Jane Stewart

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am not completely familiar with the amendment to which the hon. member is referring. I will apprise myself of it.

I would agree and say that we have not come to the point where the salaries paid to women in the workplace are equal to those to men. That is something we are always conscious of, working toward and committed to.

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, while I do not appreciate or accept the tenor of the motion presented for debate by the hon. member for Quebec, I recognize and thank her for giving us the opportunity to talk about such an important aspect as the quality of the connection that Canadian women have to the social and economic infrastructure of Canadian society.

It is a critical topic. As one of the 50 some women elected to the House it is incumbent on me to do whatever I can to encourage our governments and our legislature to understand where that connection is and make it better.

In her motion the hon. member focuses specifically on the economic connection, the economic side of the connection that we as women have to Canadian society. We have to speak about both the economic and social support that we as women need if we are to participate fully and completely in Canadian society and offer a bettering of the society through skills, abilities and qualities we bring as women.

In understanding the connection between social and economic development I turn to September of last year when I had the opportunity as a member of the parliamentary delegation to the United Nations conference on population and development to understand quite fully the impact development has on population.

We did a lot of very good work at the conferences that were the preliminary to those debates in Cairo to encourage an understanding of the impact development has on population management, more specifically to understand that when we talk about development we do and must talk about both social and economic development.

We played a very significant role in helping the world understand that it is the strong connections that women must have to both the social and economic supports that exist in a society that will in turn improve the development and the productivity of a nation and then in turn enhance and help manage population control.

We were essentially talking about development in developing nations. As I worked with and talked to colleagues from around the world I realized this debate is still going on in all developed nations. Canada is at a different level because of the hard and dedicated work of many Canadian women. When we think of the women who work so hard to get us recognized as persons not so very long ago, they helped move us to the position we are in now.

I think of some of my friends. Doris Anderson worked outside the government sector with non-governmental organizations and as a publisher of a well-known women's magazine. I think of the work she has done. I think of Lucie Pépin, a friend and colleague, a former member of Parliament who has worked so hard on behalf of women's issues. All these women have brought us, as a developed nation, to a point that is different from those of the developing nations.

The conversations we had in Cairo focused on the need for women to commit, with development on the social side, to very basic things when it comes to health: access to tetanus, polio and tuberculosis cures and shots, access to clean water. Basic health measures are what they need.

When we were talking about education we were talking about access to primary school education. When we were talking about access to economic support we were talking about the basic notion that it was okay for women to work outside the confines of the defined home as we know it.

For us in the developed nation of Canada, we are talking about things of a different sort at a different level. It is not so much basic health issues but issues of research for women and the impact of breast cancer and the impact of heart disease.

When we are talking about education we are encouraging our young women to complete high school and post-secondary education. When we are thinking about other social aspects such as safety and comfort, not only in our streets but in our own homes, we are having to understand family violence and to

accept that it is not in any way, shape or form something that we want to be part of our society.

When we think specifically about our connections with the economic levers we are talking about women having access to financial supports. The government is looking at these things and working on them all. For the Bloc Quebecois to say that we are not is really a falsehood.

When we go back and think about safety and the need for women to have confidence they are supported in our society, we look at the measures the Minister of Justice has undertaken. Just recently he tabled a bill that will no longer allow drunkenness to be a defence, particularly in cases of rape. We will see tabled soon I am sure, considering the importance of support payments to single parents, most often women, some changes in that regard and those will be tabled in the near future.

Today, as we debate Bill C-41 in committee, I will be tabling an amendment to the bill that will ask, under the section where we are discussing restitution, that the courts turn their head to the loss of income and support that can occur in cases of family violence. It should recognize that restitution should be paid to women who have to leave their homes as a result of family violence and perhaps incur costs related to transportation, alternate forms of housing and day care, drug and dental requirements. I hope that members of the Bloc on the committee will support me on that amendment.

These are things the government is doing to make sure that Canadian women are connected and supported on the social side.

I know the Minister of Health is working very hard and diligently and has implemented a fresh start program for aboriginal communities which is very important.

When we think about education, by and large a provincial jurisdiction, as individual members of Parliament, women in particular, we have a strong role to play in making sure that our young women do and are encouraged to carry on to high school, college and university and to set their sights as far ahead of themselves as they possibly can so they do not get stuck in female ghettos, in typically female occupations.

One of the most important parts of my job is to meet with young people in my community, in the public schools and high schools, and talk to them about what a woman can be in our country.

Very recently I attended the Daughters of Invention, where grade seven girls came together and spent a couple of days talking about science and research. As we were discussing role models and women, I asked them: "Back in 1867 when Confederation was discussed, do you think your grandmothers would have voted for Canada or against Confederation?" They put their hands up, some yes and some no. I said: "Do you know what girls? Your grandmothers could not vote back then. They were not even considered persons". There was an embarrassing ah-ha. They did not realize that.

It was at that point I realized that my job as a member of Parliament is to make sure that optimism, I suppose to a certain extent that naivete, cannot continue, that they know that as females there are restrictions on them but that they can participate fully and equitably in our society.

When it comes to the economic side, there are many things we have to do. I can only say how strongly I support the employment equity legislation that encourages Canadian businesses to recognize the importance of having a broad mix of people in their organizations. We are not talking about quotas. We are talking about recognizing people for the skills and abilities they have and that they bring to an environment. It is legislation we are improving and that I strongly support.

With that, I see that my time has gone. There are so many things we can talk about. Again I thank the hon. member for giving us the opportunity to debate and share our ideas in this regard.

[The Budget, February 28th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the parliamentary secretary on his speech and tell him how much I enjoyed working with him on the Standing Committee on Finance.

He made reference to the fact that the work of the committee had a big impact on the minister and the results of his budget. I agree that I could see a direct reflection in the budget of the recommendations made by the committee and the details provided to us by individual Canadians. The committee provided an important venue for Canadians to participate in the debate on the budget which is so important to them.

Does the parliamentary secretary expect that the Minister of Finance will continue this participative process with the Canadian public? Will the minister ask the committee yet again to be involved in the process as we prepare for our next budget?

[Reform Party Policy, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, after having the opportunity to read what the Reform Party really plans for Canada, I believe there are some serious questions Canadians must ask about their alternative budget.

What is the true impact going to be for Canadian seniors? At what income level will benefits start to be clawed back, $40,000, $30,000 or $20,000? How can Reform members talk about national standards on one hand while large cuts to equalization payments will restrict the ability of some provinces to deliver similar levels of service to their citizens?

How do those 86 per cent of Canadians with incomes below $20,000 who already do not make contributions to RRSPs find the resources to make sufficient contributions to cover unemployment insurance, retirement, post-secondary education and personal catastrophes? And will these resources be sufficient during tough economic times?

Canadians understand that tough problems do not always have simple solutions. I hope Canadians ask these and many other questions so that they can understand the impact these proposals may have on them, their families and the very essence of Canadian society.

[Justice, February 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, several women in my riding are extremely concerned about the ability of defence lawyers to subpoena the confidential records of sexual assault crisis centres for use in court. They are afraid that the protection gained by the rape shield legislation is being eroded as lawyers use a back door to gain access to their confidential information.

What actions will the Minister of Justice consider taking to ensure that the personal records of assault victims remain confidential?

[Supply, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague. I would be glad to have that removed from the record. It was an inappropriate comment. I appreciate that being drawn to my attention.

[Supply, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond quickly to the hon. member and say wait for the budget.

[Supply, February 14th, 1995]

With regard to the initial comment I would say that perhaps the member doth protest too much.

He is saying that he is compassionate and I am sure he is. I still stand and say nowhere in the motion doe I see and never do I hear the words fairness, balance and equality. I am sorry but without those words I do not know how anyone can pretend to be compassionate.

As far as the process goes, perhaps compassion has something to do there as well. Quite frankly to hear the message that Canadians are giving, you have to listen. You have to be patient. You have to recognize that the venue is not one they are particularly familiar with.

Yes, the hon. member is right. There are many people who said: "By golly, cut the deficit and look after the debt but do not touch me". I do not necessarily blame those people because they have only had one year of experience with us. They may still be thinking back to the old government, the government they could not trust and they had to say: "Do not touch me, because I do not trust you for not touching me". We are a little different from that. We do listen.

I suspect the next time we have these prebudget consultations which will be next year, we will hear a lot less of that. We will be better at the process. Canadians will be better prepared to be involved and understand the role that they can and must play.

I think the process was wonderful. It is a step in the right direction. It is an opportunity to give Canadians the governance back to them, to let them be part of this very important thing we call governing.

[Supply, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed working with the hon. member on the finance committee.

He points to a very important matter and I referenced it in some of my last comments. Not only do we have to understand and look at the things that Canadians need, but we have to unfortunately look outside our nation to the other people who have an influence on our current situation. What we find is that if the foreign markets are comfortable with us, if they are confident that what we say is what we mean and it is what we are going to do, then they back off and leave us alone a little.

We have worked very hard to indicate very clearly to the outside world that we are committed to price stability. Thank goodness we have been able to maintain inflation at very low and sometimes negative rates. That helps us in dealing with outside responsibility.

The other thing we have to do is be absolutely clear on what our strategy is. We have been. Our strategy has been to say that we will get the deficit to GDP ratio down to 3 per cent come-excuse my French but the minister said it-hell or high water.

If the minister can confirm that and make sure that is our strategy and that we do not waiver from it, the confidence it creates outside the nation is extremely helpful to us. That is because it has been difficult for us to have the best economic growth in the world, to have inflation managed efficiently, to have unemployment reduced significantly.

I expect after the implementation of our next budget it will again be clear to the markets that we are committed to this, that we mean what we say and that we will do what we say we are going to do.

[Supply, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that it is a pleasure to participate in the debate on the motion tabled by the hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Finance the items that are included in the member's motion have been front and centre on my personal agenda for well over a year. There is a reason for that. The reason is that our government understands and takes very seriously the fiscal circumstances that face this nation. We are committed to working responsibly to manage the deficit and the debt and to responding to the needs and the interests of Canadians.

We are doing that in a very dynamic way. It is that process that I would like to refer to in my comments here this afternoon.

About a year ago the Minister of Finance came to us in the House and invited us all to participate in the first ever prebudget debate. He invited us as members to bring the concerns, the issues, the strategy, the direction of our constituents, Canadians, to this House of Commons and share them with him.

That process worked very well. That debate was very energized. It was informative. I know that the minister took a lot away from that day in the House and included it in his subsequent budget, our first budget as a government, that I would remind the House included a number of things. It included issues of tax fairness where we got rid of the $100,000 capital gains exemption. More important and more particular, for every dollar that we raised in revenues there were $5 saved in spending cuts, a five to one ratio.

The process has continued in a very dynamic way. In October 1994 the Minister of Finance came to the Standing Committee on Finance and presented a very articulate and clear understanding of his view of the economic forecast for our nation. At the same time, he talked about the fiscal circumstances that we faced then and face right now. He enjoined the members of the committee to take this information and share it in detail with Canadians and to begin the first ever prebudget consultations.

That consultation process started here in Ottawa with a panel of experts from the economy, from banking, from the social sector, from the NGOs. We sat around the table and talked about the economic assumptions in the minister's papers. We talked about the strategies of spending cuts versus revenue measures. We talked about the spending cuts that might be appropriate, those that would be inappropriate, the tax measures that might be appropriate and those that might be inappropriate.

From there and armed with a lot of information, the committee members fanned out across the nation. We talked to hundreds of Canadians. We went to communities like Lunenburg and Hamilton. In Hamilton I had the great fortune to chair the session.

We did something a little different. Rather than just hear individual witnesses, we encouraged Canadians as individuals to come to sit with us around the table. They took a very short time, two, three minutes, to position their particular areas of interest, their particular concerns. Some of these people came with presentations from groups. Some came merely as individuals interested in the process.

We sat together and we encouraged and invited them to talk with each other, to do their best to build consensus, to try to find and agree on the things that Canadians say we need to do to deal with the fiscal situation that we face.

As this process continued and coincident with it, members and colleagues of mine went back to their ridings and had town hall meetings with their own constituents, asking the same questions. Tell us about the assumptions. Tell us about spending cuts versus revenue measures. Members brought that data back to the minister who I know will read them and respond probably after the budget when he can not only comment on their suggestions but on his thinking around where he agreed and where he made some different choices.

I had one of these meetings. It is my second annual meeting and what I found in my riding was very interesting. Last year, I had 20 people out to my forum. It was a very interesting and informative night but only 20 people were there.

This year there were over 100 people. The message to me from my constituents was that they appreciated the process the government was taking. They believed that the government is listening to them, that it will take what they are saying and deal with it to build a consensus, a balanced strategy to help the country restore itself to fiscal stability.

The other thing that proved to me that this was so was that the whole thing was done without cost. The room was donated. The microphone system was donated. The coffee and donuts were donated. The community said: "This is important to us. This is significant for us. We believe in this process".

We did not have to charge Canadians $1 a shot to phone in on the 1-900 number. People were invited to come and share free of charge their concerns and their interests.

Over the course of the last five months we have been engaging Canadians in a very participatory and involved strategy. It makes a difference. Canadians want to be a part of this. They want to be heard.

What are the messages we have heard over the last while? Very clearly we found consensus that we must deal with the deficit and the debt. There is no question. Second, there is general agreement that it is far preferable to focus on the spending side and to reduce spending than it is to do a lot on the revenue measures side.

When I gave a speech in my riding last week I said to my constituents, "We are listening. We hear you. We understand the importance of spending cuts. But please understand what you are saying. You may think that your tax dollars are being burned in the fireplace and going up in smoke. Yes, there are places where we have to do a better job, where we have to cut back and where we have to be more efficient, but there are many programs that are helping Canadians". Those programs are helping groups in my community. They may be cut. As a result we have to be prepared to be compassionate.

With that in mind I would like to turn to some of the recommendations which were made by the standing committee. The first recommendation, which I strongly agree with, is that

we must deal with the issue of MPs' pensions. I look forward to the President of the Treasury Board presenting that legislation, sooner rather than later, because I believe that as we members have to show as these spending cuts come into effect-and they are going to be an impact-that we too are part of the process.

The other thing which we recommended as part of the committee report was that we must start with government operations. Government must take the responsibility to look at itself, improve its efficiencies, improve the quality of the programming that we are providing to Canadians and do it less expensively. We have to understand there are going to be cuts in the public service. People are going to be affected.

I have been involved in downsizing programs in the private sector. There are good ones and there are bad ones. The ones that work recognize that the people who are affected really have nothing to do with the growth in the business or in the government. They are not guilty; however, they are the ones who will have to make changes.

I know that the Canadian taxpayer as a good employer will want to provide to the people who are leaving packages which allow them to leave with respect and dignity. These packages will cost money. It would be totally inappropriate for me to say that there can be no new spending in this budget. We have to recognize that for longer term gains we have to have spending in the short term to recognize the good work that our public servants have done. Certainly in my riding I have been well supported by the correctional people, by my human resources development people and by Industry Canada, those in the regional office, and I thank them. We must deal with that with compassion.

As we talk about the strategy of spending cuts versus tax measures, I would like to point out that in the jurisdictions that we hold up as the best jurisdictions for spending control-and I am thinking of Alberta as one-there have been revenue measures. In Alberta the increase was in medical premiums of about 50 per cent. There were other increases in fees and in licences.

I know that the hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound talked once in an intervention about loopholes. He said, "Those are taxes. They collect money. If it looks like a tax and it collects money like a tax, it is a tax". These fees and these revenue measures could be determined or viewed as taxes.

My point is that in jurisdictions where they are managing their deficit and debt there are revenue initiatives which go along with and are part and parcel with the spending cuts.

When we look at these messages we now consider what it is that the minister is going to do in terms of his next budget; the action that we will see as a response to this consultation and these messages. I do not know what he is going to have in his budget. He has been very good and done a good job as a minister in keeping those things close to his vest, as he should.

The thing I need to point out, which has been pointed out on a number of occasions in this House today, is that we have to, as I believe the minister will, deal with this very difficult agenda with compassion, generosity, fairness and balance.

Strangely enough those words are clearly absent from the member's motion. There is never a reference to how it would be done. Perhaps that in itself is the difference between the Liberal Party and the Reform Party. While Reform members protest that they will not hurt anyone, they never use words like fairness, balance and compassion. Those are real in our society and are things which I am committed to and which I believe in.

In closing I would like to say that experiencing the cross-country discussions, talking to Canadians, and hearing their perspectives was tremendously important for me to understand the differences that exist across this vast nation.

The last budget was brutal in Atlantic Canada. Communities that lost their defence installations were hit very hard. It is my expectation that in the next budget some of the rest of us may start to feel that pinch. It is going to be a challenge for us as a government to continue in a positive fashion to make sure Canadians do not go without, but that we do manage things more effectively and efficiently, that we recognize where government can play a role and where other partners in society can fill the void or maybe take over.

These are challenges that will make it very interesting for us over the course of the rest of our mandate. I very definitely believe and I would encourage the Minister of Finance to continue his dynamic and evolving process in this important area.

I have to make reference to one particular event that happened. Over the course of our discussions many Canadians said: "You know, these are tough times and I really do not want more taxes, but by golly, this country is important to me. We have to make sure it stays together. If there is a way of me providing funds that will go directly to maintaining our country, to reducing the deficit, I would be willing to participate".

Do not get me wrong. I would never suggest this is a strategy that will help us out of our problem. What made it important to me was the fact that I received a cheque from one of my constituents made out to the "save Canada and deficit reduction fund". Interestingly, I discovered there is an account this money could be sent to. I have sent it on and expect he will receive recognition for his contribution.

The message to me is that Canadians do feel passionately about this country. They do want things to be better. They do believe this government through balance, fairness and equity has a plan that will work.

I look forward to the minister's budget. I have every confidence that he is listening to the Canadian people and will respond to their needs and to the needs of others who have an influence on our domestic economy. With that I close and thank the member for providing us with the opportunity today to talk about this very important subject.