Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 25
View Brenda Chamberlain Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Brenda Chamberlain Profile
2007-06-07 18:47 [p.10318]
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member across the way but I did not hear him talk about two programs, one being the Big Brothers of Canada. It has had a cut of $200,000.
Last night I happened to run into the priest who is the head of Big Brothers right across Canada. I do not know if the member has spoken to him but I hope he will take the time and take it to the Prime Minister, because this is very serious. We have an organization in every town and city across Canada and this organization is hurting badly because of the $200,000 cut. I am making a very public plea here to ask the hon. member to go to the Prime Minister and ask for the reinstatement of those funds.
The member mentioned a whole lot of programs, and there is no doubt a lot of good in those programs. I am not downplaying that in any way, shape or form. However, the second program is literacy, a program that is hurting every community across Canada because of the cuts. The government cut a lot of money from literacy programs. As a past literacy provider, I can tell members that it is hurting some of our most vulnerable people, people who are in jobs and who cannot read, who have difficulty, who cannot progress and who are having trouble. There are young moms who need to administer medicines properly to their children but they cannot read.
The government has put a lot of people at risk by attacking those two programs.
My plea today is to ask the member to go to the Prime Minister and ask him to reinstate money for Big Brothers and for literacy. When we attack the ordinary, everyday person who is part of the Canadian fabric, who we are supposed to represent, we, the government, make a grievous error. I plead today for the reinstatement of these two programs.
View Brenda Chamberlain Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Brenda Chamberlain Profile
2007-06-07 19:14 [p.10322]
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's comments are right on. This was the point I was trying to make earlier to the Conservative member of Parliament who spoke. It is all very well and good to list a whole list of things they do. It is onerous, we cannot take it in, it is so huge that nobody really knows to what money has been given.
However, what we do know is what the Conservatives have not done, and I want to go back to literacy. These are programs on the ground. The two Conservative members of Parliament who just spoke will have these programs in their own cities and towns. These programs deliver service to people we represent who cannot read and who need that tool.
The Conservative government has taken $18 million out of that fund. It is extremely important that the money be reinstated. While members can list all kinds of things, we have to look at the person in the street who cannot read, the person in the street who cannot get along, people who the Liberals were actually helping. Now the Conservatives have taken that away.
I ask the hon. member—
View Brenda Chamberlain Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Brenda Chamberlain Profile
2007-06-06 16:38 [p.10224]
Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member made some excellent points. Interest deductibility is a very big issue.
One of the things the member for Yukon has circulated today is the fact that income tax has increased under the new government. Calling it a new government is kind of a joke. It has now been in power for a year and a half. I wonder how long it can call itself new and improved. It is quite comical.
The government ran in the last election and promised it would help Canadians, particularly lower and middle income Canadians. Now, for Heaven's sake, it has increased income tax. It is shocking that the government, which promised during its campaigned that it would not do such a thing, has done that. It is again another broken promise.
I want to draw attention also, as the hon. member did, to the fiscal imbalance. The Premier of Newfoundland is now running an ABC program, which is to vote anything but Conservative.
Could the member comment on those two points?
View Brenda Chamberlain Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Brenda Chamberlain Profile
2007-06-06 17:21 [p.10229]
Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a little bit about what the hon. member is yelling about right now, quite frankly, because it is a real concern to me when she talks about aboriginal people and what has happened to them. There was a thing called the Kelowna accord in case she forgets and there is a reason that it is not being implemented. It is because the NDP decided to bring down the past government.
The NDP is critical of everything. It does not matter what anyone does or what government works. It is critical, but it does not have positive solutions. There is a reason the NDP has 28 members.
View Brenda Chamberlain Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Brenda Chamberlain Profile
2007-06-06 17:23 [p.10229]
Twenty-nine. I stand to be corrected.
Things like the Kyoto accord which the NDP voted down. The Liberal government wanted to implement it, but oh no, the NDP wanted to go to the polls. This was important to that party. What about addressing the fiscal imbalance? We could have done that. Oh, no, the NDP did not want to accept that.
The member brings up child care. How can she stand in this House and possibly bring up such a thing when the NDP voted that down by bringing a Liberal government down. We had an agreement with every single province that we worked for years to get and finally it went down because the NDP had the nerve and the gall to let this country down on child care.
I have so many constituents who wanted child care, wanted Kyoto, and wanted a better deal for cities rights across Canada. I think that is shameful.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
View Brenda Chamberlain Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Brenda Chamberlain Profile
2007-06-05 17:00 [p.10180]
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member a question. I have worked in committee with the member a number of times and I know that he really does care about Canada.
The Canadian Council for Refugees is asking a fundamental question about this. Why is such work available in Canada if it humiliates and degrades workers? That is a key issue.
While the government is doing a lot of things that are not unimportant, what I am having a significant problem with is that it appears that some of what the government has tried to do is for political gain rather than addressing the root question of where we are going wrong as Canadians in allowing this sort of work.
I would ask the hon. member to tell me and all Canadians exactly what the government of the day is doing to address that. It is very important, much more important than the Conservatives calling themselves the new government or trying to brand themselves as something different. I think Canadians want to know what the government is going to do to help us in this matter and to make a better Canada. That is what is important. That is what is at stake.
View Brenda Chamberlain Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Brenda Chamberlain Profile
2007-06-05 17:20 [p.10183]
Mr. Speaker, in Bill C-57 there is no doubt and it is indisputable that there are some areas that need to be looked at, but there are so many other areas that are so very important as well. My hon. colleague from Scarborough—Agincourt talked about doctors working as cab drivers.
I know that this new government, as it wants to call itself, talked a lot about that in the last election campaign, how it would fix that up, and how it would help those people. I make that appeal to this new government which really is not very new any more. It really is quite old and it is getting a little tired.
People are telling me that they are still out there working as cab drivers. They still need the help and they are not getting that help from the government. I am glad that my colleague is continuing to push this issue because I know he has for a long time campaigned on this very thing.
The lost Canadians again is a very important issue which the government is not addressing. I think that it really needs to do so. I ask my hon. colleague who spoke about this what his thoughts are on it?
View Brenda Chamberlain Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Brenda Chamberlain Profile
2007-02-21 14:01 [p.7121]
Mr. Speaker, people across this country have expressed strong support for Steven Truscott in his efforts to clear his name. Those in his community of Guelph are no exception.
People like Alice Hebden, a resident of Guelph for 80 years, knew Steven when he was at the Ontario Training School for Boys. She described Steven as kind, good natured, and someone who would do anything for anyone. During their time together at the school, Alice grew to love Steven like a son.
Throughout her decades as cook for the school, Alice saw so many troubled youths, but Steven stood out as someone special. When she passed away two years ago at the age of 99, Alice still believed in Steven and in his innocence. To her dying day she stood with Steven in his fight.
Stories like these are not rare for people who know Steven.
I would like to thank those in my riding for their continued efforts and the support that they have shown throughout this struggle for justice.
View Brenda Chamberlain Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Brenda Chamberlain Profile
2007-02-06 14:05 [p.6460]
Mr. Speaker, as parliamentarians, we recognize the importance of having the love and support of our spouses and families. Without them, we would not be able to do all that we do.
Today I stand to pay tribute to a very special spouse in my riding, Marlene Truscott. For 36 years, Marlene has stood with her husband, Steven, in his fight for justice.
Marlene and Steven were first brought together by Steven's fight to clear his name. He has often acknowledged that “If anyone really wants to know how I have survived the last 34 years--Marlene is the answer”.
Together with their family, Marlene and Steven are continuing their fight before the Ontario Court of Appeal. They have climbed this mountain together and they are so close to making it to the top. I know that their love and respect for each other will get them through these very public days, weeks and, potentially, months ahead.
I would like to thank Marlene Truscott for the example of love and support that she has shown to every single one of us.
View Brenda Chamberlain Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Brenda Chamberlain Profile
2006-10-25 15:32 [p.4233]
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to present three petitions signed by members of my community and Canadians across Canada.
The first petition is on Canada's immigration policies. The petitioners call upon the government to increase the number of refugees allowed into Canada and to make it easier for refugees to come to Canada.
View Brenda Chamberlain Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Brenda Chamberlain Profile
2006-10-25 15:33 [p.4233]
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is with regard to the Falun Gong. The petitioners call upon the government to do more to address the situation facing Falun Gong practitioners in China.
View Brenda Chamberlain Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Brenda Chamberlain Profile
2006-10-25 15:33 [p.4233]
Mr. Speaker, the third petition calls upon the government to raise the age of consent in Canada from 14 to 16 years of age.
View Brenda Chamberlain Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Brenda Chamberlain Profile
2006-10-17 15:24 [p.3893]
Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how a change in seating arrangements can change one's mind. The government cannot be the same party that just one short year ago sat on this side of the House decrying the notion of settling for anything less than a complete and outright vindication for Canada.
I wish to quote for members from page 19 of the Conservative platform:
A Conservative government will:
--Demand that the U.S. government play by the rules on softwood lumber. The U.S. must abide by the NAFTA ruling on softwood lumber, repeal the Byrd Amendment, and return the more than $5 billion in illegal softwood lumber tariffs to Canadian producers.
That is some pretty tough talk, which I think most in the House and most Canadians across this country could get behind. As a matter of fact, my party and I campaigned on roughly the same position, stating that:
The recent string of NAFTA decisions in Canada's favour continue[s] to be valid and must be respected--the United States remains legally obligated to revoke the tariffs and refund, with interest, all duties collected, totalling more than $5 billion. A Liberal government will continue to wage a vigorous legal and political fight with the United States government and industry and will continue to consult with the provinces and Canadian industry on the best way to achieve a final and lasting solution.
So here we are in the House to debate legislation which breaks the government's election promise, legislation which settles for a loss instead of a win, and legislation which brings in a politically expedient quick fix at the cost of the future of an industry and a way of life in Canada.
Need I remind the government that Canada's legal position prior to the introduction of the Conservative government was supported by numerous decisions by international trade tribunals and by the courts in both Canada and the United States, and yet the government has settled for less, and a great deal less.
Further, I think this complete surrender to the United States government on this file only sets up this government--and more importantly, future governments--for hardship and failure on any number of issues in the future. I guess Washington knows that in future disputes with Canada the new government may not have the will or the stomach to stand up for Canada and fight when it is right to fight.
This outright abandonment of Canada's position that our softwood industry is not subsidized shreds any notion that the dispute resolution provisions of NAFTA can work. It will only reinforce the will of certain U.S. legislators and bureaucrats that they can flaunt international rules any time they want and anywhere they want on any trade agreement.
This deal is a bad deal for Canada. The criticisms have been articulated here in the House and across this country. It leaves $1 billion belonging to Canadian companies in the hands of Americans, $500 million of which is at the disposal of the U.S. lumber industry to use to fund legal attacks against us, against Canadians. They will use money from the Canadian softwood industry to attack that very industry.
This deal creates an export tax that at current price levels is actually higher than current duties and will create an unfair and unprecedented tax regime which will impose crippling export duties on softwood. It limits the government's ability to help the softwood industry, and it undercuts our rules-based trading relationship with the United States. Let me say again that this is a bad deal. If the members opposite say this is the best deal they could get, then I say they were not trying hard enough.
My mother always said that we can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but I want to give credit to the Standing Committee on International Trade. Committee members took a bad agreement and tried very hard to make it better. Some of the committee's recommendations included: advocating more time to conclude a final agreement that would meet the softwood industry's expectations; making sure to obtain an effective mechanism to resolve any disputes that may arise over the interpretation of that agreement; and upholding Canada's legal victories. I will say that again: upholding Canada's legal victories.
We have won a number of legal cases on this issue. It seems to me that when we have won such a number of cases, legally and morally, it is up to both of us to collect upon and enforce this decision. When we do not, we weaken the very reason we would go into arbitration.
When awards are won and parties do not have to live up to the terms, future decisions are threatened and undermined. In this case, this could have far-reaching effects on various other aspects, not only in this industry but also in many other areas of government.
With this agreement, we are letting down our workers in the softwood lumber industry. Further, many other industries face similar trade problems. Therefore, through admitting defeat on this issue, we would be letting down many Canadians from coast to coast. Is this truly what the new government intended to do?
From having served for over 13 years in this House, I know my colleagues from every party are trying, to the very best of their abilities, to do the best jobs they can for Canadians. I truly I believe that. However, to not acknowledge the weakness of not enforcing awards is doing very serious damage. That is why it is so very important that we push the new government to try to get international trade rules upheld, acknowledged, accepted and enforced.
The committee's recommendations did not stop there. The fact is that the committee's report also advocated a flexible ceiling under option B. It also advocated flexibility for those under option A. The aim was to ensure that the industry was not excessively penalized for sudden and temporary increases in exports to the United States. The Standing Committee on International Trade also recommended that every measure be taken to ensure that Canadian companies, with interest, would have their due share of countervailing and anti-dumping duties within 90 days of the conclusion of this agreement. These are only a few of the strong recommendations that the Standing Committee on International Trade made.
In the past election, the Conservative Party talked a lot about how important committees were. Conservatives talked about the fact that if they were elected, they would listen to the committees because they believed that the committees represented all parties, many points of view, and most of all, balance.
It is hard for me to understand, when the committee has come out with such very strong recommendations from an extremely rigorous examination of this issue, that the government essentially chooses to completely ignore that report. I am sorry for that. I, too, believe that balance is important in our decision making. We must be willing to weigh the pros and cons of every situation and we know, as parliamentarians, that our final solutions will not please everyone. They rarely, if ever, do, but we as parliamentarians must strive for that balance. We must hear all points of view and we must not tune them out, as the Conservatives are doing at this point.
I would ask the government to revisit that committee report and re-look at some of the committee's recommendations, which were put forth in good faith. I believe Canadians are looking for a government, no matter which party forms it, to give balance, to listen and, at the end of that process, to make the best possible decision for Canada and all Canadians. People want no less of the government. People are tired of the bickering, and I cannot say that enough. Every time I go into the riding, I hear how people are tired of parliamentarians bickering. They want us to work together for the best solution.
This is an important file. We have worked on it for a long time together, perhaps some would say too long, undoubtedly. However, to sell out is not the proper way to go about this. When there are areas that have been hard fought and have been legally won, we should not abandon those victories.
It is, indeed, a great challenge to try to not only protect this industry but to help ensure it flourishes. The softwood industry is an important part of Canada's economy, particularly in many rural parts of the country. We need to keep this industry strong to help both our national economy and the local economies of the communities where this industry is based.
The industry offers Canadians good jobs, jobs that we need. We must do everything that we can to support it and the Canadians making their living from it. Please, do not sell us out.
View Brenda Chamberlain Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Brenda Chamberlain Profile
2006-10-17 15:35 [p.3894]
Mr. Speaker, first, my mother, and I loved her very dearly, had a lot of sayings. However, I did not say she coined that phrase. I did say she said it and she said a lot more. She often repeated these sayings to me when I was very little. People say to me that I repeat these a lot. That is because I loved my mother a great deal. Therefore, I ask the hon. member's forgiveness.
The issue is this it is not a good deal. We are forgoing legal positions that we have won legal restitution, and that is serious for us.
I am sure members have seen the Globe and Mail today. I do not like what it says. It says “The softwood sellout agreement”. It goes on to say that the new government has said it would forgo $1 billion of the total duties owed and agreed to a new border charge as high as 22.5%. The Conservatives are not speaking about this, and that is quite serious. The Canadian people need to know that this is the kind of a deal to which the Conservatives are agreeing.
The hon. member has said that provinces are wanting this or are saying that they may want it. At the moment, there is some truth that. Some of the industry is saying that, but some are quietly saying they are very nervous about these new charges and the fact that the legal situation appears still to be very murky.
To have quiet agreement that industries will choke down it for short term gain for long term pain is very serious.
I know the new Conservative government wants to try to do a good job. I know this file was important for the Conservatives to hold up as kind of mantra and say, “Look it, we did this. We solved this”. To solve it incorrectly, to solve it on the backs of an industry, which in a short time will go down because of this deal, is not the right thing. This is why it is so important that we try to get this deal better.
View Brenda Chamberlain Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Brenda Chamberlain Profile
2006-10-17 15:39 [p.3895]
Mr. Speaker, that is also one of my main concerns, so I share the hon. member's concern on this. If this, what next? Where next do we go on our knees? Where is the protection?
The Globe and Mail today also spoke on the issue and said that we finally had the U.S. in one of its very own courts, it was losing and we quit. We have to ask why do we abandon when we are winning in legal courts?
Results: 1 - 15 of 25 | Page: 1 of 2

1
2
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data