Joy Smith

[Albert Redekopp, February 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on December 30, Kildonan—St. Paul suffered a tragic loss in the sudden passing of Albert Redekopp. At only 59 years of age, our entire community was shocked by the news.

A graduate of the University of Manitoba's faculty of law, Albert set up his law firm in North Kildonan, specializing in business and commercial law, but Albert also spent many hours helping those less fortunate, never turning away a client who could not afford to pay him.

He would also take time to lead seminars on wills and legal matters at seniors' homes. He was a pillar in our community, a man who was greatly respected. I am proud to have been able to call him a constituent, a landlord and a friend.

If a man's legacy is in the number of lives he has touched, Albert's impact will be felt forever. We will all miss him but his impact on Kildonan—St. Paul will last forever.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, February 2nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I heard a dialogue from a set of notes; the canned answer to any question we might have about Bill C-17.

We on this side agree to stiffer fines and jail terms for marijuana grow ops, but the penalties are still at the discretion of the judges. We want to push for set mandatory minimum sentences.

I will give an example. A guy was caught with a $440,000 grow op with the estimated value of growing equipment seized at $4,000. He was convicted and received a 30 day conditional sentence in the community with a fine of $5,000. He made an awful lot of money out of that deal.

From what is on paper I have to say that there has not been enough research nor has there been enough talk among police associations. I just visited my police association in Winnipeg, Manitoba and it thinks this bill is a joke. There were recommendations that were asked to be put in the bill by law enforcement. This is a flawed bill and it needs to be looked at. The intent may be good but the fact is the research and the substance is not there.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, February 2nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to have some time in the House to speak to Bill C-17, the marijuana bill. I asked a couple of questions in question period, but the answers were less than adequate. Bill C-17 is coming up in due course and there are serious ramifications with it.

The government has introduced the bill to address the needs of young people who are caught with very small amounts of marijuana in their possession. They would not receive a criminal record for that possession. There are different things that also need to be addressed with respect to the possession of small amounts of marijuana.

Something characteristic has happened here. There has been a gross mismanagement of Bill C-17. It is inadequate, and there is no national drug strategy around the legislation.

Bill C-17 would allow for the decriminalization of up to 30 grams of pot, which translates into 45 to 60 joints. A few years ago a bill was passed allowing people who were ill to use marijuana if they really needed it. It has been used by cancer patients and in other instances in controlled environments.

At this point in time it is easier to get drugs on a school yard than it is to get alcohol and cigarettes. Thirty grams of pot for recreational purposes is equal to 45 to 60 joints.

There has been no concrete research with respect to health and safety issues. In the area of health, it has been proven that there is 50% more tar on the lungs with the use of marijuana than there is with the use of cigarettes. Yet we hear across the nation talk about banning cigarettes and the serious health consequences of smoking.

Bill C-17 would allow 30 grams of pot, or 45 to 60 joints, to be used by young people without any ramifications. They also get a discount when it comes to fines as compared to adults. Young people who are caught with one to 15 grams of marijuana in their possession receive a fine of $100. Adults who are caught with the same amount receive a fine of $150.

I implore members opposite to take a second look at Bill C-17 before it goes any further. I implore them to take a serious look at the health consequences, at the law enforcement consequences and at the safety issues with respect to driving. Drunk drivers are fined more than someone who drives after taking drugs.

Bill C-17 is a flawed bill. It has not answered the questions about this problem, as asked by the public.

[Textile Industry, December 14th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, everyone knew about this. Everyone knew the time was up. The problem is that members opposite are the government body. They are supposed to be the people taking care of Canadian industries. They knew for 10 years that they were supposed to govern properly and did not do so.

Do I think subsidizing industries like this should go on forever? Nobody does. The government had 10 years to solve this and it did not do it. It is called incompetence. The members opposite should learn how to do a business plan and how to take care of industries in Canada, and stop blaming everybody else. Everyone knew about it. Everybody knew the time was running out.

Why did the government not problem solve? Why did it not build the industry? Why did it not do something about it?

When we came into this session, the only thing we could ask for was to extend those subsidies because the government dithered so much that nothing was done. It was the ninth hour. I love that question because it shows how empty and vacant the government is in terms of its plans to build up industry here in Canada. It is shameful.

[Textile Industry, December 14th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I would like to put some comments on the record this evening because I have found it very disheartening on how the minority government is working.

As some of the members on this side of the House have said previously, the present government knew for 10 years that this industry was in jeopardy and in trouble. It knew that on December 31, 2004, tariffs would disappear.

During that decade we had immigrants come to Canada. Many of them went into these textile factories. They have entry level jobs. They build their families. They learn to communicate. A lot of these immigrants learn how to speak English. They socialize and learn what it is like to be in this great country.

However, in this great country we had an incompetent government that knew for 10 years that this industry was going to be in trouble. The government knew for 10 years that something had to be done.

Today, on December 14, we suddenly get a news release, an announcement. Suddenly in question period we have a heads up that maybe later on in the afternoon we would hear something that would be of some use to the textile industry. It was a very disappointing announcement, too little too late.

On the up side of this debate, the pressure from the opposition has caused the government to take some action. Members from our side of the House recommended that the current duty remission orders be extended to benefit textile and apparel manufacturers, to be extended so that we could arrive at solutions. We also said that we had to do more than that. We had to problem solve. We had to come up with solutions for the textile industry. No long term solutions have been proposed by the government.

The sad part is that the government is so terribly disconnected from ordinary people. A lot of these workers do not have the money to fly down to a nice, warm climate to spend the Christmas break. They have other things to worry about. They have to worry about buying the groceries, buying the Christmas presents, and having a life where they can pay the mortgage.

The government has deliberately turned its back on the common people in this nation. It has happened in a most dismal manner. This is irresponsible governance. When a government knows that an industry in Canada is in trouble for a whole decade, it should have the resources and the wherewithal to do something about it.

This is December 14 and Christmas is coming on the 25th. How does the government think the families feel? I am sure that a lot of the families are not even aware that there has been this great announcement. Many businesses prepare at least six to eight months ahead of time for employment opportunities and for buying the raw materials that they need to make the garments.

What makes the government think that this is any kind of a solution at the ninth hour? There has been no pre-planning. There has been no business plan. There has been no action to cause the textile industry to grow. We have the raw materials. We have the people to work. Unfortunately, we have an industry in trouble. It is because of the poor planning of the current government.

Members from this side of the House have pressured the government on a regular basis to do something about this, not in December. As soon as this session started we rose and said that the time is up on December 31, 2004. We said that we will have real troubles. Members opposite turned their backs. They made no reply. Suddenly, December 31 is coming very close and the House is about to recess.

The government had to do something. Some 800 jobs were lost in Huntingdon. All of this is too little, too late. There is no problem solving. There is no vision. There is no business plan. The cost to human lives has been phenomenal.

For many families who are recipients of this news release, it is too little, too late. Businesses are closing down and plans have not been made. As we celebrate Christmas this year, government members opposite must understand that the ordinary people have lives too. They have children too. They have hopes and dreams too. We are the ordinary people and we are supposed to be representing the country in which we live.

Ten long years have gone by before anything was done and it was done at the ninth hour. When we look at the announcement and recommendations, we know that the finance committee unanimously voted that the government immediately extend, for a further seven years, the duty remission orders covering the apparel sector that are set to expire on December 31. That was unanimous. Why did it take so long to take action? It is plainly because of the dithering.

The current Prime Minister has a reputation for dithering and that trickles down to all the ministerial portfolios. In this instance no decision was made until it was too little, too late. The announcement said there would an elimination of tariffs on fibre and yarn imports worth up to $50 million per year and on imports of textiles used by the apparel industry worth up to $75 million effective January 1. That is no surprise. This has been talked about for months in the House.

Why could this announcement not have been made months ago? If it had been made months ago, families would have sighed with relief, bought a little bit of time, and would have been able to do something more with their textile jobs.

The announcement today said that the current duty remission orders would be extended benefiting the textile and apparel manufacturers for five years. Is this a surprise? This is no surprise. Members on this side of the House have been advocating this for months. How long does it take to whip up a press release? I am certain that members on this side of the House would have been very happy to give the government a little help to get this press release out. Unfortunately, on December 14, 2004, a lot of families will feel the impact of this dithering late announcement.

[Firearms Registry, December 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the federal gun registry will not be fully operational until 2007, 12 years after it was approved by Parliament and with a price tag of over $1 billion, representing cost overruns of nearly 7,000%, ranking the gun registry as one of the biggest Liberal lies in a long list of others.

A constituent of mine recently contacted me to inform me that while he was asked to pay to renew his licence, friends and family members were being given free renewals. Apparently, the government thinks it is fair to charge some Canadians for something while it lets others do it for free. If nothing else, government programs should at least be equally applied.

It is time for the government to admit that it was wrong to implement this registry, that it was wrong to spend more than a billion dollars on it and that it is willing to work with this side of the House to find solutions to gun violence that will work for Canadians.

[Citizenship and Immigration, December 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, last November 19 the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration told members in the House that she had in her possession a thick book full of requests from members on both sides of the House.

Will the minister commit to tabling this book today or if she continues with this cover-up, will she simply do the right thing and resign?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, December 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this week we had the great honour of a visit from the President of the United States. The United States has been our greatest ally in times of need and until recently we were viewed in the same light by our neighbours to the south.

The dinner held for President Bush on Tuesday night was a polite event, with many restrictions and careful orchestration to avoid any embarrassing situations. Unfortunately, beyond President Bush's acknowledgement that Alberta beef was on the menu, there was little else to chew on.

The government has chosen to indulge in petty and juvenile attacks on our greatest ally and trading partner, and ranchers in Manitoba, Quebec, Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan and countless other Canadians are now paying the price.

[Committees of the House, November 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, quite simply, here in the House of Commons we often forget about the fact that what is really important is what happens to our families in Canada. This is all about jobs and quality of life. We must keep that very important point at the head of the agenda that we have here in the House. Retaining these jobs and working quickly on this motion would do much to help that.

[Committees of the House, November 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put some comments on the record that I feel are very important. The member for Edmonton—Leduc did a great panorama and detailed synopsis of the reasons why it is very prudent in this day and age, right now in November 2004, to ensure that these recommendations are pushed through and action is taken.

I want to go over one aspect that has not been touched on at great length. As members know, duty remissions, which underpin Canada's apparel industry, are set to expire December 31, 2004. As a result of this, employment decisions have to be made. The apparel industry is the 10th largest manufacturing sector in Canada and because of this point, we can see quite readily how this is going to impact on families all across our nation.

More than 93,000 employees, working in approximately 4,000 establishments, are employed and are counting on this employment to bring bread to the table. The apparel industry accounts for 2% of Canada's total manufacturing GDP and 4% of manufacturing investment, as well as 4.4% of total manufacturing employment. So this is a very critical issue.

The president of the Canada Apparel Federation told the committee that this industry draws on a large range of skills, including technology employment suitable for some entrance to the Canadian labour force. In urban areas, where the industry is concentrated, entry level jobs enable these apparel companies to play an important role in socializing new entrants into the Canadian workforce. These entry level workers develop their language, their work skills, and confidence that allows them to move into more skilled jobs here in Canada.

This infringes on what I believe to be a very important statement that we make to the immigrants of our country. I just signed 58 letters in Kildonan—St. Paul for new immigrants to my riding who are very thrilled to be in the country. I must say that none of them are in the exotic dancing industry. Having said that, these are people who are employed in the garment industry. These are people who are looking forward to advancement in Canada and the kinds of decisions that are made in the halls of the House reflect on the everyday lives of new immigrants to Canada.

We have to look at what is happening right now. We are coming close to the Christmas season. If we look at the statistical studies across Canada during Christmas time, even though it is a joyful time for many people, it is not so joyful for those people who are looking at losing their jobs because of the slowness of the government on this issue. It is not so joyful to those families who are wondering if they can afford to have Christmas dinner.

With all due respect, the Prime Minister has been away on a world tour and we hear on a daily basis how he drops into one country on one day, climbs on the jet and drops into another country on another day, and makes wonderful photo ops and wonderful press releases, all having to do with what he feels his treasured words do to these countries. I would like to bring forward that it is more prudent in this day and age for the Prime Minister to be here in Canada at this time when we have critical legislation and decisions that have to be made that impact on Canadians and on immigrants coming to our country in a major way.

We on this side of the House stay in touch with Canadians. We care about what happens to them. I am very much in support of this motion. As we look at this more closely, I would implore members opposite to ensure that they address this issue in a very speedy manner so that families, who are waiting to hear what is going to be happening to their jobs and how it is going to impact on their families, will be able to rest assured that they will have employment.