them services or by providing them with inadequate service.

Our justice minister's response to Bill S-11 is to wait and to explore other problems that might exist in the human rights act before considering implementation or implementing social condition in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Those living in poverty have been waiting for this government to implement these changes for years. They can no longer afford to wait for this government to take poverty seriously. Something has to be done immediately to try to address some of their immediate problems.

This government's answer to many of the problems facing Canadians is to wait and study the situation further, hoping the problems will eventually go away on their own.

Most recently, this Liberal strategy has come to light with the justice minister's decision to ignore calls to have the child pornography decision referred to the Canadian supreme court. The justice minister would rather let this case proceed through a lengthy appeal process than come to the defence of defenceless children.

The federal agriculture minister as well was aware of a farm income crisis when he was first appointed as minister over 18 months ago, yet he chose to do nothing about it until this country was faced with the distinct possibility of losing thousands of our farmers to bankruptcy.

Those living in poverty cannot afford any further delays from this insensitive government. Action must be taken immediately so that we can offer renewed hope to those less fortunate.

Bill S-11 was initially introduced and passed in the other place by Senator Cohen. Since then, both she and my caucus colleague, the member for Shefford, have worked diligently with concerned citizens and fellow MPs representing all political stripes to try to remedy this huge injustice that weighs so heavily against those who are most vulnerable in our society.

I ask all hon. members to please not turn their backs on those who need us the most. Help protect the millions of Canadians living in poverty. Help eliminate discrimination that is presently based on their social condition by supporting Bill S-11.

[Publication Industry, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, for months Canadians have been reading about possible U.S. retaliation over Canada's introduction of Bill C-55.

The U.S. has threatened to impose sanctions against a number of our industries, including lumber and steel. The occasional wavering of the Minister for International Trade in the light of these threats has effectively caused fear among our Canadian industries.

Can the minister of trade assure Canadians that Bill C-55 is an ironclad piece of legislation that could survive any possible U.S. challenge to the WTO or the NAFTA, or is this another MMT?

[Publishing Industry, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, for months Canadians have been reading about possible U.S. retaliation over Canada's introduction of Bill C-55. The U.S. has threatened to impose sanctions against a number of our industries, including lumber and steel. The international trade minister's occasional wavering in light of these threats has effectively caused fear amongst our Canadian industries.

Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage assure Canadians that Bill C-55 is an ironclad piece of legislation that could survive any possible U.S. challenge to the WTO or the NAFTA? As well, could she confirm that it conforms with Canada's charter of rights?

[International Olympic Committee, February 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned. I am concerned that the Minister of National Defence knew about corruption at the IOC but kept it quiet for 10 years.

I am concerned that the President of the Treasury Board was quoted in the media saying he supported the city of Quebec if it sought compensation, but when asked in the House he maintains he said nothing.

If the President of the Treasury Board was misquoted, he has only to say so. If the reporting was inaccurate, he must explain why he does not want to recover the money squeezed out of Canadian taxpayers.

The Quebec City Olympic Games organizing committee wants to know why it was not informed of corruption at the IOC.

Taxpayers want to know why this government spent money on an Olympic bid when it knew that the bidding process was rigged. This is no time for our ministers to hide behind the narrowness of their portfolios. It is time for them to stand up and renew our confidence in the Olympic Games.

Amateur sport, not corruption, is part of our heritage. The Minister of National Defence and the President of Treasury Board should never forget that.