Mark Muise

[Stanley Knowles Day, March 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honour and a privilege for me to have this opportunity to rise in the House to debate the motion that would see us commemorate the wonderful life of Mr. Stanley Knowles by recognizing his birthday on June 18.

I would also like to congratulate the hon. member for Churchill for introducing this motion. She obviously shares my deep sense of pride and respect, as do many Canadians, for the many accomplishments of the late member for Winnipeg North Centre.

From what I have read and heard, Mr. Knowles worked very hard for all Canadians. He worked particularly hard for the most vulnerable members of society.

I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Churchill for introducing this motion. It has allowed each and every one of us to look back upon the life of a great Canadian. Mr. Knowles was someone whose strength and determination helped forge a greater Canada, one that we too often take for granted.

We often forget that many of the social programs we take for granted today, such as employment insurance, old age security, the guaranteed income supplement, the minimum wage and others, were not readily available when Mr. Knowles began his long and distinguished career back in 1942.

For more than 40 years Mr. Knowles was a member of parliament who was instrumental in helping to convince the government of the day to introduce and improve many of the social programs which help Canada's most vulnerable citizens.

Mr. Knowles could understand and appreciate the struggles of everyday people. He witnessed them firsthand during the Great Depression while working as an ordained minister in the United Church, watching senior workers being displaced by younger workers during the depression without being provided with a retirement pension plan. This convinced him to work toward the elimination of injustices in the workplace.

Mr. Knowles fought for employee pension rights. He fought for better pensions for our seniors. He fought for better housing and help for the homeless.

I find it rather ironic that today we are speaking of the late Mr. Stanley Knowles. I say ironic because of Motion No. 8 which was introduced in the House today. If Stanley Knowles were here he would be appalled by what the government is doing to the fine institution of the Parliament of Canada, limiting our abilities as members of parliament to debate, to make amendments, to make changes to legislation and to truly do what we are supposed to do as parliamentarians. I am sure Mr. Knowles is spinning in his grave.

I must admit that I was a bit surprised to learn that Mr. Knowles' father came from Woods Harbour, which is just beside my riding of West Nova. Mr. Knowles' ancestors came to Nova Scotia in 1760 only five years after the deportation of the Acadians in 1755.

I am convinced that Mr. Knowles saw this as a great injustice and was perhaps even influenced by the magnitude of this tragedy. But this is only conjecture.

One thing is certain—Mr. Knowles loved to come to Nova Scotia to visit his family. Having lived in a small village the mainstay of which was fishing, Mr. Knowles certainly had a unique perspective on the differences and similarities with which the people of West Nova must cope.

I think that Mr. Knowles would be shocked if he were to see the terrible straits in which our fishery now finds itself. Like us, he would be completely dissatisfied with the way the Liberal government is ignoring the crisis in the fishery.

Mr. Knowles would be disgusted by the way the Liberal government has handled the crisis in the Atlantic fishery. Like any Canadian whose livelihood is being threatened by government inadequacy or incompetence, I am certain that Mr. Knowles would be using every possible trick in the book to focus attention on this very serious problem.

Mr. Knowles was a master of parliamentary procedure. I am certain he would have taken every possible opportunity to highlight the plight of our Atlantic fishermen. He would have recognized the correlation between the serious brain drain that is going on in this country and the Liberal government's handling of the Atlantic fishery crisis. He would recognize that this Liberal government will ultimately destroy our fishery, forcing more of our youth to head west in search of job opportunities.

According to the fisheries minister's press release which he sent out last Friday, the Atlantic fishery produces some $1.3 billion in landed values. That is nothing to sneeze at.

Like our seniors and our most disadvantaged citizens for whom Mr. Knowles fought so strenuously, I think our Atlantic fishermen deserve the same protection against a Liberal government which appears unable or unwilling to resolve the serious problems affecting the industry.

Stanley Knowles was nothing if not tenacious in his pursuit of social justice. He simply would not be deterred; not by his initial failures at the polls where he lost in the federal elections of 1935 and 1940, and then the provincial election in 1941, nor by the disintegration of his CCF party, which ultimately transformed itself into today's New Democratic Party. His message never seemed to change over the years. He continued to preach his social gospel.

I take comfort in recognizing the huge accomplishments of Mr. Knowles on behalf of all Canadians. I can see that his tenacity has paid great dividends for the citizens of Canada and I am determined to show some of the same tenacity as I continue to represent the citizens of West Nova to the very best of my ability.

I will draw attention to the serious crisis in the Atlantic fishery. I will demand that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans address the terrible conditions of our local fishing wharfs which his department is so determined to ultimately abandon as a cost-cutting measure.

A recent storm in my riding has left a number of our wharfs, including the Delaps Cove, Parkers Cove, Hampton, Port Lorne, Cottage Cove and Margaretsville in serious condition. Another storm could wipe them out leaving our fishermen to fend for themselves.

These fishermen need these wharfs for their livelihood. Their communities need these wharfs because they provide an economic boost to their local economies. They need these wharfs because they share an important cultural component with members of their own community as well as with the surrounding communities.

In speaking for our Atlantic fishermen, I cannot stress strongly enough the importance of these wharfs to our communities.

Coming from a western province where agriculture is so important to the local economy, I am sure Mr. Knowles would appreciate why I have raised the serious plight of our farmers on so many occasions in the House. After three consecutive years of drought conditions, our West Nova farmers are struggling for survival, just like our western counterparts.

The government's band-aid solutions fall far short of what is needed to stabilize this vital industry. It is time that the government started looking at long term, sustainable programs that will seriously address the difficulties being experienced by our Canadian farmers.

There is no question of the tremendous accomplishments of Mr. Stanley Knowles. He has been recognized on many occasions for his commitment to the Canadian people. For example, in 1979 our leader and then prime minister, Mr. Joe Clark, appointed him ceremoniously to the Privy Council of Canada to mark his 37th anniversary in the House of Commons. In 1970 he became Chancellor of Brandon University and in 1990 was designated Chancellor Emeritus. He was awarded the Order of Canada in 1984. His name appears on schools and school libraries and most likely on a number of street signs.

I could go on and on. However, I am not totally convinced that we should be recognizing a great Canadian on the date of his or her birthday at the exclusion of many other great Canadians. Somehow I prefer using days on our calendar to highlight great Canadian achievements, events and organizations that otherwise may not receive the recognition they so richly deserve.

Stanley Knowles has a special place in Canadian history. I think his achievements would best be recognized through our Canadian history books.

[Fisheries And Oceans, February 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is quite fortunate that the Atlantic fisheries crisis is being overshadowed by the troubles in HRDC.

The fisheries crisis may be out of the limelight, but I can assure the House that a serious problem still exists. I am telling the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, no. I am warning him that violence could once again erupt if solutions are not soon found to the problems.

We are hearing through the grapevine that the government is seriously looking for some kind of buyback program where it will purchase boats, licences and gear to help integrate natives into the commercial fishery.

I would strongly suggest to the minister that any such solution must somehow involve the elimination of the food fishery; otherwise, these resources may be used during the summer months to help non-status Indians to conduct their own fishery. If this should occur, we can surely expect serious unrest.

I can only hope that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will take these concerns seriously before finalizing any agreement in this dispute.

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, February 10th, 2000]

I have a point of view and I wish my friend would respect it.

What does the Prime Minister do? He purposely decides to antagonize the people of Quebec. He graciously gives Premier Bouchard an issue that will deflect attention away from the economy.

The Prime Minister says that he wants a clear question should Quebec decide to hold another referendum. That is his excuse for introducing Bill C-20.

Is there anyone in this House who can explain, or even better, show the clarity in this bill? The Prime Minister says that a 50% plus one majority is not enough to destroy our country. I ask him what is a sufficient majority. Is it 65%, 75%, 80%? Who knows? Who can answer this question?

Is the Prime Minster afraid to indicate a percentage to Quebecers? Is he afraid of their reaction? If the answer to this question is yes, why did he introduce this bill?

I certainly do not oppose the need for a clear question. Quebecers and all Canadians deserve a clear understanding of the consequences associated with separation. However, we must continue to focus our undying attention on uniting all Canadians rather than focusing on ways of dividing us as a nation.

Yesterday in question period, our Prime Minister was responding to a question put forth by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, when he said “We hope that the bill will be passed as quickly as possible because it is not a major concern of the public right now. The public wants us to address other problems, such as job creation, health, tax relief, things of interest to Quebecers and the rest of Canadians”.

Truer words were never spoken. If the Prime Minister really believed what he said in question period, why on earth did he introduce Bill C-20 in the first place? The Prime Minister himself said that we have much more serious problems in the country than the need for a clarity bill. What about the crisis in health care, the farm crisis or the crisis in the Atlantic Fishery? What about child poverty, homelessness, the crisis in education and the huge student loan debt? What about the crisis in the Human Resources Development Department?

The only reason the Prime Minister introduced the clarity bill is because he is somehow looking for some kind of an achievement that he can leave behind as his legacy.

From the serious problems I have just mentioned, the Prime Minister will have a legacy. He will be known for leading Canadians into one crisis after another.

Our Prime Minister himself admits that we have much more urgent problems than Bill C-20. Why then are we spending so much energy on Bill C-20 when the health system in Canada is on the brink of disaster?

Do we think a sick person whose case is a medical emergency and who cannot find a doctor cares about Bill C-20? Do we really think our children who suffer and live in poverty care about Bill C-20?

Do we think the lobster fishermen in Atlantic Canada who are at risk of losing their livelihood care about Bill C-20? Do we think the western farmers who are at risk of losing their farms care about Bill C-20?

I am positive the answer to all those questions is no.

When I was reading this piece of legislation and thinking about what it means, I had difficulty believing that I was in Canada, this great country that we all work and strive to keep strong and make better. I just cannot imagine that we are dealing with this piece of legislation when we have so many other more serious and pressing issues to deal with. When is the government going to start focusing its attention on the real problems facing the country?

Let us go back for a moment and focus our attention on the question of clarity. The bill is supposed to clarify the rules in the event of another referendum, but what exactly does it clarify? We have already said that it fails to define what constitutes a clear majority. Bill C-20 does not even come close to defining what a clear question would be. What would happen if a province were to secure a clear majority in support of a question not approved by the House of Commons? Does anyone know?

These are but a few of the many questions that the so-called clarity bill fails to answer.

As I said before, Bill C-20 is a very dangerous bill, which threatens the future of our country. I am against it and I invite all members in this House to vote against it.

Let us work together to strengthen our country, not destroy it.

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, February 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite difficult to keep one's train of thought when one keeps being interrupted.

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, February 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, there is currently no provision in our Canadian constitution for the separation of a province from the rest of Canada but for the first time in history this bill would have Ottawa spell out the steps toward secession.

Our Prime Minister is playing a very dangerous game with this unity bill. Not only is he taking a very confrontational approach with the people of Quebec, he is also encouraging the rest of the Canada to take a similar stand.

If one of the reasons the people of Quebec wanted to separate in the first place was because they felt alienated by the rest of Canada, this clarity bill will certainly add to their sense of frustration and isolation.

Like many Canadians, I keep asking myself why the Prime Minister would introduce a clarity bill at this time when support for separatism in Quebec is dwindling. When the Quebec economy is struggling and support for Premier Bouchard is on the decline, when Quebecers are concerned about the economy and the Quebec government is struggling to find solutions, what does our Prime Minister do? He purposely decides to antagonize the people of Quebec. He graciously gives Premier Bouchard an issue that will deflect—

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, February 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague across the way made a speech earlier and I listened intently even though I was not in agreement with what he was saying. I would like him to offer me the same courtesy.

We have much more serious problems, such as child poverty, health care, the fisheries crisis on the east coast and many other issues that this intellectually bankrupt government is ignoring by putting up this smoke screen called the clarity bill.

Since the beginning of Confederation, every one of our distinguished prime ministers, whether Liberal or Conservative, all worked very hard to strengthen and improve the Canadian union.

Every one of these great individuals managed to understand that Canadian unity must prevail over everything else. Of course, there have been many difficulties, but thanks to their tenacity and that of the Canadian people, those difficulties were overcome.

Bill C-20 is nothing but an insult to all Canadians who devoted themselves to making Canada the best country in the world. For the first time in our history, a Canadian government has introduced a bill describing how a province can separate from Canada.

Would it be that this Liberal government is more interested in finding ways to break up than to strengthen the union?

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, February 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that I have to participate in the debate on Bill C-20, a bill designed to promote the breakup of Canada. We have much more serious problems.

[National Defence, February 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's participation in the Gulf War ended in 1991. However, for many of our veterans, their battle for survival has just begun. Hundreds of our veterans returned to Canada suffering from mysterious illnesses that our Canadian military conveniently attributed to stress.

The late Terry Riordan was one such soldier. Soon upon his return Terry began showing signs of illness that would eventually ravage his body. Terry died on April 29, 1999. The cause of death read “Gulf War Syndrome”.

Test results done on Terry's body have identified high levels of weapons grade depleted uranium. Where else but during the Gulf War could he have been exposed to this deadly element? What is the correlation between this poisonous element and Gulf War illness?

Is our military conducting tests on our Canadian veterans to find out if they also have this poison within their bodies? If not, let us ask ourselves why not. How many more of our Canadian soldiers must die before the government acts to find out the answers?

[Supply, December 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Broadview—Greenwood for a very thoughtful question, one which deserves a serious answer.

The reality of Canada is that, yes, 80% of the people live in urban centres, which is a large part of our population. Some of the decisions coming from the government are based on votes and do not reflect the realities that exist. If that is the case, that is why the government is not taking hold of the problems that exist, dealing with the farm crisis, the east coast fisheries crisis and other issues. Those are some of the things that should be looked at.

[Supply, December 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Malpeque for his very important question.

The situation is that there are problems throughout the system. We recognize that certain sectors are doing well, but the problems still exist. We have serious problems that the government is not addressing.

As I mentioned earlier in my comments, 42% of our farm operators are over the age of 55. The average age of farmers in Nova Scotia is 52.2 years. There are no young people entering the industry. There is a reason. It is because of the policies of the government.