Mark Muise

[International Olympic Committee, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, with the recent revelations of corruption within the IOC, many Canadians are wondering how such a scandal could have gone on. The Minister of National Defence says he did not learn of the existence of irregularities until 1991, although the City of Toronto's auditor suggests otherwise.

Can the Minister of National Defence tell Canadians when he first became aware of the corruption?

[International Olympic Committee, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in a recent article in Le Soleil , the President of the Treasury Board is quoted as saying that he would support a city of Quebec initiative to try to recoup the millions of dollars spent on its failed Olympic bid for the 2002 games.

It appears that a member of this government was well aware of the corruption that permeated within the IOC and should have adequately advised the Quebec Olympic committee.

Would the President of the Treasury Board not agree that the Government of Canada has some responsibility and therefore should compensate the Quebec Olympic committee for its losses?

[Questions Passed As Orders For Returns, December 10th, 1998]

With regards to Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) funding, will the Minister responsible for ACOA provide the following information: ( a ) a complete breakdown of all companies who have reveived government funding to expand existing businesses over the last 3 years; ( b ) a complete breakdown of all new companies who have received government funding over the last 3 years; ( c ) provide details of their projections for job creation; and ( d ) provide updates of the results of these initiatives?

Return tabled.

[Appointment Of Commissioner Of Official Languages, December 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to the appointment of Dr. Dyane Adam as the new Commissioner of Official Languages. On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, it gives me great pleasure to support Dr. Adam's appointment.

Dr. Adam's curriculum vitae, as well as her presentation to the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages, were quite impressive.

Her experience and knowledge of the aspirations of our minority language communities will certainly be helpful to these people and I expect her to be a strong voice in the promotion of our two official languages in regions where one or the other of these languages is in the minority.

Madam Speaker, again, I support Dr. Adam's appointment and extend to her my best wishes.

[Railway Safety Act, December 4th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to report stage of Bill C-58, an act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act, and in particular to the Bloc amendment regarding compensation to provinces and municipalities due to regulations made under section 24 of this act.

The act is basically the same as the previous Bill C-43 introduced during the last parliament which unfortunately died on the order paper at the call of the election.

The bill proposes amendments to the Railway Safety Act which came into effect in January 1988. A statutory review took place after five years and the result was the previous Bill C-43 and now Bill C-58.

We are pleased with the exhaustive consultation which took place with the stakeholders involved and their valuable input. The Railway Safety Act which passed in 1988 was a significant change in the way we regulate railways and in how railways interact with government. This has proven to be a very good approach, and with the legislation before us today I hope it will become even better.

The member for Cumberland—Colchester examined the bill in detail in committee. He was glad to hear the witnesses who appeared including CP rail, Canadian National, the Canadian Railway Association of Canada and three groups representing labour.

We are in support of the amendment proposed by the Bloc today as we feel it will enhance railway safety in Canada. The Railway Safety Act currently allows for compensation to land owners affected by the regulations made under section 24 of the act and the amendment extends that compensation. The proposed amendment addresses the new areas in which the governor in council may make regulations as a result of Bill C-58.

The new regulations deal with the construction, alteration and maintenance of roads for the purpose of ensuring safe railway operation and respecting the control of vehicular and pedestrian traffic on road approaches to railroad crossings for the purpose of ensuring safe railway operations.

It is always a top priority of the Progressive Conservative Party to ensure safe railway operation and to provide compensation to those affected through no fault of their own. I am glad to say that we will be supporting the motion as we look forward to a safer railway system as a result of the bill.

[Lobster Fishery, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Halifax Herald stated that lobster catches in St. Mary's Bay were down significantly, suggesting that fisheries could be headed for a disastrous season.

As everyone in this House knows, I have repeatedly called on the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to put an end to this illegal lobster fishing before it seriously affects the livelihoods of thousands of commercial lobster fishermen.

Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans acknowledge that our fishers' worst fears are being realized and that the illegal lobster fishing has led to a decline in catches?

[National Defence Act, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to this amendment.

My party is in favour of the amendment. However, my party remains opposed to the bill. The bill addresses military justice and my party agrees with re-examining the issue that is long overdue. Like everything this government does, no matter how noble it appears to be, all we have to do is scratch the surface and we will find there are always ulterior motives. Those motives are generally to look good rather than to be good. Again today is one of those days.

Addressing the issue of justice in the military is both important and urgent. My party understands that if we are to do something at all it is worth doing right. Unfortunately while there are some interesting points in the bill it leaves far too much out and it does not address the real problems Canadian forces face today.

What events brought us to this point? I think all members are aware of the events that transpired as a result of other events in Somalia. However, they are worth repeating. The Somalia inquiry was shut down for political and personal reasons early last year. That is what brings us here today.

Inquiry commissions are created because there is a public concern that needs to be addressed. As elected officials to the House it is incumbent on all of us to take such matters very seriously. It seems to me that if there a good enough reason to begin an inquiry commission then there is probably a good reason to complete an inquiry commission.

Canada's fine military is dragged through the mud and still there is no resolution. The government did not learn from these actions. Last week the public complaints commission looking into RCMP behaviour at APEC was shut down because there is a question of whether it was biased. The government should appoint an independent judicial inquiry that will get to the truth on that matter.

The government does not want the truth. It is not interested in the truth. Why? Because the truth hurts. We are not here because the government all of a sudden cares about justice in the military but because the government knows it made a mistake and now it wants to hide that mistake as well as possible. It is not because the government all of a sudden cares about military justice. The government shut down the Somalia public inquiry and the armed forces were left with no resolution. The government not only hurt the people involved directly in the Somalia case when it shut down the inquiry, it hurt the entire Canadian forces.

There is much in the bill that my party agrees with. The problem, however, is that when one tries to cover something up rather than address the real issue, as this government so often does, the result is often very inadequate.

Similarly, because the government introduced the bill for the wrong reasons, it does not go far enough in addressing the real problems.

The government missed an excellent opportunity to instil new confidence in the military. The government could have taken measures that would truly make a difference, measures that the Canadian public could point to and say the government listened, and they now have faith in the way the military operates, but the government did not listen. Instead it shut down an inquiry and stifled debate.

Now the Canadian public feels cheated, and justly so. The government feels proud when it says it is fulfilling 80% of the recommendations of the Somalia inquiry. I want to make two points on this not so great accomplishment.

First, the Somalia commission was cut short and so we do not know what the full recommendations would have been. Second, while the government thinks 80% is something to brag about, my party's answer is that quality is much more important than quantity.

The Somalia inquiry commissioner recommended that the judge advocate general be a civilian. The government ignored that recommendation. The Somalia inquiry commissioner recommended that an office of the inspector general be created. The government ignored that recommendation.

My party proposed in our election platform last year and we maintain today that creating the office of the inspector general would be the best way to make the military accountable and increase transparency to give the public more confidence in its armed forces.

We proposed in our platform establishing an inspector general for the armed forces to act as an ombudsman to address concerns that cannot be dealt with in the routine chain of command.

In the government's response to the Somalia inquiry, a document that for one reason or another which my party has not yet figured out is called “A commitment to Change”, the government turns down the proposed inspector general.

Why is this minister convinced that the Department of National Defence does not need an independent inspector general when experts who have studied for months and made recommendations to this department tell him he does need an inspector general?

The Minister of National Defence said the Canadian forces do not need someone looking over their shoulder. He went on to say that the role of the inspector general is being fulfilled in other ways. He mentions the grievance board made up of eminent Canadians. He mentions the new ombudsman.

If the minister really thinks the role of the inspector general is being fulfilled in other ways, why does he react so violently when my party recommends such an office?

It seems to me that if this grievance board and the ombudsman truly did the same thing as the inspector general, the minister would not be so quick to shut down the idea of inspector general by saying such a thing as the military does need someone looking over its shoulder.

Could it be that the grievance board and the ombudsman do not do what an inspector general could do? The way the bill would have it, these bodies have absolutely no teeth. They can make recommendations and the CDS can ignore them.

The Canadian public has little reason not to believe the recommendations will be ignored. The Canadian public is looking for a Canadian forces justice system that is fair and transparent. The Canadian public needs such a thing if it is to continue supporting the Canadian forces.

Unfortunately the government squandered the opportunity when it refused to listen to the advice of its own commissioners and ignored their recommendation for an inspector general.

The government does not listen. It does not hear. It does not want an office with teeth, with real authority. The government ignored the Somalia commissioner's recommendation and what my party cannot accept is the way the government picks and chooses what recommendations to follow.

My party wholeheartedly agrees with the need to change the military justice system. The bill needs to go further to create real change. We want people to know their military serves them and not itself. The bill fails to do that and the government has failed to do its job.

[Salaries For Stay At Home Mothers And Fathers, December 3rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I wish to inform you that I rise on behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for Shefford. She is currently attending an international conference on an issue that comes under her responsibility in the Progressive Conservative caucus.

I am pleased to take part in the debate on Motion M-486, which provides that the government should legislate to grant a salary to mothers and fathers who stay at home to care for their children.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik for moving this motion and for his relentless efforts to help Canadian families.

Let me say from the outset that I support any proposal promoting greater parental involvement in the first few years of children's lives. The purpose of this motion is to put these parents on an equal footing with those who work and enjoy tax benefits for expenses relating to child care.

But before getting to the financial aspects of such an initiative, let me talk about those ultimately concerned by this motion, the children.

Numerous studies have shown that the quality of care received during the first few years of a child's life has a decisive impact on their physical and mental health, as well as on their ability to integrate into society. It is therefore imperative, in my view, that the state make a special effort to help children from a financial as well as from a social standpoint.

Like most industrialized countries, Canada is at a crossroads. The choices that we will make over the next few years will determine our ability to participate in the economy of the future, an economy that will be increasingly global and knowledge based.

As we debate the strategic investments we will be required to make during this period of economic and social change, our growth could be impeded by a lack of vision which in turn could diminish the quality of life of Canadians and of children in particular.

If economic growth is favoured at the expense of our social environment, problems could arise. Studies on health and human development have highlighted the importance of investing in children during their critical formative years if we harbour any hope that our society of the future will be populated by well balanced, competent and healthy individuals.

It is now widely accepted that each dollar we spend today on our children will ensure that we save double that amount in future on health care, social and criminal justice programs.

By enhancing support for children and their families during the initial developmental years we will be helping our children gain some self-confidence and learn to adapt more easily. We will be promoting sound learning habits, positive social behaviour and good lifelong health habits.

Investing in our children is therefore essential to ensure the quality of our social and economic life.

At a time when huge economic and social changes are taking place, and when the gap in revenues is getting wider, the pressures on Canadian families increase the risk that parents may have neither the time nor the ability to take good care of their children.

This brings us to today's motion. In light of what I just said, members will agree with me that it is important to give parents the means, the flexibility and the options they need to ensure a good start for their children.

But before getting any further, let us take a look at the preferences of parents when it comes to child care. According to a 1997 poll by Compas Research in Alberta, 95% of respondents thought that it was better for parents to care for infants and pre-schoolers.

An earlier country-wide poll by Decima Research found that 70% of households with young children and both parents working would prefer one of the parents to be able to stay home to care for the children, if they could afford to.

The question is therefore as follows: should parents have to choose between a job that they need and the attention a child needs to become a healthy and responsible adult.

The Norwegian government answered that question with a resounding no. As of August 1998 it is allocating $570 per month per child under three years of age to households where one parent remains at home to provide child care.

Should we broach this issue by focusing on equal opportunity and equality between two income households and households where one parent must provide child care?

In other words, since each taxpayer finances tax benefits, without automatically claiming these benefits, could the current Income Tax Act be deemed discriminatory toward households where one parent stays home to care for the children?

That is a thorny issue, if ever there was one. However, this is the view held by the national forum on health. It maintains that Canada is the only country in the industrialized world that does not take into account in the calculation of income tax expenses incurred by households where a parent cares for children at home. It further argues that households with children are discriminated against in the process.

Some would say that the child tax benefit, which incidentally should be indexed, provides assistance for low income households, and that parents who pay for child care are entitled to a tax deduction of up to $7,000 per child.

But some people fall between the cracks: households that do not qualify for the child tax benefit and do without a second income so that one of the parents can stay home and care for the children.

On April 14, 1997, the Devoir featured an article that tackled the issue head on, and I quote:

What about those who fall between the cracks? The market alone has no answer, and neither do existing social solidarity mechanisms. Another solution must therefore be found. For some time now, people from widely divergent disciplines that rarely have anything to do with each other(economics, philosophy, sociology) are rediscovering the old idea of a universal income. All the proposals focus on the same principle: pay each member of society a basic allowance, with no strings attached.

Why should we reconsider at this time an idea hatched 200 years ago by Thomas Paine, the great English human rights thinker, and later borrowed by 19th century French utopian thinkers and later still, by at least two Nobel Prize winners for economics who hold generally opposing views, namely Englishman James Meade and American Milton Friedman? As far back as the 1960s, they were calling for the introduction of a negative tax. We could give a Keynesian answer to that question: When circumstances change, my position has to change as well.

I am not someone who has ever shied away from exploring new and innovative ideas that could shed new light on our social conditions which no longer meet the changing needs of a modern society.

This being said, I do not wish to comment on or argue the feasibility or even the eventual terms and conditions of a program to financially compensate parents who remain at home, as recommended in today's motion. I will leave this up to those who are qualified to do that.

What I think we should do, however, is offer new opportunities to parents wishing to stay at home to care for their children, which would mean a better start and, ultimately, improved opportunities for this country's most important resource, our children.

[Pay Equity, December 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Federal Court of Appeal has overturned Justice Muldoon's decision preventing seven complaints filed against Bell Canada to be heard before a Canadian human rights tribunal.

At the heart of that dispute is the question of pay equity. Over the past 13 years the federal government has been embroiled in its own pay equity dispute with approximately 190,000, mostly low income, female workers.

The Muldoon decision was thrown out. Yet the government continues to refuse to drop the appeal and pay these workers the long awaited benefits they rightly deserve.

The government has thus far spent $142 million on a useless gun registry yet continues to ignore the pleas of our dedicated, hard working federal public servants. It is time the government lives up to its commitment by resolving this longstanding dispute.

[Canada-United States Days Of Peace And Friendship, December 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise before the House to debate the hon. member for Erie—Lincoln's private member's motion calling upon government to designate July 2 and 3 as Canada-United States days of peace and friendship.

I would also like to congratulate the member for focusing the attention of the House on the very cordial relationship we have enjoyed for well over a century with our number one trading partners to the south.

It is very important that we not take the good relationship we have with our American neighbours for granted. We hear too often of cases where Canadians try to bad mouth our American neighbours. The Americans have been very important to us as trading partners, but also as allies, friends, and for many of us, relatives who reside in the states. We should not take it for granted. We should work hard to keep those relationships on a very favourable ground.

Even before Canada and the U.S. became independent countries, commercial trading was very much a way of life between both colonies.

I represent the constituency of West Nova which incidentally encompasses Annapolis Royal, home of the first permanent European settlement in North America.

There has been a history of trade between the United States and Canada since the beginning of the 17th century, with the arrival of Samuel de Champlain and his fellow explorers in North America in 1604. Our new immigrants quickly took advantage of the fertile farming land and an ocean full of fish to begin trading with the new immigrants to the south.

Even when France and England were at war with each other during the 17th and 18th centuries, trade between the French colony of Acadia and the English colonies in the New England states continued to trade among themselves despite directives from both colonial powers to end this practice.

Throughout the 20th century, many Canadians have moved to the United States in search of work. Like many of my fellow citizens, I have relatives in the United States, particularly in the New England area.

Cross-border relations between the two countries have improved significantly in recent years. Despite rigorous objections from the then official opposition, the Liberal Party, the former Progressive Conservative government concentrated on strengthening Canada's ability to reach new markets by entering into a free trade agreement with the United States.

Despite the fact that some trading disputes have evolved in recent years, mechanisms for dispute resolutions are in place and have adequately dealt with these issues.

I am very pleased to see the Liberal government endorsing our free trade initiatives, particularly after it had promised to rid itself of the free trade agreement once it took power.

I am not surprised by the about-face the government has taken. This government has broken its promise on a number of very important issues, not including its promise to cancel the free trade agreement.

As I am certain everyone remembers, this government broke its promise to cancel the GST. Instead it introduced the dreaded HST that is causing much hardship for residents in the maritime region.

This government has also broken its promise to abide by any Canadian human rights tribunal decision on pay equity, choosing instead to deny mostly low income female workers money they worked hard for and rightfully deserve.

One of the first commercial trading products between Canada and the U.S. was agricultural products. Yet this government appears to have forgotten the important role agriculture plays in our everyday lives.

The Liberal government continues to say it is committed to helping strengthen Canada's farming community yet it has effectively reduced its funding of our farm safety net programs by some 30% since 1995.

Like most of the country, West Nova hog producers are experiencing anywhere from 60% to 70% decreases in their prices. Rather than help sustain our farming industry the government has turned its back on our farmers. The government still has not recognized the serious effects the past two years of drought has caused our Nova Scotia farmers.

Perhaps our agricultural sector is not as large as others but it deserves consideration by the government. I intend to let the government know our farming community has been financially viable in the past and it will be again.

The Liberal government had also promised to implement effective conservation measures for our fishing industry immediately upon taking office because it said if stocks were not conserved now, there would be no fishing industry left on which we could build sustainable development. Conservation was ignored in the lobster fishery as illegal lobster fishing was allowed to operate off West Nova shores almost completely unabated by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

With the 1998-99 fishing season less than a week old, fishers have told me that some of their catches for opening day were reduced considerably. Let us pray this trend does not continue throughout the fishing season.

Let me apologize if I appear to have transgressed from the topic at hand. However, I think all members recognize the importance this fishery and our farming industry have had on the lives of my constituents of West Nova.

I think the hon. member for Erie—Lincoln definitely has good intentions with the introduction of this bill. Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe Windsor, Ontario presently participates in a very enjoyable joint celebration with its U.S. neighbours precisely in recognition of this close working relationship we have with our American neighbours.

Because I recognize the benefits of maintaining and enhancing this close relationship with our American cousins, I believe we should explore the possibility of perhaps doing some kind of joint celebration with our U.S. counterparts. Perhaps we could generate greater recognition of the important ties that bind our two countries together by having both countries agree to recognize a specific day or to participate in a special event.

I believe the hon. member has stumbled upon a good idea to help foster even greater co-operation between two countries. However, I would prefer we do something in conjunction with our American neighbours.