Wayne Marston

[Committees of the House, October 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor and the member for Saint-Lambert for the information they are providing us today.

I was a volunteer member on the Workers Arts and Heritage Centre in Hamilton. I was really struck when I heard government members talking today about the fact that money was available, but people were not sophisticated enough to access it. It strikes me that it would be the government's responsibility to help people who are not sophisticated and need access to their government and government programs.

I was extremely disappointed to hear a government member today comparing Bill C-25, Bill C-26 and Bill C-27. These are very serious pieces of legislation. The member was saying this should be minimized debate. It sounds to me as though the government started searching for programs it wanted to cut and unfortunately it chose this one.

[Road Race to Kenyan Relief, October 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as a result of a chance meeting between Joseph, an elite Kenyan runner and a Hamilton school teacher, John Smith, a year and a half ago, the Road Race to Kenyan Relief was founded.

On Friday morning I hosted a breakfast for a unique group of students and their teachers from Glen Brae Middle School in my riding.

I met Carissa and Zarwa who, as grade 8 students, organized a one hour walk/run-a-thon in April 2005 that raised $3,125. I met teacher John Smith who, with his students this past year, organized a similar walk/run-a-thon and raised a total of $7,000.

Since the beginning, the students and teachers of Glen Brae have adopted three schools in the Kenyan central plateau, Kirima, Kirima-Ngai and Madaraka primary schools. These students of Glen Brae have raised $10,000 to help improve the sanitary conditions of over 1,200 rural school children.

I hope all members of the House will join me in saluting John, Carissa, Zarwa, and all the educators and students at Glen Brae for their outstanding work.

[Business of Supply, October 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member's government has chosen to cut the court challenges program. The court challenges program helped ordinary people.

Basically, the government rendered the National Action Committee on the Status of Women impotent. This group fought so hard and so long for women's rights and equality. The government has cut programs that helped young people get jobs.

Does the government not understand that during times of surplus and times when the government does have the money, that is the time to invest in Canadians?

[Business of Supply, October 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question. I am just wondering where all of the Liberal members were. Were they out having a corporate lunch?

[Business of Supply, October 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. The motion brought before us today from the member for Markham—Unionville is, to my mind, a further example that the Liberals have lost none of their arrogance. The self-congratulatory message in it is typical.

Earlier today when the member for Winnipeg North was in this House critiquing the Liberal government's past record, there was not one single Liberal present over there. I guess they could not save face by defending themselves--

[Business of Supply, October 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, when the motion by the member for Markham—Unionville came before us today, I was quite struck by it. During the 1990s, I was part of a group of people in Hamilton who were very concerned with the changes taking place in our government.

Members will recall in the mid-1990s the Canada health and social transfer was changed in a fashion that caused government transfers to be less to provinces and the ripple effect that went through our economy when those provinces started downloading their responsibilities to the municipalities at a great cost to them. At the same time we saw unemployment insurance change to EI. In the days where some 80% of workers received benefits, it was reduced.

Would it not be reasonable to expect any government, which has a $2 billion surplus in EI funds, not to apply those to general revenues but to put them, instead, into retraining for workers, especially those workers sold out by this softwood sellout?

[Criminal Code, October 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the comments of the member of the Bloc on Bill C-19.

In my hometown of Hamilton, particularly in the Hamilton East—Stoney Creek area, this bill has raised some concerns and questions. In the local Tim Hortons while sitting down with some friends I was asked if street racing meant operating a motor vehicle in a race with at least one other motor vehicle on a road, street, highway or other public place. That was quite straightforward, but they got a little concerned when I went on to explain that anyone who by criminal negligence caused death to another person while street racing would be guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life. The response came back, “Is criminal negligence causing death not already in our Criminal Code?” They also asked why would the government want to do this?

One of the persons I was sitting with had a life experience that troubled me greatly when he related it to me. As a young man of 19 years of age in the province of Nova Scotia he was riding in a car one night with some friends. He did not know the driver well. He was offered the opportunity to drive the car, which he did. He ultimately wound up being pulled over by the police. He was the only one who was caught in a stolen vehicle. Part of the common code was that one does not rat one's friends, so he did not. He wound up in penitentiary and the first night he was there, he was assaulted.

The reason I raise this in the context of this legislation is a warning that came from those good citizens in the coffee shop about what potential there is for damaging our young people by sending them off to prison for partaking in what they see as innocent fun, but we all know absolutely that it is not innocent fun.

Do you believe that this legislation will meet the test of actually getting street racing off the street, or is it only an answer to a hot political question?

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 29th, 2006]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the help. I am a new member in the House and your advice is always well received.

Again, all I can say is that in my view, in the view of my party and in the view of the critic in this area, this softwood deal is a major sellout. I stand by that.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that the member heard my previous logic.

On the situation in Ontario in 1990, the hon. member asked about the government of the day. As I recall, that was two years into the free trade agreement. The 500,000 lost Ontario jobs that I just spoke of took away funding from the tax base. We were in the worst recession in the history of our country at that time. That government ran three successive deficits of $10 billion, $9 billion and $8 billion to keep people employed and to keep the economy moving.

Would I have made the same choices? I do not know. I was not sitting around the cabinet table. Did I agree with the social contract? No, I did not agree with the social contract, end of story.

Getting back to the hon. member's point, he talked about how the previous government showed no leadership and all kinds of things around that particular file. I will remind you that you brought the Minister of International Trade--

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for raising this. As I referred to in my remarks, under our trade agreements we have a dispute settlement mechanism that we may as well not have. It is astounding.

The member talked people being forced off an issue, but when it is our own government that is forcing us off the issue, that is amazing. Our own Minister of International Trade is pushing at Canadian companies. It astounds me. Members might note that I am lost for words at times on this, because it flies in the face of everything that this House represents or that a minister should represent in this House.

As for our role, I will remind the Conservative members that they had as their campaign slogan “Stand up for Canada”. If this is the way the Minister of International Trade will stand up for Canada, God help us all.