Anita Neville

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, April 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations upon your re-election. It must be quite pleasing to win re-election twice in three months.

I would also like to thank the constituents of Winnipeg South Centre, who have again shown their confidence in me and have given me the privilege of representing them for a third time.

I listened closely to the government's Speech from the Throne. I rise today to comment on those important elements that are missing. These missing elements concern me, because I believe the road map of the government of the country must reflect the diversity and complexity of the people of this nation and of the regions. A five priority list sounds good, but five easy pieces is not enough.

The government's position on child care is profoundly disappointing. In my home province of Manitoba, we are deeply disturbed that the government refuses to honour a true system of early learning and child care, a program that supports children and allows families the opportunities they deserve.

On April 29, 2005, the Government of Canada signed an agreement with the Government of Manitoba, the first in Canada, which provided new multi-year federal funding on child care and learning. I was there that day and I am confident in stating that no one who attended the signing would have predicted the sorry state we are in today. It was a profoundly moving event. As the signing of the agreement took place, those in the crowd spontaneously stood up and sang O Canada. What a moment.

It is important that members know what Manitoba is losing because of the government's approach to child care. Over the life of the five year plan, Manitoba would have obtained 1,650 new child care spaces in Winnipeg, 700 newly funded spaces in rural Manitoba communities, 68 new spaces in northern communities, funding for new facilities, for renovations, for the expansion of existing facilities, and for what I consider most important, new training spaces and wage increases for child care workers. This is all gone.

Let us be clear: a taxable $1,200 per child will simply not come even remotely close to achieving the objectives that I just laid out.

It is also important to note that I have not heard any discussion anywhere of the $100 million the previous government committed to child care in aboriginal communities.

I know that I speak for thousands of Manitobans who have asked the members on the opposite side to honour the agreements made in good faith. I want to remind members of a comment made by the premier of British Columbia. It was a comment following the signing of the Kelowna accord. He said that “the honour of the Crown depends on our meeting these commitments”. Indeed, that was a commitment made government to government.

What also concerns me is that the government is now speculating about withdrawing funds for those who advocate for early learning and child care. I hope this is not intimidation.

The Speech from the Throne was also silent on another agreement put in place by the former government. I am speaking of the Kelowna accord. It would seem that the current government has never heard of the Kelowna accord. There was hardly a word on aboriginal people in the speech. It was mentioned twice, and only in passing. But we know that the government is aware of the Kelowna accord. It simply does not want to honour it.

The new government must begin to listen more closely, especially to its own members. I want to congratulate the new Minister of Indian Affairs on his appointment. It appears that he cares, but what about his colleagues?

On January 10, at the height of the recent election campaign, he said on the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network:

--I am the party spokesman on the Kelowna accord and let's be perfectly clear for the viewers of your network. We are supportive of Kelowna. We are supportive of the targets and objectives that were set at Kelowna.

He said they are supportive, but is anyone listening to him? Is his own Prime Minister? Is his Minister of Finance?

Why is the aboriginal community not in the five priority list? Kelowna speaks to hope and opportunity for aboriginal peoples. It speaks to dealing with the different circumstances in all regions and communities, in rural and urban areas, on reserves, on settlements in the north and Arctic regions. It speaks to working with first nations, with Inuit and with Métis, to women, to men and to children. It speaks to improving education, housing and health care. It speaks to partnership, collaboration and accountability, and accountability is more than financial audits. Accountability is to change the lives of Canada's first citizens. It speaks to transformation and it speaks to change.

Again, I would say to those opposite that they should honour the agreements reached by all the aboriginal leaders, by the provincial leaders, by the territorial leaders and by the Government of Canada. I repeat what Mr. Campbell said, “The honour of the Crown depends on meeting our commitments”.

The throne speech was silent on all matters relating to the aboriginal community, in particular, the Indian residential school resolution. We have asked the minister questions about honouring it. He is not silent but he says nothing.

According to Statistics Canada, it is estimated that there are 80,000 people alive today who attended residential schools. Many of the elderly survivors of the schools are dying daily. I do not believe the new Minister of Indian Affairs does not care. He knows that aboriginal people want the respect and recognition of what happened to them. He knows the residential school experience haunts many aboriginal people. He knows that the elderly and ill survivors of the residential schools look forward to the financial compensation to make their lives easier. He knows there was a good faith clause to immediately fast-track payments to the elderly and sick. He knows it is time to do something.

Again I say to the members opposite that they must honour the Indian residential schools agreement and bring some closure to the painful Canadian experience. The honour of the Crown depends on meeting our commitments.

There is only a passing reference to the environment in the Speech from the Throne.

It goes without saying that I love the province of Manitoba but there is a special place in Manitoba for me. Since childhood I have vacationed on the shores of Lake Winnipeg, a lake that is truly an inland sea. I know the communities around it. I have met the fishers from the aboriginal communities like Pine Dock and Bloodvein. I also know that Lake Winnipeg is the 10th largest freshwater lake in the world. It sustains a commercial fishery with an annual landed value of approximately $20 million. It is a key component of Manitoba's hydroelectric system. I also know that Lake Winnipeg is undergoing increasing stress and without action from all levels of government, Lake Winnipeg may be a lake in crisis. We can prevent this crisis from occurring but further action is needed. It is incumbent upon the government to take that action and to move forward.

I ask the members opposite to commit to Lake Winnipeg, to commit to the initiatives that the previous government implemented. It is important for the viability of those around the lake and it is important for Saskatchewan and Alberta as well.

I also want to briefly mention another missing aspect of the throne speech. There is no mention of cultural endeavours, of the arts, film, theatre and music. There is no mention of supporting the Canada Council in order to meet the needs of creators and performers. There is no reference to support for galleries and museums. There is no reference for the Museum of Human Rights. I urge the government to move forward there.

I am almost out of time but I do not want to leave without speaking about the fact that there is no mention, as my colleague referenced earlier, of post-secondary education, of the importance of innovation, of support, of skills development and of revising the student loan program. In a country like ours, this is critical and the previous government made many commitments.

There are many challenges ahead of us and I look forward to them but I want to repeat the phrase “honour the commitments made by the Crown”. The honour of the Crown depends on our meeting our commitments. We have many challenges ahead of us in this new Parliament and I look forward to working with my colleagues.

[Aboriginal Affairs, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, four elderly residential school survivors die every day.

Yesterday and again today the government has made excuses for not respecting the agreement that provides for immediate payment to victims.

My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. As minister responsible for this matter, how many more elders need to die before they will receive the respect they deserve?

[Aboriginal Affairs, April 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is yet another sign of disrespect that the throne speech did not even mention the residential schools agreement. When the agreement was first announced the Conservative critic at that time, now the minister, said that it was long overdue. Now the government is silent on the issue.

Will the Prime Minister tell the House when the victims of this era can expect to see the first compensation cheques issued?

[Aboriginal Affairs, April 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the historic Kelowna accord signed by the federal, provincial, territorial and aboriginal leaders was going to greatly improve the standard of living of Canada's aboriginal peoples. In yesterday's throne speech the government was shockingly silent on this matter.

Will the Prime Minister stand up right now and vow to honour the Kelowna accord with its full funding commitments?

[Fort Garry Historical Society, November 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, just south of my riding is the St. Norbert Heritage Park, an excellent collection of Métis homes and artifacts set in an historically significant site.

The Fort Garry Historical Society is based in my riding and has been doing an exceptional job preserving the site, the building and the artifacts. It is now in the process of restoring another home, the Delorme Residence. The cost of the restoration is slightly over $200,000.

I wish to recognize the Fort Garry Historical Society and its committed membership for undertaking this new venture. The Delorme house is of significant historical value in Manitoba as it is associated with Louis Riel and the north west rebellion.

I wish them well in their fundraising efforts and I look forward to touring the new addition to the St. Norbert Heritage Park.

[Campbell Greenway Wright, November 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a beloved Manitoban.

Campbell Greenway Wright died on Sunday, November 6, after a lengthy illness, at the age of 45 years.

Campbell was truly a child of Manitoba. He was named for his maternal grandfather and his paternal great, great grandfather, both Liberal premiers of Manitoba in their time.

Campbell, while young, had a full life which distinguished by an unwavering commitment to others. An accomplished lawyer, his volunteer community leadership was widespread and included the Manitoba Theatre Centre, the Canadian Club of Winnipeg, Joceyln House, a community hospice, and the Westminster Housing Society.

A committed political activist, I had the pleasure of working with Campbell on numerous and various campaigns. I have not met a man of greater principle, honour, dignity and courage than Campbell Wright.

Above all, his family was paramount, and I extend my heartfelt sympathy to his wife Lynne and their young sons, Kirk and Thomas, and to the entire Wright family. He will be deeply missed.

[Yitzhak Rabin, November 14th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the assassination of the former Israeli prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin.

The first native born Israeli prime minister, he was a general who waged both war and peace. Not only was he a military leader, he was also a diplomat, a statesman and a politician.

A consummate tactician, he had a leadership style that was said to be both candid and direct. His was a career that was marked by both successes and challenges, always focused on ensuring the security of the state of Israel. He was gunned down by an extremist at a peace rally on November 4, 1995, and he was cited by president Clinton at the time as a martyr for peace.

Mr. Rabin believed that peace was a prerequisite for the building and viability of the Jewish state. His legacy which was articulated in his memoirs and reiterated that fateful night was, “There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the risks of peace are preferred by far than the grim certainty that awaits every nation in war”.

May his words have meaning today.

[Iran, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, further to the resolution passed unanimously yesterday in the House, I rise today to condemn the bigot remarks of the Iranian president calling for the annihilation of Israel, the destruction of the United States, and for a global war against the western world by the Muslim world.

Iran is a dangerous pariah state. It systematically violates the human rights of its people and supports terrorist groups internationally.

Furthermore, Tehran's nuclear ambitions are a threat to international peace and security that merit international action. A nuclear Iran, driven by zealous policies of holy war against non-Muslims, represents an existential threat to Israel and to the whole western world.

I applaud the Canadian condemnation of these unacceptable comments and urge the government to add action to our strong rhetoric.

[Fafia, September 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the work of FAFIA, the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action, whose national symposium and general meeting I had the pleasure of attending in Regina on September 19.

FAFIA is a coalition of over 50 women's organizations whose mandate is to further women's equality in Canada through the domestic implementation of Canada's international and national human rights and policy commitments. FAFIA and its constituent organizations address issues such as violence, poverty and housing, women's trade and economic justice, gender equity in budgeting, and pay equity. Dedicated women and men are engaged to ensure that women from all backgrounds have the opportunity for full participation in all aspects of Canadian society.

At the meeting in Regina, I had the opportunity do a presentation to those attending on the work undertaken to date by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. I want to thank FAFIA members for the invitation and wish them much success with their daunting agenda.

[Textile and Clothing Industries, September 29th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to speak in favour of the original motion put forward by my colleague opposite regarding an assistance policy for the textile and apparel industries.

Both these industries are dynamic players in the modern Canadian economy. With combined shipments of $13 billion annually, both industries continue to contribute to the Canadian manufacturing landscape. Moreover, both the apparel and textile industries contribute to the social landscape of the country.

The textile industry is a major employer of quality jobs in many smaller towns across Quebec, Ontario and the Maritimes. The apparel industry provides a source of employment for Canadians in cities such as Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and my city of Winnipeg.

Throughout the second half of the 1990s both industries have made efforts to reduce costs, achieve productivity gains and increase their exports to the United States to ensure their continued viability and contribution within the Canadian economy.

Irrespective of these strengths, members on both sides of the House are nevertheless aware that the Canadian textile and apparel industries are currently facing an unprecedented period of trade liberalization. This liberalization is primarily the result of international obligations under the WTO to remove all import quotas on textile and apparel goods on January 1 of this year.

As members of both sides of the House are aware, apparel and textiles did not fall under the normal trading rules of the WTO's general agreement on tariffs and trades for the two decades prior to 1994. Instead, trade in these industries was governed by the multi-fibre arrangement, MFA, which allowed quantitative restrictions on imports of apparel and textiles to be negotiated bilaterally between member countries.

The MFA was replaced in 1995 with the agreement on textiles and clothing. This agreement committed countries to integrate textile and apparel products into the normal GATT trading rules over a 10 year period that began January 1, 1995. Over the last decade three phases of quota removal occurred in 1995, 1998 and the year 2002 with a final reduction occurring on January 1 of this year.

This has been a major change to the global environment in which Canadian apparel and textile industries operate. However, as my hon. colleagues are well aware, the tremendous unknown behind the removal of import quotas have been our domestic industry's ability to compete with increasingly stiff competition from countries such as China and India, particularly with respect to the possible displacement of Canadian exports destined for the U.S. market.

Against such a backdrop, a host of factors that are affecting all sectors of the economy, factors such as new technologies and products, changing consumption patterns, increased global competition and individual decisions taken by Canadian firms are having a significant impact on both these industries. As a result, both the domestic apparel and textile industries are facing considerable restructuring challenges that are affecting their future viability.

While it is true, as I noted earlier, that the Canadian textile and apparel industries have improved their competitiveness in the 1990s through increased exports to the U.S. and the use of technologies and cost reductions, these challenges remain nevertheless.

Let me turn my attention to the critical part of the original motion in question, Motion No. 164 which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should establish, in compliance with international agreements, a policy of assistance to the textile and clothing industries in order to enable the industries to compete throughout the world...

As members on this side of the House are aware, the government is not only aware of the particular challenges facing these industries but has taken the necessary steps to strengthen them in face of the economic challenges. In so doing we believe the government is already working toward the objectives highlighted by the hon. member.

Now I will turn my attention to what the government has undertaken.

The most recent set of measures was announced on behalf of the government by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry in December 2004. They were designed to address important policy considerations and remove tariff impediments to the competitiveness of both industries.

Included in these measures was the announcement of additional funding for the textile industry to refocus its production toward innovative products. Specifically, this is an increase of $50 million over five years to the funding support available through the textile production efficiency initiative, better known as CANtex, administered by Industry Canada in cooperation with Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions. In total, the implementation of these measures is making available almost $77 million in direct financial assistance to the textile industry. Increasing CANtex funding will help the Canadian textile manufacturers diversify production toward new product lines and growing niche markets.

Also among the measures announced on December 14, 2004 is the elimination of certain tariffs on the products imported by the textile and apparel industries for further production in Canada. In the case of the textile industry, this action is aimed at eliminating tariffs on certain fibre and yarn imports for Canadian manufacturers to a value of $15 million per year.

To help ensure that this tariff relief does not adversely affect current domestic production, tariffs will remain on imports of fibres, yarns and textiles produced in Canada. Toward this end, the Minister of Finance has asked the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, an independent body responsible for providing advice on economic and tariff related matters, to consult with the textile industry to identify textile products currently produced in Canada.

Finally, the government announced the extension of existing duty remission orders in council that benefit the Canadian textile and apparel manufacturers. These duty remission orders were introduced in the late 1990s as a series of temporary measures to assist domestic textile and apparel firms in adjusting to a more competitive trade environment. The extension of these duty remission orders will allow these benefits to continue to flow to domestic manufacturers.

These measures do not simply stand on their own. In fact, they are only the latest actions taken by the government. They build on a number of transition adjustment measures already announced by the government since 2002, with a value of almost $100 million in support of the apparel and textile industries. These previous measures include: the $33 million Canadian apparel and textile industries program implemented in January 2003; funding of $10.9 million for the Canadian Border Services Agency to monitor illegal transshipments; the February 2004 creation of CANtex, as I mentioned, initially valued at $26.75 million over three years; and previously announced action to reduce tariffs to the apparel industry on textile imports.

The government continues to work to address the challenges facing domestic textile and apparel manufacturers. The measures announced over the past three years demonstrate that the government is listening to the industries and taking the steps it can to help ensure their continued viability in the Canadian economy.

Therefore, I am expressing my support for the original motion. As I have already articulated, the government is and remains committed to listening to the issues raised by both apparel and textile manufacturers, as well as those raised by members on both sides of the House.

Moreover, the government is listening to Canadians, who know that well-paying Canadian jobs in these sectors will only come from the competitive and strong industry these actions are meant to facilitate.