Jean Augustine

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with considerable confidence to speak in rebuttal to the hon. member's motion.

I am proud to be a member of a government and party with a heritage of unprecedented sensitivity and action on real and practical measures to promote the economic equality of women. I will deal with the question of our history and the economic reality of women.

The strength and vitality of the women's movement in Canada today can be traced back to the moment of clarity and power experienced 25 years ago. The occasion was the 1970 landmark report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women.

At that moment women in Canada realized that equality of opportunity had become achievable. It was not just a Liberal government establishing the royal commission against all odds in 1967. It was also the will of women to make it happen. It was the alacrity with which the Liberal government of 1970 moved to respond to the commission's recommendations that inspired women to redouble their efforts to advance their status.

I think the member will agree with me that a Liberal government appointed Canada's first minister responsible for the status of women and the work that took place in 1971. A Liberal government established the office of the co-ordinator of the status of women in 1971 which has now become Status of Women Canada, the federal government's lead agency for government policy co-ordination related to women's equality. A Liberal government created the women's program in 1973 to provide financial and technical assistance to women's organizations and other voluntary groups working to promote the equality of women. The member knows the rich heritage and history of Liberals and their commitment to women's issues.

With the support of the Liberal government today women have succeeded in making the workplace more family friendly. Women are obtaining the support they need to balance work and family responsibilities for young children, for aging parents or for both.

Today with the support of the Liberal government women have also put issues like sexual harassment, pay equity, et cetera, on the workplace agenda. With the support of the Liberal government women are convincing other areas in society that these kinds of employment issues are not just women's issues. They are societal issues and they belong to all of us, men and women.

With the support of the Liberal government record numbers of women have started their own companies. In Canada today women operate 39 per cent of small businesses. According to the most recent survey undertaken by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business women entrepreneurs are doing very well.

Small and medium sized businesses are the major engine driving our economy, creating 85 per cent of all new jobs in Canada. According to my math, that makes women the major players in job creation in Canada today.

What is particularly encouraging is the increasingly dominant role younger women are playing in the creation of new businesses. As Le Devoir noted last week, 51.4 per cent of Canadian business proprietors under age 25 are women. According to 1991 figures complied by the CFIB, this compares to a 1981 figure of 30.6 per cent.

This is a good record and one that speaks highly of the government's support of the economic equality of women. This is the substance of the motion. All indications are that the growing prominence of women in small business will prove to be a major factor in our country's future growth.

I am pleased to note that the small business sector was the focus of several important commitments made in the budget of February 27. The finance minister declared the government is determined to remove barriers to the success of small business. We are equally determined to provide practical assistance to help Canada's small business survive and grow. It is essential that small businesses have access to the financing they need in order to continue being our number one creator of jobs.

To add to this the government will be working with the banks over the coming months to hammer out meaningful benchmarks for small business financing. One of the things we will be looking for is hard data on the success rate of women owned businesses so that banks can come to see that opening their doors and their pockets to women makes good business sense.

The budget also announced that we are substantially reducing government subsidies to business. In today's economy these subsidies are simply not cost effective in terms of job creation, productivity or growth. Nobody knows that case more strongly than business itself.

The government has decided to concentrate on the key engines of economic growth, as I mentioned, looking at the areas of science and technology and trade development. In fact, the government is working to create a policy environment that will

encourage and reward the innovation and flexibility needed to pursue the opportunities of the new global marketplace.

The potential is clearly there. The government recognizes that the women of our country have the imagination and determination to fully participate in the growing world economy.

It is important for the member who is speaking so eloquently on the gaps in the meeting of our specific and individual needs to note that the government and the members on this side of the House recognize the way in which we need to work and the progress we need to make in order to meet all of the requirements in the provision of the quality of life for women and their families.

In terms of the economic question and the motion on the floor, this motion needs to be rebutted. The Liberal government is fully aware of the commitments we need to make to the economic situation of women.

[Translation]

[Petitions, March 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have two petitions to present.

In the first one the undersigned petitioners of Canada draw the attention of the House to the fact that the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act will provide certain groups with special status, rights and privileges. These special rights and privileges will be granted solely on the basis of sexual behaviour. Inclusion would infringe on the historic rights of Canadians such as freedom of religion, conscience, expression and association.

Therefore they petition Parliament to oppose any amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that would provide for the inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation.

The second petition is more or less in the same tone. It calls on Parliament not to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recollect for my hon. friend our experience across the country. Over and over we heard the messages. Maybe we interpreted them with different ears. However, people told us over and over about jobs and the creation of jobs. They told us that the best social security for individuals was the ability to find work and the ability to provide for their families.

It is also important to note that the individuals who spoke to us on a number of issues stressed quite strongly the fact that they wanted the involvement of the federal government. They wanted some principles, some national standards, and some way of operating that would ensure protection and security in the fact that the federal government would provide the necessary support.

As federal legislators, the expectation from us is to ensure that we provide the kind of economic climate in which individuals will find jobs.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join in the discussion today. For too long in Canada we have been living in a context which ignores the future implications of our actions. The government has done much more than sit back and wring its hands about the serious economic situation of our country.

Canadians and the governments they elect, whether locally, provincially or nationally, have for a long time been well aware of the impact of the deficit, of how it undermines consumer confidence, of how it diminishes our ability to compete internationally, and of how it robs our children of an economically viable future.

More often than not governments did not act, refused to act. On February 27, 1995 the government demonstrated its willingness to act. The government demonstrated its courage and commitment to make the necessary sacrifices to ensure a better future for Canadians. The Liberal government has submitted to the House a framework that will deliver back to our country and to its citizens the confidence and optimism needed to create a strong, dynamic economy, which is necessary in the context of market globalization.

To listen to the members across the way we would think that point has been missed on them. As a member of the human resources development committee of Parliament I am in a position to say that the strong actions taken in the budget reflect our determination to maintain our commitment to the principles of the Canada Health Act and reinforce our commitment to work with the provinces to provide better and more affordable services.

The provinces have always argued that they are closer to the people, that it is their constitutional prerogative to administer social programs in a cost effective way. The Canada social transfer will be negotiated by the Minister of Human Resources Development and will allow them to do just that.

The bottom line is that Canadians want both government levels to work together to manage social programs better. The budget continues the fundamental structural reforms needed to do that. If we do not act now, our social programs will not survive in the future. We care about our systems of health and education. We care about protecting seniors and the most vulnerable in society.

I would like to share with the House some recent experiences in my riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore. My constituency office receives numerous calls on a daily basis. In the recent days preceding the budget I received well over 800 calls from constituents asking me to convey their thoughts to the minister that personal income taxes should not be raised. This was a message that I as well as other members of the House communicated to the Minister of Finance.

I knew the finance committee had been around the country. We heard Canadians tell us what should be done. I am here to say that the process worked. The views of Canadians are reflected in the budget. I will give some instances.

In my own riding one of my constituents, Mr. Ted Morris, said:

Income tax remains the same, thank God. This is a budget that seems to have deflated indignation.

Mr. Morris also brought the message of a local bank manager happy about the increased value of the Canadian dollar, a local real estate broker pleased with the national unity implications, and a retired department store employee wondering whether the provincial government would follow suit.

To some of the residents in a popular Etobicoke donut shop yesterday morning there was an understanding that governments in the past have lived off their credit cards and that this government was ready to start correcting spending habits.

I have a letter here sent today by fax from a constituent, Mr. Michael Kern. He said:

I am pleased that personal income taxes did not increase. For the moment I feel that the new gas tax is acceptable.

He went on to say:

Over the past several days the media has been monitoring the opposition to the new budget. I am sure that you have seen news reports of the opposition parties giving their critique of the budget. However on the same news reports reactions from the public are usually shown. My opinion of the budget seems to be in line with that of the general public. We are satisfied. It seems that the only people upset are the opposition parties.

I can go on and refer to several other points that he said. He referred to the new immigration policy. He said:

That is not bad, not as bad as groups would make it out to be.

He said:

When you join a social club you have to pay an initiation fee and I believe that the privilege of immigrating to Canada should be no different. The bottom line is this. Mr. Martin has taken the initiative to reduce the deficit, something that previous federal governments seemed to dance around. In addition, Mr. Martin has done so through sensible cutbacks and corporate taxes. I am happy to see that the working Canadian finally does not have to shoulder the responsibility alone. Mrs. Augustine, please accept my congratulations to your government on a practical budget that I feel we can all accept.

I am not certain what messages the Reformers get.

Our government is committed to providing a fair and reliable system of protection for seniors. I know there are several seniors in my riding wo are watching the debate today and who are concerned about protection for seniors, equality, balance and all

the things required to ensure the pension system is sustainable in the long term.

The budget states the basic principle for reform in terms of seniors programs is to ensure the system continues to be affordable and that we have some goals for changes in 1997. The budget states these basic principles: undiminished protection for all seniors who are less well off, including those receiving the GIS; continuing full indexation to protect seniors from inflation; the provision of OAS benefits on the basis of family income, as is now the case with the GIS; greater progressivity of benefits by income level; and control of program costs.

The bottom line remains that Canada is still the best country in the world and remains a model for other nations. With the budget the government has demonstrated leadership. Canadians know that we will continue to benefit from a number of social programs that reflect our understanding of community. These programs are implemented in a way that permits governments to take into account changing times and changing needs.

It is in the spirit of federal-provincial co-operation and to provide the greatest possible opportunity for our economic recovery that I join in the debate and support the budget.

As someone who is an immigrant to the country, I know there are concerns by all who are in the process of applying for permanent residence. As the minister of immigration said, we are all in this together, those who are joining us, those who are here and those who want to be here.

The fee is set out in typical Liberal fashion. As a caring and compassionate government we ensure that no one will be turned away as a result. Loan programs and other ways of assisting are also included in the process.

This is an excellent budget and I call on everyone in the House to endorse it.

[Religious Freedom, February 15th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I will address myself directly to the question and not debate whether the member is or is not going to remain a federalist.

Let me reassure the hon. member that the situation of young people in Canada is an issue that concerns us all. Contrary to the member's claims in her previous questions, there is no conclusive data demonstrating that unemployment insurance changes contained in the 1994 budget have had an impact on provincial social assistance caseloads.

What the hon. member ignores is that new unemployment insurance claims and the number of UI claims exhausted have both been decreasing since the government came into power. What is more, strong employment growth and job creation in 1994 have been the most significant factors contributing to these decreases, bringing new UI claims down by 10 per cent.

The latest labour market data also offer hope. In January 1995 the unemployment rate for 15 to 24-year old Canadian workers decreased by 3.4 percentage points over the January 1994 rate. Employment is up by over 114,000 in Quebec alone since the government came into power, including 16,000 new jobs in January 1995.

In response to my hon. colleague's concerns about the UI fund, she should remember that UI pays for itself through the premiums of employers and workers and that there is still a debt of $3.7 billion in the account accumulated over the past recession.

As employment continues to grow in the coming year, that debt may well be repaid, providing more room to reduce premiums while still giving unemployed people the assistance they need to get back to work.

I hope this answer is one the member can agree with.

[Interest Act, February 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will be clear and succinct in my answer which will also provide some information.

The question posed was answered by the Prime Minister in the House on Monday afternoon. The visit of President Clinton to Ottawa is an important event in the relationship between Canada and the United States. The government is very much looking forward to this, the first official visit of President Clinton to Canada.

He will arrive during the morning of Thursday, February 23. He will depart on the afternoon of Friday, February 24. The program will involve the participation of our new Governor General, a visit to Parliament, meetings with the Prime Minister and members of the cabinet.

The leader of the Bloc Quebecois has sought an appointment directly with the President of the United States for his time in Ottawa. As the Prime Minister indicated on Monday in response to the question, it is up to the United States to authorize such a meeting.

[Committees Of The House, February 9th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the hon. member who just spoke. I begin by saying that one thing Reformers do not have is a sense of humour. Oftentimes in discussion we need a sense of humour.

I thought the hon. member across the way was alluding to the fact that they were making way for 75 Liberals on the other side of the room. That was really what my applause was: the fact that we would have 75 Liberals across the room looking directly to the rest of us on this side of the House. They would be replacing the ones who are presently there.

Somehow I seem to be confused by the convoluted discussions around what is, what is not, and what Reformers are and are not for. What are the positive aspects of the bill that he supports? They seem to have been lost in the argument.

[Black History Month, February 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, February is Black History Month. Canadians across this great country are coming together to celebrate the rich and spirited heritage of black people.

Blacks have been contributing to Canadian society from as early as 1603 when Samuel de Champlain sailed up the St. Lawrence with his interpreter Matthieu Dacosta, a black man from the Azores who had already established links with the aboriginal people and knew their languages and customs.

Black soldiers helped defend Upper Canada against invading Americans in the war of 1812. The first Canadian sailor to receive the Victoria Cross was Mr. William Hall, a black man. The first woman to publish a newspaper in Canada, in 1853, Mary Ann Shadd was a black woman.

Blacks, both French and English worked to build Canada. They built railroads, they worked on the trains, they were inventors, farmers and scholars. They were elected representatives.

I ask all hon. colleagues to join with me, not only to recognize Black History Month but to develop a stronger understanding of the experiences and contributions of black Canadians.

[Unemployment Insurance Act, November 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the member for Mackenzie.

This government is committed to improving child care in Canada. In its red book the government committed itself to investing $720 million toward that end. The intent is to expand existing child care in Canada by 150,000 new quality child care spaces, 50,000 to be phased in over the next three year period.

The implementation of the federal initiative will be done in co-operation with the provinces since child care is a provincial responsibility. Initial discussions with provincial authorities have shown that rural child care is a priority for any new spending. However no decisions have been taken yet on the allocation of spaces. The provinces will decide on the distribution of funds and services to their rural communities. During these discussions most provinces indicated a preference for rural population in new cost sharing arrangements with the federal government.

In his question, the member referred to Langruth, Manitoba as a model for delivering rural child care. This centre is an excellent example of federal-provincial co-operation. The centre became operational through provincial support and federal funding under the child care initiatives fund program. The centre's program is designed to meet the specific child care needs identified by families living in that rural community.

I would remind the member for Mackenzie that the federal government currently contributes significantly to the cost of child care services in Canada. The federal government is contributing in excess of $400 million annually to support child care services mainly through the Canada assistance plan. Clearly that is not enough and more needs to be done. The human resources minister tabled a discussion paper on social security reform which addressed the whole issue of child care. Page 53 is the reference.

In closing, I would like to invite the member for Mackenzie to submit any proposals on how we could develop child care in rural parts of Canada to the Minister of Human Resources Development. I am sure he would be very interested.

[Unemployment Insurance Act, November 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the question of October 28.

In our parliamentary system it is the Prime Minister who is ultimately accountable for the actions of his government and who must answer to Parliament and to the public. There can be no substitute for responsibility at the top. It is the Prime Minister who sets the moral tone for the government and who makes the ultimate decisions when issues of trust and integrity are raised. That is what leadership is all about. As the Prime Minister said yesterday during question period, the buck stops here.

The ethics counsellor plays a very important role in advising the Prime Minister in conflict of interest issues, but at the end of the day it is the Prime Minister who must make the decisions. He must make the decision about membership in the cabinet. Creating an ethics counsellor with a reporting relationship to Parliament will not change this fact.

The ethics counsellor envisioned in the red book had a focus on lobbying. This government extended that to a much broader range of ethical issues, including administering and enforcing the revised conflict of interest code which replaced the old conflict of interest guidelines.

The ethics counsellor's responsibilities in the two domains of conflict of interest and lobbying put him in a unique position to make a significant contribution to restoring public confidence in government.

The ethics counsellor is available to the Prime Minister to investigate allegations of impropriety by public officeholders and to advise the Prime Minister accordingly, but he is only an adviser. At the end of the day the Prime Minister is ultimately responsible for ministers and senior officials.

Under Bill C-43, the lobbyists registration bill, the ethics counsellor has independent powers with respect to the lobbying industry. If there are grounds to believe there has been a breach-