Julian Reed

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Fine, I can accept that gentleman's comments, but the other comments are a bit hypocritical because they have been recipients of HRDC funds. I invite them all to go to those recipients. They have a list of whom they are. They should go to those organizations and ask them what the money was used for, where it went.

How many people who are physically handicapped were able to be employed because of the distribution of that money? How many young people were able to experience their first job because of that money? How many people were able to take retraining and move from a very marginal existence into a well paying, permanent job? That is what that money was intended for, and that is where it went.

As the next few months come along that evidence will be falling into place. I am proud to be part of that. Although I must say that the riding of Halton, which is a contributory riding and not a recipient riding, did not receive very much money. We did not qualify for the transitional jobs fund in Halton because we had an unemployment rate that was too low to do so. However, other funding came in to Halton for other kinds of purposes. As the months go on I think all members will receive communications from their ridings and from the recipients saying thanks very much.

I should also remind members who are so critical of the government that their offices spent a lot of time contacting the minister's office at HRDC, pleading with her to speed up the transfer of money. I am rendered speechless when I see members, who were recipients of HRDC money and wanted as much as they could get, stand in the House week after week criticizing the program, all 26 programs or however many there are.

I hope those programs continue, incidentally, and I hope that the less fortunate, the people who sincerely deserve it, are able to get a leg up so that they can enter into the workforce full time and with a decent income.

The budget also did some other things that are not talked about as much and have not been talked about in the debate. There have been $700 million invested to develop environmental technologies and sustainable practices. Coupled with that there are increases for the Canada Foundation for Innovation by another $900 million to $1.9 billion. There are also $900 million over five years to fund and sustain 2,000 chairs for research excellence at the universities. All these things dovetail together so that the investment in sustainability and in sustainable technologies for the future has really received a boost.

We are in a situation now where I think there is a general acceptance that global warming is a reality. We all see evidence that comes to us every now and again. The most recent one last week was when we learned that the oceans in the last 50 years have risen in temperature by half a degree. We also saw the satellite shot where the big ice shelf in the Antarctic has now broken away. It is twice the size of Prince Edward Island.

These things are cause for great concern, for if the oceans rise one metre hundreds of millions of souls will be displaced and will have to move away. In China the figure is something like 95 million should the oceans rise.

We are looking forward into a new era, and I am pleased to be part of the team that has brought Canada from the brink.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

None at all?

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

I say to my hon. friend the ghost of inflation is probably one of the worst ones. I also want to tell my friend that we have been able to do something else. I am going to defend HRDC because all members need to do is to talk to some of the people who have been recipients of that money about what it has done for them. Letters of thanks have come in to the offices of members. I would say to members across the way that they have all received money from HRDC.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to rise to debate the budget. It has been an honour to rise to debate every budget we have had since 1993, since this government came to office.

The House will recall that when the government changed in 1993 we encountered a deficit situation which amounted to $42 billion. What a difference seven years makes. I am no fan of deficit budgeting. There was a deficit when the Tories took over. In half the time they doubled the debt. It was becoming a travesty. Had the situation not been turned around, there is no doubt the International Monetary Fund would have been looking over our shoulder. I remember one of the first tasks the Minister of Finance was required to perform. He went to New York to calm the fears of Wall Street.

Over that seven years we have succeeded in overcoming the deficits and now, for the third year, are into a surplus situation. I am told it is only the third time since Confederation that there has been a three year run of surplus budgeting. It has changed the whole complexion of governance. It has changed the way we do business, and we have had to learn to do it from an entirely different perspective.

This last budget consisted of an initial thrust into comprehensive tax cutting. We had done a bit in some of the years before for people with lower incomes and so on as we could do it, and rightly so. Now the Minister of Finance has been able to come in with a far broader based tax cut. He has also said that as the country can afford it those tax cuts will increase with the years.

The remarkable thing about it is that unlike our friends in the province of Ontario it was done without maintaining a deficit situation. We have maintained the surplus and we have built a very strong base that will reflect very positively in the immediate years to come.

We are into a new world, a new experience. It is expected that in the next year we will have the second highest growth in the G-7. The prediction is something like 3.8% and that is remarkable because it is not accompanied by inflation. It is not accompanied by those ghosts that sit behind us when we move forward with a strong economy.

[The Environment, March 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment is attending Globe 2000 in Vancouver this week, one of the world's most prestigious business and environment events.

Can the parliamentary secretary assure Canadians that the Minister of the Environment will take advantage of the presence of policymakers from around the world to encourage action abroad?

[The Environment, February 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's Kyoto commitment to reducing greenhouse gases has been described as the greatest challenge facing this country since World War II.

A reduction in emissions of 6% from 1990 levels means a 25% reduction from 1999 levels, or roughly 26 million tonnes of gases are to be offset.

Since Canada has rarely experienced a year when greenhouse gases have not increased, the challenge becomes enormous. Over the past year hundreds of Canadian experts have been working hard to submit recommendations to the Climate Change Secretariat which will provide the basis for action.

In spite of the naysayers who think we cannot achieve our targets, I believe that these recommendations will result not only in a cleaner, healthier environment, but in an economic upsurge through the utilization of our untapped renewable resources. I urge all Canadians to support this giant leap into the future.

[Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act, November 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have great respect for my colleague across the way and his knowledge on various pieces of legislation. However, I also understand that there should be some relevance to the specific legislation that is on the floor of the House today. His remarks should be addressing that legislation.

Many times they talk about wanting to debate, so let us debate the legislation that is on the floor of the House today. We have given him sufficient time.

[Endicott Peabody Humanitarian Award, October 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to congratulate our Minister of Foreign Affairs, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, on being named the winner of the inaugural Endicott Peabody humanitarian award for his lead role in helping to rid the world of anti-personnel land mines. Our minister will receive the award on Friday from the United Nations Association of Greater Boston.

A former governor of Massachusetts and vice-president of the Boston UN association, Mr. Peabody spent his retirement years working for a variety of peace groups that focused on land mines.

The treaty banning anti-personnel land mines became law on March 1, 1999. It has been signed by 135 countries and ratified by 86.

This is not the first time our minister has been recognized for his work on land mines. He was also honoured last October when he was awarded the Council of Europe's North South peace prize. Congratulations.

[Speech From The Throne, October 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting proposition. However, I would like to point out, and I am sure my hon. friend would agree, that when the legislative process starts it has to start with something, the vision. The purpose of the throne speech, traditionally, has been to present that overall vision to the House and to the people of Canada. Our system of government is a constitutional monarchy, so we have a speech from the throne and everyone knows in which direction the government wants to go.

If we had started without that there would be no vision. We have been accused from time to time of having no vision at all. I would like the hon. member to remember what it would be like if we did have some vision.

[Speech From The Throne, October 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member that the steps that have been taken by this government are helping the Kyoto protocol and agriculture at the same time. Maybe the hon. member does not know that since the biomass-derived ethanol program has been put into place nearly $500,000 of private investment has taken place across Canada, and farmers produce the feedstock for that ethanol production.