Shirley MARTIN

MARTIN, The Hon. Shirley, P.C.

Personal Data

Party
Progressive Conservative
Constituency
Lincoln (Ontario)
Birth Date
November 20, 1932
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Martin
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=db5717d9-9a0a-4252-8107-5541dbd989e0&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
business services manager, businesswoman

Parliamentary Career

September 4, 1984 - October 1, 1988
PC
  Lincoln (Ontario)
  • Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works (October 15, 1987 - September 14, 1988)
  • Progressive Conservative Party Caucus Chair (March 31, 1988 - November 29, 1988)
  • Minister of State (Transport) (September 15, 1988 - February 22, 1990)
November 21, 1988 - September 8, 1993
PC
  Lincoln (Ontario)
  • Progressive Conservative Party Caucus Chair (March 31, 1988 - November 29, 1988)
  • Minister of State (Transport) (September 15, 1988 - February 22, 1990)
  • Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development) (February 23, 1990 - April 20, 1991)
  • Minister of State (Transport) (April 21, 1991 - June 24, 1993)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 48 of 49)


September 21, 1987

Mrs. Shirley Martin (Lincoln):

Mr. Speaker, last night I had the pleasure of joining with 1,100 Canadians of Italian heritage in celebrating the seventy-fifth anniversary of St. Anthony of Padua Church, the first Italian church in Hamilton, Ontario. It was established to serve the spiritual needs of immigrants from Italy working in the steel mills of Hamilton. Those steel mills are still contributing to the growth of our area as are the descendants of those first immigrants.

The Italian community brings a rich, cultural heritage to Canada of which it can be justly proud. But first and foremost, Mr. Speaker, these people are Canadians and this was amply demonstrated last evening. Yesterday's tribute was not only to St. Anthony's Parish but to the great contribution that Canadians of Italian heritage have made and continue to make, not only to the growth of the Hamilton area but, indeed, to all of Canada. I am pleased to join in this tribute.

Topic:   HISTORIC EVENTS
Subtopic:   SEVENTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY OF FIRST ITALIAN CHURCH IN HAMILTON
Full View Permalink

August 27, 1987

Mrs. Shirley Martin (Lincoln):

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate even though only six minutes remain before we adjourn. There are many things I would like to say about what this Government is doing, but I would rather take the time to speak to some of the comments made by members of the opposition Parties regarding what we have not done. I think it is important that these statements be corrected because they leave a false impression.

First, this Government has acted. Our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that child care was of great concern to our Government and action would be taken. The first parliamentary committee ever formed to study this issue was undertaken by an all Party committee. The committee sat longer than expected because of the number of people across the country who wanted to be heard. Even before we tabled our report on March 30 the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) had started to work with the provinces. His department and the provincial departments across the country started working towards a comprehensive approach to the needs of our children.

The comment was made that it should be on the table now. My colleague from Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher) talked about working with the provinces. I think the time spent working with our provincial counterparts and arriving at rules,

August 27, 1987

standards and objectives, will mean that when the response is tabled a lot of the work will have been done. It can then be implemented far more quickly than would be the case if we took a broad brush approach without the required detail.

My friend from Vancouver East said that by leaving it in the hands of the provinces we will have the lowest minimum standards rather than the highest possible. That comment is very unfair to the provinces and the people in those provinces who have worked towards providing child care. Certainly there is a need for improvement in the standards, but saying that the lowest minimum would be put in place if we left it in the hands of the provinces is being unfair. This is a big country, but in the last three years we have brought it together with a good understanding between the provinces. The Meech Lake Accord is a perfect example of that. What other Government has been able to bring the 10 Premiers together and arrive at a consensus on a very important issue?

As well, the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) talked about the fact that our recommendations did nothing to help people who had to pay for child care and then wait to get the tax refund at the end of the year. He talked about very low-income families and how they could not find the money to pay for child care. Had he looked into the report he would have found that low-income families do not have to wait because child care is paid for either totally or partially. A family in Ontario can earn between $18,000 and $27,000 a year and have child care paid for. A family in the Province of Manitoba can earn up to $19,000 a year and have child care paid for under the Canada Assistance Plan. That method is in place and low-income families have the child care paid for and do not have to wait for their tax refund. In addition, the committee recommended that CAP should be used more to help low-income single parent and two working parent families. Working parents who pay for their own child care receive tax benefits. For example, a family earning $40,000 a year paying for child care receives $544 in tax benefits. Under the committee's proposal, changing the current tax deduction to a tax credit, that same family would get $900.

There are recommendations for low and middle-income families, and recommendations to recognize those who by choice and by sacrifice decide to stay home and look after their own children because they believe they are the best people to bring up their child, to instil values. All parents in Canada deserve and are entitled to that right and the Conservative Government will make sure that that right is recognized and protected.

Another suggestion by the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) is that we failed to sensitize the public to the problems of child care. We held hearings in 31 cities, heard over 1,200 witnesses orally with an additional 800 written responses. We had newspaper coverage from coast to

coast, in every province and territory. Those stories told the people of Canada what the problems were and what was being done. We have sensitized the people to the problem.

I might say as well that there has been a proposal from the Orient to start six new child care centres in British Columbia. The cover on their proposal is the cover from Sharing the Responsibility. That is where they got the idea and that is why they are coming to Canada to set up daycare centres.

I see it is one o'clock, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the time.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   CHILD CARE
Full View Permalink

April 30, 1987

Mrs. Shirley Martin (Lincoln):

Mr. Speaker, the motion that we are addressing does indeed reflect a serious situation, not just for Canadian agriculture, and especially the growers of grain and oilseeds, but also for the suppliers of farm equipment, agricultural chemicals, as well as for the transportation sector and even the energy sector. In other words, Mr. Speaker, this debate involves not just one sector of our society

but indeed every Canadian in virtually all areas of this great country. It is a social as well as an economic debate. The future of the Canadian family farm is not something that can be decided solely on economic terms.

Our farm families have come to mean much more to us, and to most Canadians, than simply being the providers of various commodities. These families also represent a way of life which is desirable for many Canadians, and is indeed a way of life which many of our young people aspire to for themselves and for their children.

I am not saying that farming is an easy undertaking. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, like many of the Hon. Members of the Progressive Conservative Party, it was my privilege, and my responsibility, to farm in southern Ontario, along with my husband and our two children. And, Mr. Speaker, I can personally assure you that, compared to my experience in the business world, farming is far tougher in its demands. Farming makes it easy to go broke.

I do not know of any other area in small business where one must try to survive by buying retail and selling wholesale. I do not know of many other businesses where the determination of the price of the product is so totally out of the producer's hands, or where the rate of return on equity can fluctuate so dramatically from season to season.

And yet, Mr. Speaker, these incredible Canadian families persevere. They continue against these substantial odds. I say that these families deserve our admiration and our respect, for these families represent the values that we most respect in our society-values that include hard work; values that include determination; values that demonstrate a love for, and respect of, our environment; values that find their reward in benefits that could never be appreciated by those who measure success solely in monetary terms.

In dealing with the farm families of Canada, we are not dealing with people who wish to become rich, with people who wish to make a killing at the expense of the taxpayer; rather, we are dealing with people who want to perpetuate a way of life-and the survival of that way of life may ultimately mean more to those of us who inhabit the urban sprawl than to these farm families themselves.

I have heard statements from all Parties in this House about the need to protect and preserve our Canadian cultural identity. That identity comes from our backgrounds, from our roots, and is reflected by our great Canadian poets, authors, and painters. It is a cultural identity which is forever tied to our land and to the present and former generations who have tamed it and nurtured it. So, when we speak of a crisis in Canadian agriculture, we speak of a crisis which is all-encompassing, one which is manifested in not just financial terms, but also social and cultural terms.

But, Mr. Speaker, to listen to the comments of many of the members of the Opposition, one would believe that this crisis has only suddenly come upon us; that perhaps it crept through the barn door-and who knows when; that it has only just

April 30, 1987

decided that now is its moment to hurl its plague and the pestilence upon the farm families of Canada.

Well, I can assure the Elouse, Mr. Speaker, that that just isn't so. This crisis, as it may in fact be rightly called, has been with us for a long, long time. This crisis was visiting our agricultural communities in various forms long before Confederation, and this crisis will be back on our doorsteps again, awakened by such factors as weather, market prices, world surpluses and interest rates, and by those two indomitable characteristics of the human spirit, greed and fear.

In listening to some of the comments made during this debate, one could easily be deluded into thinking that the problems facing our farm families are the direct result of either government action or government inaction, that is, depending upon your political persuasion. If that were in fact the case, we could cut off foreign aid substantially by offering the services of our colleague in the other place, specifically Senator Davey, to provide rain to those drought stricken areas of our planet that so desperately need the surplus grains that our world has but cannot supply. To all but the most idealistic among us, there are limits to what Governments can do. Our farm families know this. They know that problems created by the European Economic Community cannot be solved through unilateral action in Ottawa. They know that product prices must be affected by a world-wide surplus. They know also that many of the problems they face today could have been avoided by proper planning, by effective marketing and by good management.

Two and a half years is not a long time to spend on the land, but it is the time that so far has been allotted to our Government for proper planning, effective marketing and to implement good management practices.

Our government policies are addressing the challenges of Canadian farm families in effective and substantive ways, ways which offer long-term solutions, ways which meet with the approval of our agricultural community. First, Canada is taking the lead in seeking international solutions to an international problem. Canada played a lead role at the GATT meetings in Uruguay, and agriculture is now part of the main agenda of present and future GATT discussions.

Second, our Government has not been content to sit back and wait for these international negotiations to produce results. Our Government has provided tremendous financial support, support that is unprecedented to Canadian agriculture. This support to the Canadian farming community has been so well articulated by many of my colleagues that there is no need for me to simply duplicate their rhetoric. There is no need for me to mention the special Canadian grains program and the billion dollars it will provide to the cash flow of grain producers. There is no need for me to mention the special Canadian grains program. Everyone knows about the $705 million just announced under the Western Grain Stabilization Act to put money into the hands of farmers when they need it

in time for spring seeding. No one should have to remind this House about the cash advances for unharvested grain that kept many farmers from going under in the fall of 1985 when their fields were wet and snow covered.

Our farm families know about this Government's record in amending the Western Grain Transportation Act and the announcement made by our Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) this afternoon. They know about the new commodity-based mortgages designed to take the heat off when commodity prices plunge around the globe. They know about interest rates and they know the interest rate coin too well. They still remember the other side of that coin, the side where they had to pay 20 per cent or more as a result of the policies and programs of the previous Government.

This debate may be important in emphasizing the problems of the Canadian farm community, but our farm families do not need to be educated about the value of our Government's policies. They recognize the benefits of what we have done and of what we are continuing to do.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, our Government has adopted a policy of marketing and is aggressively pursuing that policy on behalf of the farm families of Canada. This Government believes that it is its responsibility to sell Canadian grain. Through the distinguished efforts of the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer), Canada is positioning itself to take advantage of global marketing opportunities as the cycle changes and these markets turn around.

Negotiations have been completed on a new five-year deal with the U.S.S.R., a deal that will see 25 million tonnes of Canadian grains being sold and shipped to that country during the same period. Another 4.5 tonnes will be shipped to Brazil between now and 1988 as part of a new, long-term agreement. In terms of commodities, our Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board may go short on rhetoric but he sure goes long on sales. The agricultural management policies of this Government are clear, clear to anyone who cares to look.

First, the Government is dealing with the causes, not the symptoms. It is demonstrating leadership on an international basis. It is resolving a global problem at its very roots.

Second, this Government is providing interim support, support that is practical, support that is substantive, support that far exceeds that offered by any previous Government.

Finally, this Government is out there in the global marketplace hustling on behalf of the Canadian farmer and hustling successfully, bringing in the orders that are the only thing that will restore our Canadian farm families to vibrancy and economic health.

Our farmers will not be put off by political rhetoric. They will not be satisfied with interventionist programs designed by Government. Our farmers want action, action in dealing with offshore subsidies, action in helping them ride out the current market, action through aggressive marketing. In terms of action, our farmers are giving overwhelming approval to the

April 30, 1987

initiatives and the results that this Government has achieved for them and will continue to achieve in the future.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S. O. 29 AGRICULTURE CANADIAN GRAINS CRISIS
Full View Permalink

April 30, 1987

Mrs. Shirley Martin (Lincoln):

Mr. Speaker, the motion that we are addressing does indeed reflect a serious situation, not just for Canadian agriculture, and especially the growers of grain and oilseeds, but also for the suppliers of farm equipment, agricultural chemicals, as well as for the transportation sector and even the energy sector. In other words, Mr. Speaker, this debate involves not just one sector of our society

but indeed every Canadian in virtually all areas of this great country. It is a social as well as an economic debate. The future of the Canadian family farm is not something that can be decided solely on economic terms.

Our farm families have come to mean much more to us, and to most Canadians, than simply being the providers of various commodities. These families also represent a way of life which is desirable for many Canadians, and is indeed a way of life which many of our young people aspire to for themselves and for their children.

I am not saying that farming is an easy undertaking. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, like many of the Hon. Members of the Progressive Conservative Party, it was my privilege, and my responsibility, to farm in southern Ontario, along with my husband and our two children. And, Mr. Speaker, I can personally assure you that, compared to my experience in the business world, farming is far tougher in its demands. Farming makes it easy to go broke.

I do not know of any other area in small business where one must try to survive by buying retail and selling wholesale. I do not know of many other businesses where the determination of the price of the product is so totally out of the producer's hands, or where the rate of return on equity can fluctuate so dramatically from season to season.

And yet, Mr. Speaker, these incredible Canadian families persevere. They continue against these substantial odds. I say that these families deserve our admiration and our respect, for these families represent the values that we most respect in our society-values that include hard work; values that include determination; values that demonstrate a love for, and respect of, our environment; values that find their reward in benefits that could never be appreciated by those who measure success solely in monetary terms.

In dealing with the farm families of Canada, we are not dealing with people who wish to become rich, with people who wish to make a killing at the expense of the taxpayer; rather, we are dealing with people who want to perpetuate a way of life-and the survival of that way of life may ultimately mean more to those of us who inhabit the urban sprawl than to these farm families themselves.

I have heard statements from all Parties in this House about the need to protect and preserve our Canadian cultural identity. That identity comes from our backgrounds, from our roots, and is reflected by our great Canadian poets, authors, and painters. It is a cultural identity which is forever tied to our land and to the present and former generations who have tamed it and nurtured it. So, when we speak of a crisis in Canadian agriculture, we speak of a crisis which is all-encompassing, one which is manifested in not just financial terms, but also social and cultural terms.

But, Mr. Speaker, to listen to the comments of many of the members of the Opposition, one would believe that this crisis has only suddenly come upon us; that perhaps it crept through the barn door-and who knows when; that it has only just

April 30, 1987

decided that now is its moment to hurl its plague and the pestilence upon the farm families of Canada.

Well, I can assure the Elouse, Mr. Speaker, that that just isn't so. This crisis, as it may in fact be rightly called, has been with us for a long, long time. This crisis was visiting our agricultural communities in various forms long before Confederation, and this crisis will be back on our doorsteps again, awakened by such factors as weather, market prices, world surpluses and interest rates, and by those two indomitable characteristics of the human spirit, greed and fear.

In listening to some of the comments made during this debate, one could easily be deluded into thinking that the problems facing our farm families are the direct result of either government action or government inaction, that is, depending upon your political persuasion. If that were in fact the case, we could cut off foreign aid substantially by offering the services of our colleague in the other place, specifically Senator Davey, to provide rain to those drought stricken areas of our planet that so desperately need the surplus grains that our world has but cannot supply. To all but the most idealistic among us, there are limits to what Governments can do. Our farm families know this. They know that problems created by the European Economic Community cannot be solved through unilateral action in Ottawa. They know that product prices must be affected by a world-wide surplus. They know also that many of the problems they face today could have been avoided by proper planning, by effective marketing and by good management.

Two and a half years is not a long time to spend on the land, but it is the time that so far has been allotted to our Government for proper planning, effective marketing and to implement good management practices.

Our government policies are addressing the challenges of Canadian farm families in effective and substantive ways, ways which offer long-term solutions, ways which meet with the approval of our agricultural community. First, Canada is taking the lead in seeking international solutions to an international problem. Canada played a lead role at the GATT meetings in Uruguay, and agriculture is now part of the main agenda of present and future GATT discussions.

Second, our Government has not been content to sit back and wait for these international negotiations to produce results. Our Government has provided tremendous financial support, support that is unprecedented to Canadian agriculture. This support to the Canadian farming community has been so well articulated by many of my colleagues that there is no need for me to simply duplicate their rhetoric. There is no need for me to mention the special Canadian grains program and the billion dollars it will provide to the cash flow of grain producers. There is no need for me to mention the special Canadian grains program. Everyone knows about the $705 million just announced under the Western Grain Stabilization Act to put money into the hands of farmers when they need it

in time for spring seeding. No one should have to remind this House about the cash advances for unharvested grain that kept many farmers from going under in the fall of 1985 when their fields were wet and snow covered.

Our farm families know about this Government's record in amending the Western Grain Transportation Act and the announcement made by our Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) this afternoon. They know about the new commodity-based mortgages designed to take the heat off when commodity prices plunge around the globe. They know about interest rates and they know the interest rate coin too well. They still remember the other side of that coin, the side where they had to pay 20 per cent or more as a result of the policies and programs of the previous Government.

This debate may be important in emphasizing the problems of the Canadian farm community, but our farm families do not need to be educated about the value of our Government's policies. They recognize the benefits of what we have done and of what we are continuing to do.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, our Government has adopted a policy of marketing and is aggressively pursuing that policy on behalf of the farm families of Canada. This Government believes that it is its responsibility to sell Canadian grain. Through the distinguished efforts of the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer), Canada is positioning itself to take advantage of global marketing opportunities as the cycle changes and these markets turn around.

Negotiations have been completed on a new five-year deal with the U.S.S.R., a deal that will see 25 million tonnes of Canadian grains being sold and shipped to that country during the same period. Another 4.5 tonnes will be shipped to Brazil between now and 1988 as part of a new, long-term agreement. In terms of commodities, our Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board may go short on rhetoric but he sure goes long on sales. The agricultural management policies of this Government are clear, clear to anyone who cares to look.

First, the Government is dealing with the causes, not the symptoms. It is demonstrating leadership on an international basis. It is resolving a global problem at its very roots.

Second, this Government is providing interim support, support that is practical, support that is substantive, support that far exceeds that offered by any previous Government.

Finally, this Government is out there in the global marketplace hustling on behalf of the Canadian farmer and hustling successfully, bringing in the orders that are the only thing that will restore our Canadian farm families to vibrancy and economic health.

Our farmers will not be put off by political rhetoric. They will not be satisfied with interventionist programs designed by Government. Our farmers want action, action in dealing with offshore subsidies, action in helping them ride out the current market, action through aggressive marketing. In terms of action, our farmers are giving overwhelming approval to the

April 30, 1987

initiatives and the results that this Government has achieved for them and will continue to achieve in the future.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S. O. 29 AGRICULTURE CANADIAN GRAINS CRISIS
Full View Permalink

March 30, 1987

Mrs. Shirley Martin (Lincoln):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the final report of the Special Committee on Child Care in both official languages.

It is with great pleasure that I table the report. It represents 15 months of exceptional effort by members of all Parties. It is a report which I believe reflects the views of most Canadian families. It is a report that challenges the Government and its provincial and territorial counterparts, that challenges the child care system, volunteer organizations and, most important, Canadian families. It is a report which offers no simple solutions. It recognizes that no one approach can effectively deal with the unique and diverse needs of Canadians. With this in mind, it is important that the recommendations put forward by this committee be examined as a complete package rather than isolated components.

This report opens many doors. It is now up to all of us to ensure that Canadian children receive the love, encouragement and quality care they so richly deserve.

I would also indicate that the committee, in accordance with Standing Order 99 (2) requests that the Government table a comprehensive report to its recommendations.

Topic:   CHILD CARE
Subtopic:   PRESENTATION OF FINAL REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Full View Permalink