Ken Dryden

[The Québécois, November 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I usually use the phrase “aboriginal peoples” as opposed to “first nations”.

With the motion of last week that added the words “within a united Canada”, I had hoped that would represent a context that would help to more clearly define for average Canadians what nation meant and what we were really doing on this. In the subsequent days that followed that did not happen. In terms of the commentators, they would be using the word in whatever way it was most useful to them.

This question is important to all Canadians, as we have seen in the debate in the last three or four weeks. This is our country and this matters a lot to us. The way in which we get to debate it and resolve it is critical to what we end up resolving. The key to the whole thing is how we end up living with it out the other end.

The story the Bloc members will tell in terms of Quebec has nothing to do with the desire of creating a common understanding about nation. It is nation as a way of creating country.

[The Québécois, November 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the problem with this whole debate has to do with the many different understandings of the word “nation”. All we needed to do, after the motion was introduced last Wednesday, was to clarify the statements by the Premier of Quebec in terms of what the motion would represent, in terms of the laws, the reinterpretation of laws and of the different understandings of Quebec internationally. The day after that was the Bloc's statement in terms of what all of this represented. The problem in all of this debate is that we cannot have a debate if we do not have a common understanding of what it is we are debating.

The word “nation” has many different meanings outside of Quebec. Among most English-speaking Canadians the word “nation” is the same as the word country. My nation, my country. Canada is a nation and it is a country. For most francophones inside Quebec the word ”nation” has a different meaning whereby we can have many nations within one country and there is no predetermined destiny of where a nation will become a country.

However, we cannot have the kind of national debate on a subject that is so important and so fundamental when there is no common understanding on what one is debating.

[The Québécois, November 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this feels wrong to me. It felt wrong when the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party passed its resolution and it felt wrong when passionate worried debate rose up across the country.

It felt even worse last week when the Bloc tabled its motion.

It did not feel less wrong but it felt more hopeful, as if the worst might pass, when the government then presented its counter motion.

However, the disease reached its incurable, treacherous peak when the Bloc announced that it would support the government motion—

--saying that Canada will become the first country to officially recognize the Quebec nation and that there will be many other countries that will recognize the nation of Quebec and the country of Quebec.

My country is more than this. Canada is centuries and centuries of aboriginal peoples, their respectful relationship to the land, their culture and history.

Canada is the French and the English struggling to survive in a new world filled with difficulties in order to build new lives for themselves. They were different in their languages, their cultures, their religions and their legal systems, but they were committed to the same struggle, to live together; and they succeeded in doing that.

Canada has people from almost everywhere coming here, changing us and themselves in ways exciting and unknown. Canada has immense resources and unimaginable possibilities. Our future is still in the making and still in the becoming.

Canada is a great global experiment, a true global society that works in the only way our global world of the future can work. Canada matters. It matters to me. It matters to us. It matters to the world. Therefore, when we deal with constitutional change, with things that lay out what we are and shape our future, it matters and it matters a lot.

Meech Lake and Charlottetown, agree with them or not, we examined, we debated and we took time. Meech Lake and Charlottetown felt serious.

This feels wrong because it does not feel as serious as it must be. It feels like games, bad, manipulative, opportunistic games, political games. Box somebody into a corner so they say or do something they do not want to say or do just to get out of the corner, just to save face, for them to box the other guy into say and doing just the same. We all save face and all get into a bigger box, a bigger box called the future, except that box belongs to someone else.

All these games and manipulations are not for us. They only create a slippery slope for later on.

The public has learned to accept most things political but not this. The stakes are too high. The public is saying that this is their country. The government got itself into this but why should they join it. Canadians want to know why they should let the government do this to them when this is their country.

This is pure politics. All this started with the ludicrous concept of having a debate fundamental to the country based on understanding different understandings of the word “nation”. In the last few days it has deteriorated into the ludicrous reality of such a debate in practice.

For those who want to engage in the debate honestly, seeking definitional clarity, they can forget it. Other parties to the debate want none of it. They want to say “nation” means whatever they want it to mean now and to change definitions whenever they decide they want it to mean something different. They can then go to the public and argue, spin and try to achieve by misunderstanding what they cannot by understanding.

When I first arrived in Montreal, what impressed me most was the pride of Quebeckers. The English language and American culture had invaded the whole world. The Quebeckers had no chance of survival. However, they said “No; not us, not here”. They know who they are and who they will be, forever.

Quebeckers know who they are. They have had to. They could not have made it if they had not. They do not need any official definers to tell them who they are. Some day all Canadians will get down on paper what Canada really is, what Quebec really is and what together we have made ourselves to be. However, it will not happen this way. It cannot happen this way.

Does the Bloc really want to convince Canadians outside Quebec to accept Quebec as a nation.? Not at all.

The Bloc wants the process to be so inappropriate that all such Canadians will reject the question. It wants to grease that slippery slope so that Canadians inside Quebec will reject those outside Quebec and the Bloc's cause of independence will be advanced.

The pawn in this game is the public. As Canadians, we feel deeply about our country. Politicians and political advocates for decades have been playing games with our emotions, manipulating them for their/our own purposes. They/we have completely poisoned the well of discussion and debate on this question. No side trusts the other and no citizen trusts any politician.

Though it does not seem this way, the problem is not really the languages of French and English. It is the language of spin, manipulation and bigger agendas. Neither the government's motion nor the resolution of the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party will do anything except create greater division and distrust.

My country Canada is more than this. For me, the motion has no precise language, no precise depth of understanding, no time and mechanism to work this through, no clarity and no support. The government motion should be defeated.

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 15th, 2006]

With regard to government compensation to all victims who received blood tainted with Hepatitis C: (a) how many people are currently receiving compensation; (b) how many people have already received full compensation; (c) how many people are waiting for compensation; (d) how long will it take for all victims to receive compensation; and (e) what is the current status of negotiations between the government and the representatives of the class action suit?

[Kelowna Accord Implementation Act, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, while I am honoured to stand and support this private member's bill, I do so with deep regret, regret that the government has not deemed that the health and well-being of aboriginal Canadians is a priority, regret that it was necessary that the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard needed to introduce a private member's bill about the accord as opposed to the government honouring it on its own.

The world over, people point to Canada as an example of what they want their country to be, a country of inclusiveness, a country of tolerance, a country of people working together for the greater good. We are proud of our image, but in order for this image to be real, we have an issue that needs to be resolved.

The issue is the health and well-being of aboriginal peoples from sea to sea to sea. Last year, the government of Canada introduced a plan to eliminate the gap that exists between the aboriginal peoples and other Canadians.

That agreement was the Kelowna accord, the landmark Kelowna accord, agreed to by the Government of Canada, the premiers of all the provinces and territories and the aboriginal leadership. It was the culmination of 18 months of cooperation and collaboration, of trust and hope, of people putting aside the skepticism and cynicism of decades to try again, to believe again. It was a ground up, fully consultative approach.

The national aboriginal organizations were all at the table helping develop the policy and the targets that would see the gap between Canada's aboriginal and non-aboriginal people eliminated. The Assembly of First Nations was at the table. The Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami was at the table. The Métis National Council was at the table. The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples was at the table. The Native Women's Association of Canada was at the table. It was a historic moment. It was the beginning of a new day for Canada's aboriginal people.

Everything to which Canadians are entitled— housing, health care, economic opportunities and education—had been studied and reviewed. Facts were presented and goals were set. That was supposed to be a new beginning.

The fact that aboriginal Canadians are three times more likely to have type 2 diabetes, no longer would that be met with a shrug. A plan was put in place to reduce that number.

The fact that 20% fewer aboriginal people complete a post-secondary degree than non-aboriginals, no longer would that be met with apathy. A plan was put in place to increase the number of aboriginal post-secondary education graduates.

The fact that the unemployment rate among aboriginals is 12% higher than among non-aboriginals, no longer would that be treated as an afterthought. A plan was put in place to increase aboriginal employment levels.

It was the beginning of a new day. Then that new day was interrupted by a change of government. At first not all seemed lost. The new government appeared open to honouring the commitments of the former Government of Canada. The former Indian affairs critic, now the minister, said that he supported the Kelowna agreement. It did not last.

On budget day there was no money for the Kelowna accord. The landmark accord was abandoned. All the good works that had been accomplished in the previous 18 months were washed away, all the belief, all the hope. That was small, ungenerous, a breach of trust. Canada's aboriginal people again have been left to fend for themselves. That is not the attitude of the Canada I know. That is not the attitude of the Canada I believe in.

In my Canada it matters what is in my pocket, but it matters what is in my neighbour's pocket as well. In my Canada it is not just about me and now. It is about us and the future. In my Canada we know there are big challenging tasks we must do together, not in bits and pieces but as a whole, that capture the imagination, that generate the energy all of us need to see this through to the end.

That is what Kelowna represented. That is why it mattered so much. Its individual pieces were important but the former government, unlike the current government, understood that with a challenge so great, we have to make one plus one add up to more than two. That is why the process mattered so much. That is why the hopes and beliefs generated were so important. Kelowna was the crucial beginning of a new day for Canada's aboriginal people.

We owe it to every aboriginal person. We owe it to all Canadians and to our understanding of ourselves as a country, to what we are and what we want to be, to ensure that the gap in prosperity between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people is once and for all eliminated. It is for this reason that I stand here and support the Kelowna accord and this private member's bill.

[Jacqueline Albani, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I stand in the House today to pay tribute to a woman who gave to her family and her community all her life, Jacqueline Albani.

Born and raised in Toronto, Jackie left high school and a promising career as a violinist to look after her seriously ailing parents. Ten years later it would be her chance and she returned to school and graduated from university as a teacher.

For 29 years, teaching was her life's work but in retirement she found new purpose, working with her church, the Salvation Army and numerous other charities.

In 1995, with the planned closing of part of the military base nearby, she co-founded an organization to ensure the proper development of Parc Downsview Park for the future of her beloved Downsview area.

Jackie battled cancer and its effects for a long time but she always focused on tomorrow and the good that was left to be done. On May 11, Jackie Albani passed away.

I ask the House today to remember that very special woman.

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we signed an agreement with the Government of Quebec. In the nature of the agreement, the Government of Quebec received its share as other provinces would. At the same time, the understanding was that the money would go for the benefit and well-being, of families and children. That was an agreement that we signed.

It was an agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec for the benefit of families and children.

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal plan for a national system of early learning and child care, the understanding was that it was for early learning. It was to build a system and a sense of what a system is, like an education system or an elementary system. It would be there for everybody. It would be there for parents and kids in big cities and those in small towns.

One of the great advantages of the steps that we were able to take over one year was the fact that the provinces had about 48% more money to meet the needs of underrepresented areas like rural areas and underrepresented needs like people with special needs. This is exactly what creating a system means. This is not truthiness. This was a real system of early learning. This was a real system that would be there for every kid and kids with parents in lots of different circumstances and with lots of different needs. There are very few parents who, when they decide to stay at home, also do not want their kids having different experiences in somewhat different circumstances in the course of a week. This was not an all or nothing thing. It was not five days a week or no days a week. It was for a day a week, or two afternoons a week--

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Mississauga—Erindale.

Truthiness: something that is spoken as if true that one wants others to believe is true, that said often enough with enough voices orchestrated in behind it, might even sound true, but is not true.

Truthiness: $1,200 a year before taxes for every child under the age of six. The words say it is for child care but of course the money can be spent on anything: a brace for a child with a disability; for parents who work hard and never get a break, a night out; gas for the car. All good things, maybe necessary things, but still anything.

This is not a voucher and yet it is called the universal child care benefit. It could be called a universal transportation benefit, an affordable housing benefit. We could call it anything we want. And theatrical indignation and political outrage do not make it any different.

Truthiness: The word “universal”; we think of universal in terms of education or health care, something that is for everyone, but something that also meets basically all our needs in education or health.

Here, $1,200 before taxes. After taxes, for a family with an average income, less than half, less than $2 a day.

The average cost of child care in this country is $8,000 a year. Even your neighbour down the street who takes in two or three other kids costs more than $5,000 a year.

Here, $1,200 a year before taxes; after taxes, for a family with an average income, it amounts to less than $2 a day. The average cost of child care is $8,000 a year. It even costs the neighbour down the street, who takes in two or three other kids, more than $5,000 a year. However, the government says it is for everyone so it is universal. If we were to give 10¢ to everyone that would also be universal.

Truthiness: choice. Let us take the full $1,200 a year and imagine that every penny of it will go for child care, to give every benefit of the doubt. Let us pretend that truthfulness is actually truth. Will that $1,200 a year enable a family to afford to choose child care when otherwise it could not? Will it enable it to afford truly better child care? Will it put enough more money into child care as a whole to enable notoriously poorly paid child care educators to get paid better, to encourage the right people into the field and to keep them there, to offer the safe, interesting, exciting learning place parents want for their kids? No, no and no.

Will it enable a family to make a different choice? For one parent, usually a woman, to leave the outside workplace where she earns an average salary of $25,000, perhaps $17,000 or $18,000 after taxes, because now she has $1,200 or less in her pocket; $17,000 or $1,200. Let us see. Choice. Providing a broader inability to do just about everything. Choice? No.

Truthiness: the national system of early learning and child care we were creating with the provinces, the Conservatives called it “institutionalized child care”, “socialist style child care”. “Just governments putting money into each other's pockets”.

We have no federal child care centres and no provincial child care centres. What we do have are some municipal child care centres. They know that. The biggest child care provider in the country is the YMCA. The great majority are Bunny Bear Day Care and Tiny Tots Day Care. They know. They are in their ridings. Do Canadians talk about kindergarten and elementary school as institutionalized education? I do not think so. Why here?

“The only experts are mom and dad”, the Conservatives like to say. Moms and dads are experts. They have to be. However, what do moms and dads say about their daughter's grade two teacher? Is it possible that here and there parents might be looking for a little help to help them be even better parents?

Truthiness: Why say things that they know are wrong? Why do they not want the public to understand? What are they trying to do here and for what purpose?

The $250 million a year to build child care spaces is for bricks and mortar. We have a shortage of spaces and we have wait lists. If we encourage businesses and community groups to build these spaces, the logic goes that they will come. Who will come? Who can afford $8,000 a year. That is more than it is for university. We must remember that there is no other money here for subsidies. Who will come and who will not come and, if they do not come, who will build it?

Truthiness: The $1,200, let us call it what it is. It is a family allowance. If that is what makes the government proud then it should be proud of it. It should be proud of the truth but it is the truthfulness that is wrong, obscene and offensive.

It is the same throughout this budget for low and middle income Canadians, for aboriginal peoples, for students and for the environment. The government offers some programs because Canadians have said that each matters and matters a lot. It uses words that suggest more, deliver less.

Truthiness:

It is veneer. It is about now. It is about me. It is about illusion. We all want more money in our pockets, but Canadians also want more money in other people's pockets too. We want it now but for the future as well. To many people, this budget appeals to the least in us. We are so much more. This country is so much more.

It is veneer. It is about now. It is about me. It is about illusion. We all want more money in our pockets but Canadians also want more money in other people's pockets too. We all want now but we all want for the future as well. This budget appeals to the least in us. We are so much more. This country is so much more: not a vision but a blink.

What are the words we hear most often about the Conservatives' campaign platform in the last election and about this budget? It is clever. It is smart politically. All that is said with a sense of admiration for pulling it off, for its truthiness, and all the time in a rush to the next election wanting to move so fast our heads cannot stop spinning long enough for us to discover what truthiness really means. But in order for them to win the next election, who has to lose?

Black is black and white is white except if we need black to be white and then we call it white. We do it again and again, louder and longer, until black seems white. However, it is not and it will not be. In the Conservatives' early learning and child care and the rest, the more we look the less is there. Truthiness.

[Perry Kazemi, May 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to a remarkable woman.

Perry Kazemi was born in Tabriz, Iran. In 1985 at the age of 35, with her husband Sy and their children, she came to Canada. Thus began her love affair with this country.

Her husband describes her as the most considerate and compassionate person he has ever known. He would say to her, because Canadians are so polite and considerate, “Perry, you were born Canadian and you didn't even know it”.

In this country she started her own business, made friends with people of different backgrounds, created a garden and loved to make beauty with the flowers she grew. And always there was her family. She came here to build a new life for them. Her daughters have grown up. Two are married and there are two grandchildren. All of them are proud Canadians.

On March 27 Perry Kazemi passed away at age 55. In her 21 years here she made Canada a better place. The family she has left behind will make Canada an even better place in the future. That is the wonderful legacy of Perry Kazemi.