Jane Stewart

[Criminal Code, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for sharing Corinne's plea with us. I suggest to him that Bill C-41 speaks directly to her request to be heard. During the hearings for early parole the impact statements of victims will be included. That is a very important part and a very significant addition to our situation. I believe better decisions will be made on whether or not criminals will be paroled as a result of this change.

I suggest that you have made an important comment. I do not believe our bill is a wimpy bill. It speaks directly to the cries of Corinne.

[Rehabilitation Programs, June 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.

Recently the Minister of Justice tabled amendments to the Young Offenders Act and a sentencing reform bill that clearly indicated that this government will support increased community based crime prevention and rehabilitation strategies.

I am concerned however about earlier decisions to change federal funding to our local partners, like the St. Leonard's Society, that may jeopardize their ability to help us meet this goal.

Would the Solicitor General please review these funding strategies and assure this House that our local partners will be able to maintain and enhance their community based custodial and non-custodial criminal rehabilitation programs?

[Challenger Softball League, June 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the opportunity to throw the first pitch of the first game of the Challenger Softball League in Paris, Ontario.

This is a special league for special children, boys and girls who may be physically, mentally or emotionally challenged, playing together on the field in a game we all know and love, baseball.

I would like to congratulate the organizers of this league for the great work that they have done for the children in our community and to say to them on behalf of their proud parents, keep it up. It is going to be a great season.

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I just have to say how baffled I am by the fact that this motion is being presented on the floor of the House today.

My goodness, over the course of the election campaign that we just fought the only thing I agreed with the Reform opposition was the fact that the Canadian people are tired of discussions about unity and the Constitution. Yet here in the House the Reform Party presents the motion to us.

More and more I am aware of confusion. I hear the Reform Party saying: "We are against the process, the top down approach that this government is taking". Yet as we take the approach of reviewing our social safety net that is inclusive of Canadian people, that encourages them to come and debate with us, they say: "That is not good enough. We want strong and firm action. The government must take action in this regard". I do not understand the difference.

In his speech the hon. member talked about the difficulties we face with approaching group dynamics and looking at people as groups. Yet in their motion, the Reform members talk about diversity. To me diversity means understanding individual differences, talking about those differences and knowing that by encouraging parts and bringing them together as a sum we get far greater results in the whole.

I am very confused by the motion. The hon. leader of the third party talks about a new Canada. My God, what is wrong with the Canada that has grown and developed over the last 127 years, a Canada of compassion and generosity?

The member talks about debt and deficit. I thought the member had seen the light, had seen that there are important additions to governing a country, not only the importance of debt and deficit management but the importance of issues that face individual Canadians as human beings. I thought he had seen that light. Yet we go back to that same old conversation. I am confused, totally confused.

[Women's Health, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, when I read about young women like Bonnie Fung who at 15 years of age is dealing with the challenges of adolescence and those that face her as a victim of lupus, and when I think about my 37-year old friend who is at once raising a family of seven children and taking chemotherapy to fight breast cancer, and when I talk to my aunt and my grandmother who both in their later years are suffering the pain and the disfigurement of osteoporosis, I know that we have to do more to fight these diseases and others that predominantly affect women.

We know that there has been a systemic bias against women in our health care and our health research. That is why I am so glad and look forward to the creation of a centre of excellence that will focus on women's health and why I hope that when our national health forum meets this summer the issue of women's health will be on its agenda.

As a government and as a country we cannot accept the status quo when it comes to Canadian women's health.

[D-Day, June 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions.

As preparations for D-Day memorial services are under way many Canadians are taking the time to honour the over 5,000 Canadians who died at Normandy. This weekend different constituents of mine advised me that France, the United Kingdom and the United States have each minted several commemorative coins to honour those who fell in the battle and that these coins are available in Canada.

I would like to ask the secretary of state whether or not Canada has minted any coins and, if so, where Canadians may buy those coins.

[High-Speed Train, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on a question I asked of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport a few weeks ago regarding, of all things, the future of passenger rail in Canada and particularly along the Windsor to Quebec corridor.

The people in my riding spoke out very vociferously against the cuts in 1990. Now they find themselves in a position in which their limited but very important passenger rail service is yet again in jeopardy.

Just by way of interest, the other day I was down on the platform in Brantford and saw 40 men and women prepared to board the train to Toronto and points eastward. There were men and women on their way to work in the city of Toronto and young adults on their way to university in Toronto. Seniors find the train service very accommodating and easy to access, and there were two going into the city to visit with medical specialists, friends and neighbours, and to go to the theatre. As well there were two families that had been visiting in southwestern Ontario and were on their way home to Quebec City.

As the parliamentary secretary knows, the line that runs between London and Brantford and goes on to Toronto is the least subsidized of all the VIA lines. I cannot see that it would make any sense to further cut the service along that section of the corridor.

Beyond that I would like to say I have listened to the parliamentary secretary and the minister talk about how they view VIA's initiatives in terms of managing continued federal government funding cuts, that they will be looking at managerial restructuring and efficiencies, that they will be working to upgrade, modify and update their very outdated labour contracts, and finally that they will be rationalizing unused infrastructure.

I would say to the government that it must insist VIA is successful in all three of these approaches. Beyond that I would like to suggest and believe that the government should prepare a comprehensive multimodal transportation strategy for Canada that would include an individual comprehensive mandate for VIA setting out its mission, its roles, its goals and the expectations by which its success can be measured.

I think in that mandate it will become clear to us that in places like southwestern Ontario the VIA infrastructure is most commonly used as a commuter service. I am not sure that I as a member from southwestern Ontario feel comfortable asking the rest of Canada to support that specific use of the infrastructure, just as I expect those in Alberta are necessarily anxious to ask those of us in Ontario and further east to support the VIA service to help them build their tourist industry.

While we as a national government should continue to support this very important passenger rail infrastructure, we should also encourage VIA to work very closely with our provincial counterparts to ensure that the use of the infrastructure is effective and very useful to the particular region in mind.

These are important things our government could do. In fact debate should be held in the House of Commons and a loud and clear direction should be given to VIA to be again a successful and useful mode of passenger rail transportation in the country.

[Agriculture, May 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member drawing that to my attention.

It was a slip of the tongue. I feel that these are very much programs that are there to help our industry, the agricultural industry, propel itself into the future. I look forward to having that safety net so that we can actively pursue new and broader markets.

[Agriculture, May 10th, 1994]

I appreciate that question, Mr. Speaker. As you may know, the hon. member and I both sit on the GST review committee.

We have heard some very appropriate and clear submissions from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. As a farmer I do believe that farmers should continue to be exempt and that we have to work very closely to find new solutions to improve the cashflow situation that farmers face as they pay their GST up front and then have to wait for those rebates to come back.

[Agriculture, May 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as I was thinking about participating in this debate today, I could not help but reflect on its timeliness.

In my riding of Brant as in many ridings across this country we are now seeing our agricultural community out in full force. They are out and visible because now is the planting season for 1994.

In my little village of St. George the tractors are on the highways pulling discs, cultivators, drills and sprayers. If you look closely you can see that the tractors are in the fields 24 hours a day. Local mechanics, tire repair operators and carriers of fuel are working at the beck and call of our farm community, all because our farmers are working. They are working hard against time and against the elements to get our crops planted for this year.

The opportunity to debate the issues facing Canadian farmers today is very timely and important. The debate is not only important for farmers, producers and retailers of food. It is important for each and every one of us as a Canadian.

What we are talking about is our national food supply. When we think about our national food supply there is one issue that we cannot ignore. That is the issue of security; security of supply, security of health and safety and the financial security that our farmers who grow and produce the food for this country and hopefully for more and more of the world require.

Let us think about security of supply. Canada has a very, very good record in that area. Over the last 40 years we have been part of the green revolution and have helped to identify, develop and now use seeds, herbicides, pesticides, fungicides and fertilizers that have helped us increase our yield exponentially.

As we move into the next century we are also moving out of the green revolution and into the genetic revolution. I expect very much so that we are going to have considerable debate in this House as we move into that biotechnological revolution.

I believe that we will in the end make good and clear decisions and that we as a country will continue to be able to provide and supply food, not only for ourselves but for the rest of the world.

When we think of security of health and safety, we have an excellent track record in Canada. We have come to expect that the quality of our food will be the best in the world. Our ministries of agriculture and health have insisted on it and we as Canadians may have even come to take it for granted.

It is very possible that as we make transitions in the world of agriculture and agri-food we are going to see more and more products from around the world. I think we will then find very clearly that Canadian produce has been the best quality bar none at a good and affordable cost. I believe that Canadians will continue to insist upon the availability of Canadian food products.

We can also think about security from the point of view of financial security for our farmers. When I think about that I am optimistic. I continue to be optimistic. I read in the current farm media that there is an understanding or a belief that in Canadian agriculture we have a sleeping giant that is now just awakening. It gives me pause to feel optimistic.

As I have said we have a good, solid supply of bulk commodities. It is a quality supply of bulk commodities. I believe that as we work with our farmers, and I too am a farmer, to become better entrepreneurs, to be better marketers, to be more innovative and creative in our product slate and our crop slate and our market sources we will ensure our financial security as an industry.

I believe quite fully that the agricultural and agri-food sector of our economy will be a driving force to ensure a strong economy for this country. I believe that the government has a role and responsibility to help our farmers move in that direction so that we can ensure our own financial security.

There are a number of things that this government has already done in that regard. First, as many of my colleagues have identified, we have signed the GATT agreement. In that agreement we identified what subsidies are all about and how subsidies can truly interfere with the marketplace, particularly in agriculture.

We have a world trade organization that will help us adjudicate the times when we believe that subsidies are playing an unfair role in the world market. Our government has gone a long way and will continue to work to make sure that the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs works effectively for us.

As well our government is working hard at looking at interprovincial trade barriers that are stopping us from having effective trade here at home. I have been very pleased to see the work of the Ministers of Industry and Agriculture in terms of getting their provincial counterparts to work together to break down these interprovincial barriers. As we become more successful in our market development at home so will we become more successful in the broader marketplace.

A third area I must highlight is the general focus that this government takes in ensuring that as a government we reduce red tape, we reduce government intervention that gets in the way of our agri-food business as well as all business. We want to make it so that government is there supporting small business and, in particular, given this debate, the agri-business, so that we can continue to develop effective markets and be able to sell our commodities not only here at home but to the broader world.

As we try and work to help our farmers and our farm communities become more entrepreneurial we also have to accept the responsibility and the understanding that we have to make life predictable, or as predictable as we possibly can, for this sector of the economy. Fighting, as I mentioned earlier, against the natural elements of floods, disease, drought, we have to make sure that we have some kind of safety net that is there in support of our farm community.

As well as talking about the development of new markets we have to recognize that the marketplace is a very unpredictable place. As we encourage our farmers and our farm communities to step out, to think about new crops, to find new market niches and to be more aggressive in our activities around the world, we have to provide a safety net that will allow them the confidence to do that.

I would like to recall the work of Alvin Hamilton under the Diefenbaker government, of all governments. Back in the 1960s when we made our first grain sales to China, that was a watershed that really solidified the western grain marketplace. It is this kind of activity that we have to build on and improve and step out and grow with. I think our government plays a significant role in helping our agricultural and agri-food industry to do just that.

We are talking about social safety nets here. I believe, as on many occasions we have already done, our government is looking forward to introducing and making more aware and making more usable the whole farm approach to safety nets.

I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River reference the NISA, net income stabilization account, approach to security and safety nets. That program is a new program, a bright light in our safety net situation, to quote him.

I would also like to identify that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the federation to which I belong, is working hard in support of the notion of whole farm safety nets: "The OFA is committed to the concept of a whole farm approach to safety nets and will continue to work with commodity groups and

government to evolve a meaningful and equitable set of safety nets that are available to all producers".

I support that approach. It is the approach of the Liberal government. I have talked to producers in my own riding, some of whom are covered by programs like NISA and feel very positively about that program, others who are not but are interested in being covered. I feel that this notion of whole farm support is the right one. It encourages our farmers to develop their farms in a complete way and not to carry on growing crops that may not be the best for their properties because those are the crops that receive subsidy. It is the right approach and the approach that becomes even more important is the one of making sure that we consult with producers and with growers as we develop this whole safety net transition.

That is what my growers are saying to me. They say: "We need the social safety net. The whole farm approach has appealed to us but please, please do it in concert with the producer".

This government will, I believe, make that its hallmark. Whether it be in the ministries of finance, immigration or agriculture, what we are seeing is that our government is one that consults with those who are particularly concerned.

In terms of our security and financial security for farmers, I feel very optimistic in that regard.

This government is here to support our farming communities. I believe we have a very bright future as Canadian agriculturalists and that agriculture will play a significant role as we continue to develop our new and global economy.

I feel glad to have been able to participate in this debate and I also want to thank the minister for providing this opportunity for me and for all my colleagues in the House to talk about this very important issue to the Canadian people.