House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was farmers.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Liberal MP for Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington (Ontario)

Won his last election, in 2000, with 39% of the vote.

Statements in the House

What Canada Means To Me March 15th, 1996

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to share information about an essay contest I am sponsoring in my riding of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington: "What Canada Means to me".

As we began this year one of my constituents, James E. MacDonald, suggested a contest that would provide an opportunity for citizens of HFL&A to express their love of Canada and to contribute in a positive way to Canadian identity and Canadian unity discussions. I decided to act on Jim's great idea.

On Heritage Day constituents were invited to write a short essay. I invited the people of my riding to express their personal reflections on Canada and their vision of Canada in the future.

A red ribbon panel of judges will read the essays on the merit of heartfelt expression and love of Canada. Together we will select winners in three categories to be announced on Canada Day. The three winners will join me for lunch in the parliamentary restaurant, enjoy a tour of the Parliament Buildings and witness question period from the gallery.

I invite colleagues to stop by our table to congratulate the winning authors. I also invite members to borrow this idea in their ridings across Canada.

Supply March 12th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, certainly I want to reply to my hon. colleague from the Bloc.

I am not influenced by the results of the referendum but I am influenced by many Quebec friends and many Quebec colleagues. Great Canadians. Great Quebecers.

When the SSR review toured the country, in 35 days we had hearings in 27 cities, ten provinces, two territories, the eastern Arctic, and many locales in Quebec. People asked for the same thing and Quebecers were no different. They are Canadians who want an opportunity to work and make a contribution to this country.

I would gladly ask the member to read out the list of people in his province who do not want the same opportunity as what they have here.

The second question concerned students and the 15 hour system. Many students I know personally work at two part time jobs. I believe that after this legislation is passed the "Mc" companies will offer more than 15 hours to these students. I am sure many of these students will have the opportunity to work 30 hours a week. We will find that this legislation will be of great benefit to all Canadians including Quebecers.

Supply March 12th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly my personal privilege to stand in the House today to speak on this opposition motion which should definitely be rejected.

Once again we have a very curious spectacle. The Bloc Quebecois, the party that says it wants to change this country irrevocably, the party which says that separation is the only solution to solving all of the social and economic problems facing Quebecers, is making an impassioned plea for the status quo in Canada. This is the party that is suddenly the champion of the downtrodden worker in New Brunswick, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia? I do not think so and neither do many Canadians.

What the Bloc's argument comes down to is that we should simply shelve any thoughts of changing or improving the old unemployment insurance system, the program with all its inefficiencies and all the unfairness. We should just ignore proposals which came about after a lengthy process of consultation and consensus building with thousands of Canadians right across the country.

The game plan of the Bloc Quebecois members is not only transparent, it is extremely cynical. It is transparent because we all know the real reason they are opposing this legislation. They simply do not want to see any improvements in any legislation that would make the country work better. They have a vested interest in failure and it shows. Failure. It shows in all their arguments.

Modernizing the employment system for all Canadian workers, lowering premiums, making it work better, expanding it to include more people, encouraging more people to work, making the system sustainable into the next century for all Quebecers and for all Canadians are not objectives the Bloc members could support. Not today, not tomorrow, nor ever and for a very simple reason. A better employment insurance system for all Canadians including Quebecers weakens their cause for separation. And this is the party which sees everything through that particular lens.

How could the Bloc possibly support the idea that 350,000 low income families across Canada will now get an extra income supplement under this new legislation? That is what this bill will do.

How could the Bloc possibly support the proposals in the bill for the first time to ensure the work of upwards of more than 500,000 part time individuals in Quebec and across Canada who are not now part of the system?

How could the Bloc agree with a bill that will give some 270,000 seasonally employed Canadian claimants an additional three weeks of benefits?

How could the Bloc be in favour of a bill that is conservatively predicted to create upwards of 100,000 to 150,000 new jobs in the country? Many thousands of them would be in Quebec.

How could the Bloc support a bill that will lower premiums for workers and employers to the tune of $1.3 million and which lets employers put their share, more than $760 million into creating new jobs for Quebecers and for all Canadians?

How could the Bloc agree with a bill that makes special provision for women who have been out of the workforce raising families to help them get back into the workforce and have access to employment benefits?

Why would the Bloc be in favour of a bill that will expand coverage of the program to include 97 per cent of workers but at the same time return contributions to more than 1.3 million very low income workers, including 920,000 who pay premiums today?

Why would a separatist party support a bill that is going to give 300,000 small businesses in Quebec and across Canada a premium refund of up to $5,000 over two years?

How could a separatist party give its support to a bill which has a series of active employment measures, including wage subsidies, earning supplements, self-employment, community job partnerships, to pave the way for more Quebecers and Canadians to get

back into the workforce? These are programs which will be developed directly with the provinces.

I guess if I were a separatist, heaven forbid, I would probably not want to see this bill go through either or anything else that might improve the employment situation in this country for that matter. The plain fact is the bill is good for workers and for the economy and we will prove that.

I think the real cynicism of the party opposite shows itself in this motion. What the Bloc is saying is that it does not want Canadians or Quebecers to talk about trying to improve the bill in our committee.

We have to come to terms with how we modernize our outdated unemployment system so that it reflects the realities of today's working world because that world has changed just as profoundly in Quebec as it has in the rest of Canada and across the western world. Fewer and fewer people work in the traditional nine to five pattern for which the old UI system was created. More and more people work part time or in multiple part time jobs. They are not fully covered under the current plan with its rigid rule of weeks worked. Since every hour worked will now count toward eligibility for benefits, workers will have incentives to accept available work.

The opposition says the new program is unfair to young people, women, seasonal workers and immigrants. What does this new measure really mean for youth? Four out of ten part time workers are young people. With an unemployment rate of 16 per cent, nearly double the average of all other workers, this bill is going to help thousands of young people who are caught in the 15 hour trap. Many employers use this 15 hour system to avoid paying premiums. That denies our young people benefits when the work runs out. This bill will be especially helpful for youth.

Young people also need support to make that all important school to work transition. For this reason we have invested in the intern programs working with business, local communities and educators. We have also invested in youth services to help young people get the experience and skills they need to find jobs. The government has announced that funding for summer jobs is going to be doubled from $60 million to $120 million. It will be committed over the next three years to help young people get into the job market.

The opposition says that women are being penalized. Again, this is not true. On average, women currently earn 70 per cent of what men earn. They make up 60 per cent of minimum wage earners. The new arrangements recognize these facts and make a real attempt to turn that situation around in several ways.

Two-thirds of those who qualify for the new family supplement will be women. This supplement results in low income single parent families receiving 10 per cent more than they do today. Women returning to work after having received maternity or parental leave benefits will have access to the new re-employment benefits for a full five years. Very low income women will be eligible for a premium refund.

What about new Canadians? The opposition claims they are being punished. Again, it just is not true. Asking for a slightly longer initial attachment to the workforce in the first year before being eligible for benefits just like everybody else is not wrong. Again, it is only the first year. In the second and following years if they have some attachment to the workforce they will have lower qualifying periods. They will also have access to re-employment benefit tools.

More good news for the home front. There is going to be a very positive impact on the social assistance caseloads within the provinces. At the moment 45 per cent of social assistance recipients have also been UI claimants within the last three years. Many are UI exhaustees. These individuals will now have access to the new re-employment measures which will help get them back into the workforce and will help reduce provincial social assistance roles. Many people are going to be very happy with this legislation.

Canadians expect us to come up with better answers and so do Quebecers. My suggestion to the opposition members is that they should join in that process, work with their colleagues who are members of our standing committee and help us come up with the right solutions. I sincerely hope they can put aside their ideological goals and help us deal with the task of creating a new and better system of unemployment insurance protection for all Canadians. This motion should be defeated.

Cheese Capital Of Canada March 12th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House today to congratulate Hastings county on having achieved recognition as the cheese capital of Canada.

Hastings county is home to four fine cheesemakers: Eldorado Cheese, Ivanhoe Cheese, Maple Dale Cheese and Riverside Cheese. These cheesemakers make fine, distinctive products that I am proud to recommend to you.

In addition to the pleasure experienced by our taste buds, each company contributes to the local economy, from utilizing milk produced by dairy farmers, to providing jobs for production staff in their plants and jobs for retail staff in their stores.

The fine cheesemakers of Hastings county continue a long and esteemed tradition of fine cheesemaking in central and eastern Ontario.

I would ask hon. members to please join me in congratulating four Hastings county processors and the county of Hastings in gaining the designation of cheese capital of Canada.

International Women's Week March 5th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House during International Women's Week to salute the women of the world, particularly the women of my riding of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington.

In my riding women run businesses and are artists, farmers, politicians, service providers, homemakers and caregivers. They are also volunteers and members of service clubs, legions and women's institutes. Like women internationally, the women of my riding contribute wholly to the social, political and spiritual life of their communities. And they are heroes. I proudly recall witnessing Sheila Maracle and Terry Ann Richardson receive the Star of Courage and the Medal of Bravery for saving a drowning child in a spontaneous act of courage.

Generous actions occur daily in homes and communities and across international boundaries. Mary Lou Carroll of Adolphustown is currently arranging a third shipment of supplies to the Sisters of St. Joseph's orphanage in Haiti.

Our lives are made richer by the women we know. Please join me in saluting the women of the world and of our constituencies across this great country.

Napanee Beaver March 1st, 1996

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House today to congratulate a prominent newspaper in my riding of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington.

The Napanee Beaver is celebrating 125 years of publishing. Recently I had the pleasure of presenting Mrs. Jean Morrison, the owner and publisher of the Napanee Beaver , letters of congratula-

tions from our Prime Minister and from Canada's Governor General.

The Napanee Beaver has made a significant contribution to the lives of its readers. It has kept the people of the Napanee area informed about the issues that are relevant to our country and our community. Its cartoons have brought smiles to our faces. It has played an important role in the commerce of our area by bringing advertisers and consumers together in its pages. Most important, a free exchange of news and views is fundamental in a democracy.

My best wishes for continued success to the Napanee Beaver , 125 years young. Colleagues, please join me in congratulating my local paper and all of the community papers across Canada for the role they play in the democratic process.

Income Tax Act December 1st, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand in the House today and speak to Bill C-241 brought forward by the hon. member representing the riding of Nepean.

I was disappointed to hear the previous member speak on behalf of our government. She was speaking of the great intent of the finance department and saying that we must get it right, that we have to take time. Today in this House new legislation for employment was tabled. Sometimes we have to redo legislation. It is very important that we move on this and I do not want to see us

delay. We need to move quickly to amend the Income Tax Act so that support payments for children are no longer considered taxable income for the recipients.

Children are our most valuable resource, the most precious asset of our country. I am in favour of investing in their future. All people must realize that by investing in our children we are investing in our own future. Failure to do so will cost us dearly.

Very often the causes of child poverty have been linked to family breakdown. Whatever the causes of child poverty it must be addressed. Principle 2 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child states:

The child shall enjoy special protection, and shall be given opportunities and facilities, by law and by other means, to enable him to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually and socially in a healthy and normal manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity. In the enactment of laws for this purpose, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.

Child poverty in Canada is disgracefully high. More than one million children in our country live in poverty. These poor children have many unfair obstacles in the path of their lives. Many children of poverty will suffer more illness than other children. They will require more emergency food assistance and they are more likely to become drop-outs from our schools. These unfortunate children through no fault of their own can expect to have a shorter life span. These facts are unbelievable, sad, disgraceful and, I am sorry to say, true.

I call on our Prime Minister, our cabinet and all members of the House to focus on one of the greatest tragedies in this country and one of the greatest tragedies of this century: the neglect of our greatest resource for the future, the children of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my hon. colleagues to look deeply into the hurting faces of some of our young children living in poverty and recognize their hurt. While I do call on all members of the House to focus more on child poverty in this country, I gratefully acknowledge that progress is being made in some areas.

Today the Minister of Human Resources Development introduced a new employment system for Canadians. A family income supplement provides basic protection for low income families. Employment insurance claimants with children and a family income under $26,000 will be eligible for insurance benefits that top up and reflect their family circumstances. The family supplement will be better targeted to low income families and will deliver a larger benefit for those families who are most in need. This is a real step in the right direction.

In most cases Canadian tax laws have created inequities between the payers and the recipients of child support. What other country treats the taxation of child support in this way? The husband contributes money toward the welfare of his children while he is married and the wife is not penalized by additional tax burdens during this period. Therefore, why is there a difference between a parent paying for household necessities while living with their spouse and a parent who is living separate from their spouse who is still paying for the same household necessities? Child support payments are simply a continuation of a father's obligation to support his children when he is divorced. They certainly should not be taxed.

The motion gives us an opportunity to make a significant difference in a meaningful way which will affect the lives of many children in Canada. The average child support order covers less than half of the cost of raising a child. Therefore, it is not fair or just to tax back a large percentage of support payments which are meant to clothe and feed our children. We as legislators in the House of Commons must stand up to introduce further measures of justice and fairness in our tax system, particularly as they relate to the future of our children.

Loving parents will take desperate measures to care and provide for their children. Sacrifices are continually made by mothers. These desperate measures can be very costly to the mothers, to the children and to our country in the long run. Scars can be left on the parents for a long time. Scars of many kinds are left on the children.

I again congratulate and thank the hon. member for Nepean for a commitment to this very important bill. I ask all members of the House to support the bill. It is a bill upon which we should move quickly.

Department Of Human Resources Development Act November 20th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-96.

A year ago our human resources development standing committee conducted public hearings in Ottawa and all across Canada. As a member of this committee I attended hearings in 25 cities in 35 days in 10 provinces, 2 territories and the East Arctic. In my own riding constituents shared their ideas and concerns with me at four town hall meetings held in Napanee, Sydenham, Bancroft and Tweed.

I believe the bill addresses the concerns we heard from many Canadians. Recently in my riding I had the opportunity to attend the opening of an HRDC job kiosk in Northbrook, Ontario. Mr. Adrian van Asseldonk, our local HRDC manager, and his staff have provided residents from the Northbrook area, the northern part of our Lennox and Addington County, access to job market information. They no longer have to make the long trip to Napanee, Belleville or Kingston.

As we look at the legislation before us we could talk for hours on end about what this mandate clause means or that qualification entails or about what wordings should be changed; indeed we have to do this. It is our responsibility to get the legislation right but we also have to take our eyes away from the fine print, look at the thing as a whole and ask what it really means.

We can find out what it means outside these four walls in the communities because in the end this is about people; people who have hopes and dreams for the future, people who are willing to work hard for those dreams, people who are often struggling to hang on to a job or fund a new one, old people who are struggling to get by on a fixed income, young people stepping out of the school room into a world few of us could have imagined just a few short years ago. Those are the people who know about the real work this department is doing day in and day out across the country.

HRDC touches the lives of millions of Canadians every year perhaps more directly than any other government department. From survivor benefits to student loans, unemployment insurance, employment programs and services, old age security, HRDC has an impact on Canadians at each stage of their lives.

The HRDC described in the bill is working with Canadians in a new way. The government recognizes that Canada and Canadians are in the midst of a sea of change economically and socially. Our labour market and social programs have to change as well. For women, for aboriginal peoples, for people with disabilities and visible minorities this means a new Employment Equity Act, a stronger, more effective act which was tabled last year. In times of economic upheaval our commitment is to equity for all Canadians and it must be stronger than ever before.

For people looking for a chance to learn and expand their opportunities, it means a new Canada student loans program, the first major overhaul of the program in years and one that puts a good education into the reach of more Canadians than ever before.

For the first time there are specific grants to help women go to graduate schools in areas once dominated by men. For the first time students with disabilities can get support for the special facilities they need. For the first time single mothers can go back to school and get the financial help they need to pay for child care. At a time when knowledge and education are so critical, the new program is vital to many Canadians.

For older workers displaced by technology or by the decline of an industry, the bill means marshalling our resources to give them

a hand, through strong partnerships with other governments like we have in Quebec through the program for older worker adjustment.

It means bold new approaches like the Atlantic groundfish strategy, helping displaced fishers and plant workers across Newfoundland and Labrador.

For young people who are unemployed and out of school it means youth services Canada. At last count, there were 200 projects across the country where they are learning new skills through community service.

Projects like one in Red Deer, Alberta where young people are working with the RCMP to deal with drug programs. Projects like the one in Clayoquot Sound where 20 young aboriginal men and women are working to develop a promising new eco-tourism program. Projects like the one in New Brunswick where young people are cleaning up and reclaiming polluted streams and rivers.

For young Canadians still in school the new approach means youth internships where private sector firms are giving kids in grade 10 or 11 hands on work experience tied in with the school curriculum. This year alone there are 25,000 young interns across Canada thanks to the strong partnerships we are building with the private sector. Business and government are working together to give young people a shot at a great future.

Bill C-96 means the Canadian Tourism Human Resource Council addresses the training needs of 1.2 million workers across this country. For women, this bill means Women in Trades and Technology, a national group helping women get into more trade, technological and blue collar jobs, with a national support network, courses and training programs designed specifically for women.

For some 30,000 unemployed Canadians it means getting a helping hand as they create their own jobs and become self-employed and, in the process, creating an additional 30,000 jobs for other Canadians.

For all Canadians this bill means the federal government working with the provinces to test new approaches in employment and training, learning and education and income support and services.

For example, in P.E.I. the Choice and Opportunity Project is designing and testing a delivery model to improve integrated services for persons with intellectual disabilities, eliminating barriers within generic programs and services and moving from segregated to inclusive community systems. The project is conducted in partnership with the Canadian Association for Community Living and the P.E.I. Association for Community Living.

In Newfoundland, the project "Transitions-The Changes Within" is helping over 5,000 people by testing a tuition voucher system that helps students remain in full time studies, helping post-secondary graduates gain work experience and becoming self-employed, helping unemployed workers find full time work.

In British Columbia an initiative is under way to improve the quality and access to child care for working and studying families through community one stop access centres, testing delivery models for the delivery of child care and finding ways to help children with special day care needs.

In New Brunswick the job corps project provides an annualized income to participants, people over 50 who were unemployed or on social assistance, in return for 26 weeks of volunteer work.

In every province we are making a real difference in the lives of Canadians from all walks of life. We are making a difference because we have transformed HRDC and our approach to delivering the programs that Canadians need.

This transformation will continue. In August the Minister of Human Resources Development announced the establishment of a new modern service delivery network that will reach more Canadians than ever before, the most sophisticated, efficient delivery network in the government.

We are developing new, more flexible programs and services through the human resources investment fund, programs that will be locally based, locally driven and focused squarely on results.

That is what the bill really means: a new direction for the department; a new focus for jobs and opportunity; a new approach to helping Canadians catch hold of their dreams for the future.

The human resources development department is doing good things for Canada. Bill C-96 will let us do more and better things. Let us not put up roadblocks. Let us get on with the job of serving Canadians.

I have a comment for an hon. member opposite. When I, along with other colleagues of the House, put in 12, 15 and 16-hour days across the country, in all corners, from sea to sea to sea, most members of the committee stayed in the room, listened to the witnesses. They listened to Canadians. Some hon. members stayed for one hour a day. There were stories of them going out on to the streets and signing up members for their party. I am ashamed of the conduct of some members of the House.

Department Of Human Resources Development Act November 9th, 1995

Very few, yes.

Intervenor Funding Act November 1st, 1995

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to rise and speak on Bill C-339, as introduced by my colleague representing the riding of Oxford.

I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate and thank my colleague from the great riding of Oxford for the impressive amount of work and research he has put into this bill.

The primary objective of this legislation is to give all of those people who speak in the public interest the opportunity to be heard before federal boards and agencies. With this bill, federal boards and agencies will make better decisions with a higher level of public input, consultation and participation.

Bill C-339 is designed to assist those with bona fide concerns. It is not meant to provide funding for special interest groups. It is in the interest of each of us for the public interest to be heard. This bill will ensure that the public interest is heard.