Bruce Stanton

[Food and Drugs Act, April 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the member's presentation. I fully admit that Canadian consumers are very interested in food labelling and the importance of it as it relates to information that helps them make their choices about food.

Some 50 products have been approved by Health Canada and have gone through rigorous assessments in terms of their health safety. Only when these assessments have been completed will those products go on the market. Why should the member be concerned that these GM products need some additional labelling?

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from York West for her tremendous work in this place and on a committee wherein I had a chance to serve with her when she was the chair. It was a great indoctrination into the House.

These are important considerations. The plight of all Ontarians, the opportunities and potential that our province has to enable job creation, to enable greater investment are at the core of our government and our finance minister's approach to try to encourage Ontario in the right direction.

I think it is completely appropriate to make public comment about the kind of issues faced not just by our country but our various provinces and territories and to sight as an example those provinces that are steering the right course, like Alberta, Quebec, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan, all of those that are striving for a lower tax regime to attract more investment. Not withstanding the political commentary that has ensued from this, the principle is that we do the very best we can to encourage the right decisions in the province of Ontario so all Ontarians can benefit.

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the government has pursued a course that entirely respects the jurisdictions of the provinces and territories. That is exactly what more predictable, dependable transfers are all about, putting them on a principled based approach and making sure that provinces and territorial governments have the resources they need to make the decisions within their jurisdictions. In fact, the government has taken a completely different track than what we have seen historically when the federal government did intervene on issues that were within provincial jurisdiction.

This is an important principle that we will continue to make up. The approach we have taken, as was provided under the fiscal balance arrangements in budget 2007, speaks exactly to that very principle.

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to today's rather unusual motion. I say it is unusual because there is no doubt about this government's confidence in the vitality of Ontario's economy. In fact, when we speak of Ontario's economy, its sheer size and weight make it actually the greatest and most significant contributor to the Canadian economy. Its economic success is synonymous with Canada's economic success.

Our government demonstrates that confidence in Ontario by our actions and our commitments. I am pleased to take a moment here today to highlight some of the measures our government has taken to help ensure the economic vitality of Ontario.

These include the historic changes we undertook in budget 2007 to restore fiscal balance in the Canadian federation and measures that responded positively to Ontario's longstanding demands, demands that I must say the previous Liberal government was adamantly against and actually fought strongly against.

It is odd, and in fact I think it is quite hypocritical, that the member for Markham—Unionville would have the audacity to lecture this Conservative government and this Minister of Finance on relations with the province of Ontario. Apparently the member and his Liberal Party colleagues have collective memory problems.

For example, has he completely forgotten that only a few years ago he and the federal Liberal government engaged in an attack on the Liberal premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty, going as far as to suggest that Premier McGuinty was a threat to national unity because of his and his government's campaign to have the fiscal balance addressed?

Let us go back in time to one speech in particular, a speech the member for Markham—Unionville gave at the Toronto Board of Trade in April 2005. In that speech, the member, then a member of the Liberal cabinet and the federal minister for the GTA at the time, launched an all-out assault on the McGuinty government and his own provincial cousins, accusing them of using an “analytically deficient” campaign which threatened to put “the essence of Canada at risk” and was “dangerous for Canada”. He added “that it would only serve to give comfort to Quebec's separatists”.

Based on this past experience and the remarks of the member, one can seriously question the appropriateness of his lecturing our government on how to maintain cordial relations with the McGuinty government in Ontario. I would add that the reaction to the member's over the top remarks was unequivocal.

A Toronto Star editorial, for instance, lambasted the member for insulting all Ontarians and alleging that the premier, through his work to seek fairer treatment, in fact was intensifying the self-inflicted damage the federal Liberals had done in Quebec with the sponsorship scandal. Responding for Ontario's Liberal government, Dwight Duncan, Ontario's current finance minister, was so outraged that he publicly demanded that the member apologize.

Of course, one should not be surprised that the member would take such a position that insulted so many Ontarians, because in government, just as in opposition, the Liberal Party has consistently and vigorously denied that the fiscal imbalance has ever existed, ignoring the valid concerns of provinces like Ontario.

No, after nearly a decade of federal Liberal inaction and apparent delusion, it was our Conservative government that took decisive and concrete action to recognize and acknowledge that there was a fiscal imbalance. We demonstrated that through a comprehensive $39 billion plan unveiled in budget 2007, which put federal support for provinces and territories on a long term, predictable and principle based footing for the future.

We returned equalization to a principled, formula based program based on the recommendations of the O'Brien expert panel.

We made changes that addressed Ontario's deep concerns, including moving to equal per capita support through the Canada social transfer and, in the future, equal per capita cash in other major transfers for infrastructure, job training and health care.

Another important change that responded to Ontario's concerns was the inclusion of a provision to ensure that payments to provinces, those becoming wealthier than those provinces not receiving equalization, should be capped, a concept often referred to as the fiscal capacity cap.

As a result of restoring fiscal balance, Ontario will receive $13.9 billion in fiscal 2008-09. That is an increase of $1.4 billion from last year and almost $2.7 billion since 2005-06. These transfers include $8.6 billion through the Canada health transfer and $4.1 billion through the Canada social transfer.

Ontario's government, understandably, was quite content with this government's actions to address their long-standing grievances regarding fairness in intergovernmental relations. Indeed, many members of the Liberal provincial government were quite open and generous with their praise.

The then Ontario finance minister heralded the measures, noting “I think we've made some significant progress, particularly on the issue of fairness in the wonderful world of fiscal federalism”.

The then Ontario intergovernmental affairs minister also praised it as “real progress”, adding that she was heartened to see that “the federal government has committed to delivering transfers on a per capita basis in the future, with immediate fairness in the Canada social transfer and many other federal transfers”.

Premier McGuinty, who called the action “real progress for Ontarians”, also expressed his appreciation for the respect our Conservative federal government had shown toward the province's concerns. I quote verbatim from a televised interview on CBC Newsworld. He said, “We've made a lot of progress, I would argue, on behalf of all Canadians to try to get beyond an endless series of one-offs and restore some basis of principle to transfers from the federal government to all the provinces and territories. The Prime Minister said that he was now, for the first time in a long time, and I support him fully in this regard, he was going to introduce a principles based approach to dealing with federal transport. No more one-offs and I support that”.

Contrast that spirit of cooperation between our Conservative government and the provincial Liberal government with the rather dismissive response that came from the previous Liberal federal government, most notably the member for Markham—Unionville.

What is even more egregious is that the Liberal Party of Canada not only voted against budget 2007 and its measures to address Ontario's concerns, but it shockingly fought it every step of the way, with not one Liberal member of Parliament joining our Conservative government to stand up for Ontario. Make no mistake, Ontarians noticed.

Permit me to quote from an Ottawa Sun editorial from that time, which said:

—while the Conservative government...is defending Ontario, where do Ontario Liberal MPs stand?....What are Liberal MPs doing now that [the Liberal leader is] ignoring, again, the rights of Ontario taxpayers? Or do they agree with Ontario Finance Minister Greg Sorbara, when he says it's not fair because some of those provinces already invest per-capita more money than Ontario in sectors like education and health?

Unfortunately, the answer to both these questions was they did nothing. They did not agree with their provincial Liberal cousins. Worse still, Ontario Liberal MPs then stood in the House and voted no to the measures that enhanced the well-being of and contributed to the future prosperity of Ontarians.

On what basis does that member opposite and his Liberal colleagues in Ontario challenge the manner that we in fact work cooperatively with Ontario? No, we have nothing to learn from that member.

We have charted a new course, a course of open federalism that recognizes the strength and contribution of each region of our great country, one that is anchored in a desire to make Canada an even stronger federation. By forging ahead with our vision of open federalism, we remain focused on building Canada's future prosperity.

Canada today is a country that is confident and prudent, idealistic and practical. History has proven over and over again that a balanced approach to fiscal policy, based on low taxes, lowering the debt burden and disciplined spending, creates the sturdiest foundation for a strong and successful economy.

This is the course we will pursue for Ontario and for all Canadians.

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague from the other side haranguing about the various apparent misdeeds of this government.

However, my question to him is this. Where were Liberal Ontario MPs a year and a bit ago when we brought in budget 2007 with tremendous fiscal balance not just to Ontario but provinces and territories right across the country, something I would dare say again that Liberal members said did not exist? Here we were giving Ontario tremendous capacity to deal with the kinds of questions that he raises in his very questions today.

Also, there were additional moneys for infrastructure. Some $3.1 billion were put on the table for Ontario. These were all dollars that this government has pledged. Apparently, his party has missed that.

I wonder if he would remember and perhaps comment on why his previous government failed in that regard.

[Status of Women, March 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to debate Motion No. 400, which asks the Government of Canada to include equality in the mandate of the women's program at Status of Women Canada.

As hon. members know full well, our government has already included the word “equality” in the mandate of the women's program at Status of Women Canada. I know some opposition members were surprised by this announcement, when the minister appeared in committee, but it is the reality.

I have to admit that I do not really understand why we are still debating this motion, when it has already been rendered obsolete. The word “equality” is, as I said, included.

I am a member of the standing committee and I recall a question that the member for Beaches—East York put to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages during her appearance. She asked:

Are you saying that you've now changed the policy and you've put the word “equality” back in the mandate? That's what I understood you to say.

The minister responded with the word, “Exactly”.

Yet, here we are debating a motion asking that the focus of the women's program be equality. So, what do the opposition members do? They change their minds.

Through the shock and surprise of the minister's words at that committee, the opposition members decided that what they really meant was to say that equality means advocacy, and groups that receive funding for advocacy.

Indeed, the raison d'être of Status of Women Canada is the advancement of equality of women in Canadian society. As a country, Canada has a strong legal framework for protecting human rights and this foundation has provided a fertile ground for promoting equality, including equality for women.

The women's program at Status of Women Canada reflects this legal foundation. It focuses on promoting the equality and full participation of women in the economic, social and democratic life of Canada. Equality for women and their full participation are not only important for women, their families and their communities but also for the country.

In the future, to ensure Canada remains one of the most prosperous countries in the world, we must increase the participation of women in the workforce and fully support their career choices. Canada's population is aging. During the next two decades it is predicted that the ratio of older persons to active workers in Canada will increase by some 20%. Most of those people will be women.

More than ever, we will need strong female leaders to keep our country strong, economically, socially and as a democracy. Having more women in the labour force, including older women, will fuel economic growth and productivity gains in the long term, and that benefits all Canadians.

It is because our government remains committed to equality that we fully support this motion. But actions speak louder than words. In December 2007 our government amended the terms and conditions of the women's program at Status of Women Canada to include equality.

In support of this noble goal, the women's program provides financial and professional assistance to organizations. Organizations in turn carry out vital projects that improve women's lives at the local, regional and national levels. The projects selected for funding focus on key areas, such as women's economic status, violence against women and girls, and all of this within an accountable and transparent framework.

Strengthening the women's program at Status of Women Canada is just one of our government's impressive list of accomplishments that are improving the lives of women across this land. Included in this list is this government's increase in the women's program budget to $20 million, an increase of 76%, the highest level ever.

This is proof positive of our confidence in the program's work and our commitment to achieving results for women. With the creation of two new funding components, the women's program is poised to continue to achieve results for women directly in their respective communities throughout the country.

As a result of the first call for proposals, which took place in June 2007, $8 million in funding has been distributed to 60 projects across the country through the women's program. Over 260,000 women and girls will benefit from these projects.

These projects will address everything from the barriers they face, help to teach them about violence prevention, educate them on how to achieve better financial literacy, and encourage cooperative peer support networks.

The second call for proposals took place in November of last year for the women's community fund. We received a record number of proposals with a total of 342 proposed projects. Of these projects, 107 have been accepted and will best achieve results for women by promoting women's economic security and prosperity, health and safety, and ending all forms of discrimination and violence against women.

With the newly added convenience of online application forms, the women's program can reach more organizations than ever. With the funding of the women's program now being at its highest level ever, the number of proposals receiving funding and the number of new organizations accessing funding is growing. The best news is that the number of women expected to benefit directly increases as well.

All projects funded must support the advancement of all women in Canada, and that is exactly where equality comes in. It is a complex legal concept, but it lies at the very heart of what Canadians hold dear and what Status of Women Canada is working to achieve.

In recent months women's program funding has supported invaluable projects. For example, in the Atlantic region one project will result in a strategic model for mentoring and intergenerational consultation dealing with the obstacles faced by younger and older women who live in official language minority communities.

A project in the Ontario region will result in the development of tools, training, mentoring and networking programs for aboriginal women, immigrants, older women, and members of racial minorities who are trying to establish their own businesses based on microskills.

In the western and northern regions there is a project to develop a program that community groups and governments can use to support female sex trade workers during their transition to a new and better life.

These initiatives, focusing on the economic security of women, will provide meaningful results for women and girls today and in the future. They will bring about real and lasting change. They represent a rapid increase in opportunities for women and girls to participate in the life of their communities and their country, and to enjoy a life that offers financial security and the freedom that brings.

In other words, they advance equality for women who might otherwise continue to face disadvantage, discrimination, poverty and violence as daily realities.

As announced in the last budget, over the next year we will develop an action plan that will advance the equality of women across Canada through the improvement of their economic and social conditions and their participation in democratic life.

In addition, we will be fostering the participation of women in leadership and decision-making bodies. Women's participation in governance bodies in Canada is vital to achieving enhanced economic prosperity now and in the future.

An organization's actions should accurately reflect its goals. With equality now included in the mandate of the women's program, the mandate, actions and goals of the women's program once again reflect a synchronicity that is fitting and makes sense.

[Afghanistan, March 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to stand in the House today in support of our government's motion on the future of Canada's mission in Afghanistan. This motion is not a Conservative position nor a Liberal position. It is a motion that represents the values and goals of a vast majority of thoughtful Canadians.

This is an important question, one that beckons us as parliamentarians to understand and express the very essence of our national purpose and identity, to recognize the commitment and courage of those who have fought to uphold our ideals and values and to commit, or not, our Canadian Forces, humanitarian workers and diplomats to responsibilities that will put them in harm's way. I can think of few other questions this House might consider that carry as heavy a burden. We must wear that responsibility proudly and thoughtfully.

One of the backdrops for this debate that has arisen on a regular basis is the notion, the myth really, that we are historically a nation solely of peacekeepers. Members speaking against this mission are inclined to use this argument in suggesting that Canada's current mission in Afghanistan is a departure from that supposed pattern and they are generally eager to extricate us from any combat role so that we can supposedly resume our traditional missions involving only peacekeeping.

One can see the reasons for this. Many in Canada value our peacekeeping heritage, as do I and my colleagues. It is appealing and perhaps more comforting for us to consider ourselves as peacekeepers. It allows us to be more easily differentiating ourselves from other countries in the world. Peacekeeping seems to be more noble and right and keeps us from taking sides, to be the respectful and peaceable country that we are.

We might take comfort in the fact that Canadian peacekeeping missions were less violent and that no shots were fired. However, that was little consolation to the peacekeeping soldiers who were not always able to avoid combat, the soldiers who had to withdraw and stand by while innocent civilians bore the brunt of the conflict.

There is simply no question that the nature of peacekeeping is changing. In 1991, Canadian Forces represented about 10% of UN peacekeeping personnel. By 2007, we had less than 1% committed to this type of mission.

I contend that the excesses of this myth, this misconception, is a disservice to the debate on the role of our military, be it for the future of our mission in Afghanistan or for any other missions we might undertake. It confuses the issue because Canada's contribution to collective security since the second world war, indeed, since the turn of the 20th century with the Boer War, has not been neutral. Canada has always taken a stand in favour of our national and strategic interests and our democratic values.

It is appropriate that members of the Liberal Party have worked to forge a consensus on the motion before us. Leaders of that party and former Liberal prime ministers knew and articulated the objects of collective security very clearly. In fact, I find it humourous when members of the fourth party quote none other than Lester Pearson in defence of their indefensible position.

Pearson understood and was a fervent supporter of collective security. He served as a private in the first world war and in the second world war as a diplomat for Canada. He worked with Prime Ministers St. Laurent and King and others who stood for a strong, assertive Canada, not relishing in the drama or tenacity of war, but for the logic and advantage of working with our allies collectively to defend against aggressors who would use violence and oppression to further their political ends in the pursuit of power.

In 1951, when he was the secretary of state for external affairs under Prime Minister St. Laurent, the hon. Lester Pearson addressed the Empire Club of Canada in Toronto and he stated:

We should accept without any reservation, the view that the Canadian who fires his rifle in Korea or on the Elbe is defending his home as surely as if he were firing it on his own soil.

He went on, adding and referring to considerations of how much or little Canada should contribute to collective security, saying:

...we must play our proper part, no less and no more, in the collective security action of the free world, without which we cannot hope to get through the dangerous days ahead.

Lester B. Pearson's words retain their relevance and wisdom to this day, but most assuredly Mr. Pearson was a humble man, because Canada did much more than was required of it. Mr. Pearson and his fellow soldiers in World War I certainly did, and our soldiers in Afghanistan are doing so today.

Prime Minister Pearson's sentiments shaped Canada's foreign policy and military posture in the years ahead. At the height of our peacekeeping missions in the 1960s and 1970s, there were upward of 1,600 to 1,700 personnel deployed for peacekeeping. Our Canadian Forces involved in peacekeeping performed admirably and helped to stave off conflict between warring states.

During that time, Canada had upward of 10,000 troops stationed in western Europe as part of our NATO commitment to the cold war. Our largest deployment of that era was in maintaining a defensive posture against the threat of Soviet expansion. The threat was real and Canada understood that. In Pearson's time, Canada still devoted more than 7% of GDP to defence.

If we are to stay with our Canadian tradition of contributing to collective security in the world, it will increasingly mean taking on more dangerous missions, and Afghanistan is no exception.

Unfortunately, an Afghanistan that is grasping for the chance to be free and stable forever does not suit everyone. There are elements there, violent Taliban extremists, for example, drug traffickers and renegade warlords, who would vastly prefer an Afghanistan that would be their own personal playground, never mind the 30 million or so ordinary Afghans who would once again be relegated to a miserable fate under their regime.

I contend that Canada's mission in Afghanistan is entirely consistent with Canada's historical role, a mission that is every bit as just, noble and meaningful as those of the nearly 100,000 Canadians, men and women, who gave their lives over the last century to protect and defend our security, indeed, the collective security of our world, shoulder to shoulder with their allies.

In the Afghanistan mission, we join with 37 other countries, 24 NATO countries among them, backed by no fewer than eight UN Security Council resolutions, at the invitation of a democratically government, in a country that is among the poorest in the world, where democratic governance and basic human rights were non-existent just a short time ago, indeed, where women and girls were denied any form of status, health care or livelihood.

Our efforts there are improving the lives of millions of Afghans who have suffered through decades of war. We are there helping them take their future into their own hands.

We can and will do this, not just to achieve the ability for Afghans to chart a new course for themselves: we will be advancing Canada's and Canadians' interests and safety in the process. Experience has shown us that when the world turns its back on the likes of the Taliban or al-Qaeda having their own way with a nation-state or people, global security, including the safety of Canadians, is put at risk. Protecting the safety of Canadians is the first and overarching responsibility our Parliament assumes.

With this motion, Canada has taken a clear position. It asserts that path with conditions for greater allied support so that we can leave Afghanistan in 2011 with the full knowledge and confidence of Afghanistan's new capacity for its own security and reconstruction.

[Tourism Industry, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's tourism industry is a $67 billion a year economic engine for Canada, employing some 1.6 million Canadians in over 200,000 businesses. It is a great industry. Unlike our Liberal members opposite, we are treating the tourism industry as the economic enabler that it truly is.

Could the Secretary of State for Small Business and Tourism tell the House what measures our government is taking to support Canada's dynamic tourism industry?

[Medal of Bravery, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, on February 29, I had the great honour of attending a commemoration at Rideau Hall that recognized a number of outstanding Canadians, including a constituent of mine from the village of Lafontaine, Ontario: Randy Smith, the Fire Chief of the Township of Tiny.

Fire Chief Smith and 10 others were awarded the Medal of Bravery for the courage and determination they displayed on August 27, 2004. On that date, a massive mudslide near Terrace, B.C., trapped two men in a river of mud and debris. Even with the threat of further mudslides and against heavy rain and thick mud, Randy and his colleagues risked their lives to rescue the two men.

Randy's wife, Donna, and their three children, Christine, Jason and Mark, are tremendously proud of Randy. I join with them in commending Randy and the 40 other true Canadian heroes who received Medals of Bravery last month and I invite all members of the House to also do so.

While I have the attention of the House, I might also congratulate the member for Cambridge, who happens to be celebrating his 50th birthday today.

[Business of Supply, March 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada made a commitment to child care across the country, which would put choice in the hands of parents. I point out that the amount is some $10 billion, virtually double what the former Liberal government committed to this same end.

In addition to that, we are working together with provincial and territorial governments to create new child care spaces. In the coming year alone, some 37,000 new day care spaces will be created, thanks to the cooperation by the ministers of our government.

On the pay equity question, the Minister of Labour has been very clear. More resources have been put in play and are directed toward those federally regulated and public service type positions, the only area of jurisdiction that our pay equity legislation can provide. He is addressing that. More inspections are being done. We are putting more work into pay equity as well.