Jane Stewart

[Governor General Awards, October 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, every year the Governor General awards in commemoration of the Persons case are given to individuals who have made an outstanding contribution toward promoting the equality of women in Canada.

This year we honour five women who have gained distinction for their lifelong vision and dedication. They are: Shirley Carr of Niagara Falls, Ontario, who championed legislation that addressed women's rights in the workplace; Dr. Rose Charlie from Agassiz, British Columbia, who struggled for social justice for the women of Canada's First Nations; Alice Girard of Montreal, Quebec, who made a remarkable contribution to the public awareness of the nursing profession's role in health care; Morag O'Brien of Saint John's, Newfoundland, who was the backbone of her area's health care system for over 40 years; and finally, Dodi Robb of Toronto, Ontario, who dedicated her career to ensuring the inclusion of women's perspective in television programming.

I call upon this House to join me in saluting the courage of these five remarkable Canadian women.

[Criminal Code, October 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I can think of nothing more frustrating for Canadian people than laws which are in theory intended to protect and reflect our sense of what is right and what is wrong but which in practice continuously prove to be ineffective or variable in their application and result.

Our legal system forms the network that binds us as Canadians. It is the framework under which we all agree to live and be judged. With variability or uncertainty of application and use, the strength, control and credibility of this vital tool of human management is undermined and society as a whole is weakened.

In response to a growing sense of frustration on the part of Canadians, the Minister of Justice has tabled Bill C-41, an act on sentencing reform. In an effort to refocus the application and use of our laws Bill C-41 provides clear direction and guidelines to the courts on the purpose and the methods of sentencing. Prior to Bill C-41 the role of Parliament was simply to set maximum penalties for offences under the Criminal Code. With this legislation Parliament is looking at the fundamentals, the policy objectives of the sentencing process.

This legislation sets out that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society. The framework provided is of enormous significance. Sentencing is not simply about giving sentences. Rather, sentencing must serve the fundamental purpose of creating a just and safe society.

Bill C-41 provides as well a holistic vision of sentencing. Sentencing should not be solely about jails and prisons. Effective sentencing, sentencing that deters repeat offenders, also involves alternative measures such as restitution and conditional sentences.

Research has clearly shown that these forms of sentencing are more effective in combating crime than a strictly law and order approach. One only needs to look south of the border for evidence of this. In the United States the rate of imprisonment is 400 per cent that of Canada's yet 200 Americans are victims of violence every hour despite annual expenditures on police, courts and corrections that exceed $70 billion. One cannot seriously argue that the United States is a safer country due to its bigger jails, tougher sentences and capital punishment. In fact, the opposite seems true.

Bill C-41 outlines another sentencing principle that I would like to briefly address. Under this legislation the courts should take into consideration the principle that a sentence should be increased if there is evidence that the crime was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on the race, nationality, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, or sexual orientation of the victim. Some say that this provides special status for these Canadians, particularly homosexual Canadians. If these people have any special status, it is the special status of often suffering abuse simply because of their minority characteristics.

Bill C-41 ensures that the courts consider these circumstances when deciding upon sentences. This is not about granting special status. Rather it is about affirming equality for all Canadians. Homosexual Canadians should be able to walk on our streets without the fear of being attacked just because of their sexual orientation. Just as heterosexuals do not have to live with this fear neither should other Canadians who have a different sexual preference.

This is about promoting equality, not granting special status. It is also saying that Canadians will not stand for crimes based on hate.

Many of my constituents have expressed to me their concern that the criminal justice system does not do enough for the victim. I strongly support Bill C-41 because it does address this concern in several ways. One obvious way is that it provides for victim impact statements at section 745 hearings. Victims will no longer go voiceless at the early parole hearings.

A second provision for victims that I would like to discuss in more detail is restitution. Bill C-41 would allow the courts to consider ordering restitution to individual victims or to the community to cover property damage or personal injury. This provision responds to the demands of victims to have their needs considered by the justice system.

Crimes can have a tremendous financial impact upon victims. Is it more effective to have these offenders only put behind bars? Where does that leave the victim? Or should the perpetrators be hit where it hurts, in the pocketbook, which will promote responsibility for their actions?

Previously victims had to apply to receive compensation for their losses. Bill C-41 provides a process for restitution to be considered as part of the normal process of sentencing.

In cases in which the court orders an offender to pay restitution and a fine but where it is clear that the offender does not have the means to pay both, Bill C-41 states that restitution must take precedence. This demonstrates that this legislation is committed to helping the victims of crime.

I strongly support this move toward restitution. Why should victims of crime go uncompensated while the offenders simply spend time in custody? I would think for non-serious crimes rehabilitation of the offender can be more effectively achieved through directly seeing what damage has been caused to the victim.

I believe and would request that the framework for restitution as set out in Bill C-41 be extended to cover the special circumstances of certain specific crimes. I am particularly thinking about the issue of domestic violence. In most cases a severe economic inequality results from these situations.

If a woman makes a horribly difficult decision to press charges and leave the scene of abuse she in most cases retains responsibility for the children. She is forced to seek temporary shelter, needs to find child care or care for her children, often with very limited economic means.

I believe that restitution would be particularly important in cases involving domestic violence because of the economic inequality that results. Women and their children are too often left at a severe disadvantage. Too often the abuser spends some weekend in jail or pays some fines but the victim is left with

financial stresses in addition to the obvious physical and emotional trauma.

Under Bill C-41 restitution orders for bodily harm only cover pecuniary damages specifically including loss of income or support. It is unclear how broadly the courts might interpret pecuniary damages in ordering restitution in the cases of domestic violence.

I am suggesting that we should not leave this judgment to chance. We should define pecuniary damages in cases involving domestic violence to specifically include loss of income as well as costs related to temporary shelter, child care and transportation. These are costs that are directly incurred as a result of the abuse. The courts should consider these when ordering restitution.

Abused women are often forced to spend time in battered women's shelters since they are the only places they can afford and which offer protection. Perhaps a portion of the restitution order dealing with temporary housing could go directly to support these shelters as well.

I acknowledge this is not a solution to the problem of domestic violence. Solutions have to be found in addressing problems before the abuse occurs in looking at the inequality between men and women and looking at the problems of poverty and alcoholism. However, I think that restitution offers an excellent opportunity to address the economic inequality that can result from domestic violence.

Another significant problem is that women often do not report abusive situations. Restitution would only be ordered after a conviction is obtained. I realize that this is only a small consideration to the emotional and physical challenges, but if women knew that compensation would be there in the end they might be more encouraged to report the abuse.

Requiring the courts to consider the specific circumstances of domestic violence cases in ordering restitution would help the victims of domestic violence. Requiring convicted abusers to financially compensate their victims would provide another good indication to offenders that they are responsible for their actions.

In closing, I strongly support the measures that are included in Bill C-41. The maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society depends on good and fair sentencing. This legislation provides a framework for our courts so that they in turn can give our community, Canadians, just that.

[Social Program Reform, October 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. Older workers in my riding who were formerly employed by Koehring-Waterous Timberjack are now in desperate need of support under the program for older workers adjustment.

Since the closing of their plant in the fall of 1992, most of these older workers have been unable to find alternate employment and many face losing their homes in order to make ends meet.

Could the minister comment on why we are experiencing these frustrating delays on the approval of this federal-provincial program and tell us what he could do to mitigate the problems?

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, there are a lot of ways that this is going to have an impact on unemployment. As I mentioned in my speech one of the things that I find is happening in my constituency is that employers are unable to find Canadians with the skills and abilities that they need to do the technically advanced work of their businesses.

Through our program we want to encourage and focus significantly on improving the training aspects that we have for Canadians. Let us face it, if they have the skills to do the work, they will find jobs.

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. It sounds like he may have read the document when he talks about the options that we require.

We are looking at ways to make sure that the programs fit the needs of individuals, that they do participate and have a say in the kinds of strategies and activities that we need to do to get people back to work. That is the focus. We want to make sure that we use the skills and abilities of all Canadians so that they are contributing to the country and in effect help us reduce, as I mentioned in my speech, our fiscal and our social deficit.

We cannot lose track or lose sight of the fact that if we do not provide support for Canadians, we do carry a social deficit that has real dollar cost. We as a party, and I am very proud of this, look at things in a balanced fashion. I believe that that has been our strength in the past and will continue to be our strength in the future.

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed with pleasure that I participate in this debate which effectively launches our review and reform of Canada's social security system. Constituents in my riding of Brant have been anxiously awaiting the tabling of this discussion paper. They want to see what the options look like. They want to have input and they want to suggest alternatives. I look forward to working with them over the course of the next couple of months and in bringing their advice and counsel back to this House and debate it at a later time.

For the purposes of this intervention, I would like to take aim at some of the criticisms that we have been taking and will continue to have to deal with over the course of this review.

There are those who say that by undertaking this reform our government is abandoning its Liberal roots. To my mind nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, it was Liberal governments in the sixties that wove together Canada's first effective social safety net. They were responding to the needs of Canadians at that time.

This system worked very well for us through the sixties and the seventies, but now it is becoming dysfunctional. Is it wrong for us to listen to single parents who tell us that they are caught in the welfare cycle because they cannot find appropriate day care for their children or because they cannot find a job that pays them enough to meet and support the basic needs of their families?

Is it wrong for us to listen to employers who say that our training systems are ineffective? They prove this by saying that they have to go to England and Europe to find technically trained staff to help them do the work of their businesses.

Is it wrong for us to want to stop businesses from using the unemployment insurance program as a wage supplement for their employees? I think not. In fact, when I think about it, if we had been the government over the last 10 years I believe we would have continuously changed and modified our social safety net so that this major intervention would not be necessary today. Unfortunately, that is not the way things worked. To meet the needs of Canadians we now have to make significant change. This government will not shy away from that. I am proud to say that I agree with its strategy.

Second, there are those who say to go ahead, embark on this reform, but only do so if the purpose is to reduce the fiscal deficit. I believe that indeed we have to take stock of our economic times and that that has to be a major consideration in the work that we do. However, the economic times that led to this fiscal deficit have also created a huge social deficit in Canada.

We are sending our children to school without appropriate clothing and without enough food in their stomachs. We have university graduates who cannot find that all important first job and as such are threatening bankruptcy and, worse still, suicide because they cannot repay their student loans.

We have men and women across this country whose skills and abilities are not being utilized. They are undervalued, underused and as such they are not able to contribute to their fullest potential to help us reduce our fiscal deficit and to reduce our social deficit.

If we do not deal with our social deficit there is no question that it will add exponentially to our fiscal deficit. We cannot support that. It is not sustainable and it is not right.

Third, I would like to comment on the criticisms that we are receiving from some provinces, particularly my home province of Ontario. The Government of Ontario is constantly saying it feels that Ontarians are not getting their fair share from the federal government. They point out, and rightly so, that the federal government contributes about 50 per cent to the cost of social programs in the province of Quebec and by and large in the maritime provinces.

It points out that in Ontario that contribution is about 20 or 25 per cent. Let us look at the background here. Under the 50:50 cost sharing split that is part of the Canada assistance plan, it has been provinces which have been able to afford to spend money on social programs that received larger transfer payments.

In the 1980s and certainly in 1990 with the partial implementation of the SARC report, Ontario expanded and enriched its social programs significantly. The federal government decided to cap its transfers, deciding that its responsibility was not so much to fund at all costs the unilaterally created social programs of provinces but rather to support the mandate we have under the Constitution, section 36, that says we are responsible to provide for Canadians no matter where they live in this country reasonably the same level of services for reasonable the same level of taxation.

Do not get me wrong. I do not accept and I do not agree that the Canada assistance plan is the appropriate or the right way to manage our transfers to the provinces. I would encourage all our provincial partners to come to this table, sit down and discuss the options that are tabled, suggest alternates, and help us make sure that Canadians no matter where they live have equal access to social security programs.

Finally, I would like to say that as a government our prime role and purpose as we have stated time and again is to create jobs and opportunities for Canadians. The initiative of the Minister of Human Resources Development adds a dimension to that commitment.

Coupled with the work of the Minister of Finance, who will be tabling a statement in the next few weeks, and the work of the Minister of Industry who will be tabling some information on our micro economic status, possibilities and strategies for economic growth, we will have a blueprint that will help us to renew Canada.

I look forward to implementing that blueprint and being part of a government that will in fact bring Canada back to the level that it should be. In closing, I would like to quote from an editorial that was written this week in my local newspaper The Brantford Expositor . In reference to the initiative of the Minister of Human Resources Development the editor writes:

Rightwingers will complain that the plan does not go far enough, that there are too many people living off the government gravy train. Leftwingers will object that the government is caving in to corporate interests and balancing its budget on the backs of the poor. What sensible Canadians should do is try to avoid being buried in all of this muck and take a long and serious look at what Axworthy proposes because the time has come for real reform. Canadians who are fed up with the high taxes and program recipients who are not getting the help they really need stand to be hurt a lot more if things are not fixed.

I do not always agree with the editor of my local newspaper, but this time we are at one. I want to thank the Minister of Human Resources Development for the hard work that he has put into this discussion paper and tell him that as a member of Parliament I will be working hard with my constituents to make sure they have input and that they are consulted in this process so we can work effectively to restore Canada's social security system.

[Social Program Reform, October 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

I would like to ask about a divorced mother of two who recently wrote about how the system abandoned her when she tried to get off welfare. She complained the system is so backward that she had to quit her job in order to better provide for her family.

What assurances could the minister give this young woman that her concerns and the concerns of many other women like her will be taken into account in the reform of these social programs?

[Canadian Heritage, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to follow the line of questioning of my colleague, the Minister of Health. I am sure I heard the hon. member talk about his commitment, his responsibility and his party's responsibility for francophones outside Quebec.

If they are successful in creating a country called Quebec, how do they expect to honour those commitments to francophones outside of Quebec? Instead of focusing on francophones and their needs in this great country, are they focusing instead on the creation of a country for the self-serving politicians who in fact want to lead a nation?

[Humanitarian Aid, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians in their actions are demonstrating our prowess as peacekeepers and as providers of humanitarian aid.

I think of a resident of Brant and a good friend of mine, Sidne Maddison, who one day in June received a phone call asking for her assistance in Rwanda with Médecins sans frontières . By the end of the day she had left her job and her family and left for Rwanda to act as a nurse.

On her return home she spoke of other Canadians who worked with her in her organization, in the Canadian Red Cross, and of course our armed forces personnel who daily risked their lives in the name of peace.

These people truly are ambassadors for Canada. I salute them for their courage, for their commitment to humanity, and for extending the good name of Canada across the world.

[Canada, September 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, during the first week in September I had the privilege of being part of the Canadian delegation to the United Nations conference on population and development in Cairo, Egypt.

There were many significant things to be learned. One of the most interesting was an understanding as to how the world community views Canada. Canada is nation to be trusted. It is a nation turned to when issues are polarized and emotions are frayed.

We are truly the honest broker on the global stage. This is important for us to understand right now because initiatives here at home threaten to tear our country apart. For Canadians that means risking the loss of the rich culture and heritage that is so much a part of Quebec and her people. For the world there is a risk of loss of a great partner, the likes of which could never be replaced.