Elinor Caplan

[Supply, February 5th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I do not support the Reform Party policy that would scrap medicare. I do not support the Reform Party policy that would scrap the CPP. I do not support the Reform Party policy when its members stand in their places to tell the people that Canada has the highest rates of income tax in the G-7. The reality and the truth is that we are in the middle of the pack of the G-7 when it comes to taxes.

When people look very closely at Reform Party policies they will begin to realize the high price they will pay in the serious deterioration of the quality of life.

I say the Reform Party should support the child tax benefits, the millennium scholarship fund and the initiatives of the government which are balanced and which offer to people the kind of support they need.

Sure, we have to make progress, but his policies only cut the taxes and the deficit. They forget about medicare, pensions, education and social safety nets. They scrap equalization payments. I say no to my colleague in the Reform Party. That is not good for Canada and not good for the people of Thornhill.

[Supply, February 5th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Waterloo—Wellington.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to stand in the House of Commons today to participate in this debate. For those who are watching and may have just tuned in following question period, we are debating an opposition motion that condemns the Liberal government for imperilling the economic and social security of Canadians. First, nothing could be further from the truth. Second, the motion is not supportable for numerous reasons.

I am proud to stand in my place today as a member of a government that in 1993 inherited a $42 billion deficit and, as we heard from the finance minister this afternoon during question period, will for the first time in too many years see a balanced budget reported.

If anything is to secure the future of Canadians, if anything is to secure economic and social services for the people of Canada, surely getting our fiscal house in order is the first prescription for achieving that.

The motion is not supportable because it denies the reality of the fact that we have turned the corner. The back of the deficit is broken. We are on the verge of a balanced budget. The Liberal Party has a plan that we went to the people of Canada with. I was proud to take it to the people of my riding of Thornhill.

During the election campaign last spring I told my constituents about the plan of the Liberal Party, that we expected the budget to be balanced within the next two years and that as soon as we achieved a balanced budget it was our intention to have surpluses. That is what happens when the budget is balanced.

Fifty per cent of the fiscal dividend, whatever its amount, will be used to offer needed debt and tax relief to Canadians and fifty per cent will be used to invest in the important quality of life and social priorities of Canadians. Those priorities are health care, education, children, training and child poverty. I hope we can achieve a consensus in the House that the people of Canada understood the promise and the importance of that kind of balance in public policy.

No one will stand in the House to say “I love paying taxes”. However I will say I love Canada and I love the services we have collectively decided to support. I love the fact that when I travel outside Canada people say to me that with Canada's health system it does not matter if you are rich or poor; you get care. People around the world know that we have problems, but Canadian medicare says to people that it will do what it can to ensure they get the care they need when they need it. They do not have to worry about bankruptcy or their children or mortgaging their future.

Many of the people of Thornhill have mortgages. It is a young community made up of Vaughan, Markham and Concord. Many have children. There is an older population in Thornhill. Many live in condominiums. Some have mortgages. Many people who cannot yet afford homes live in apartments.

All of them wish for a brighter and better economic future. They all want us to preserve the quality of life for which Canada is famous around the world. They want us to protect the social programs which have defined Canada and make us proud to be Canadian.

The people of Thornhill understand very well that when we start to talk about fiscal policy it is important to have a balanced budget. They know that sometimes a crisis will arise. They saw recently and were very sympathetic to the people who were suffering because of the devastating ice storm. I received many calls at my constituency office from people offering to help. We directed them to the appropriate disaster relief agency.

The people of my riding are sympathetic. They understand there can be crises that must be addressed, but they want fiscal prudence. Because many of them have mortgages or many of them have debts, they know that what is important is how they manage them. Is the debt or mortgage affordable?

I was concerned that the size of the debt was growing in Canada and that the debt to gross domestic product ratio was growing. For me the first priority has always been the elimination of the deficit and the stabilization of the debt. I was proud that the government made a commitment to reduce the debt to GDP ratio. We have already seen that occur.

The trend is in the right direction. It is important to reduce the debt. That is an important part of fiscal prudence. I believe very strongly that neither the debt reduction strategy nor the tax reduction strategy nor the investment in our youth and in our social programs will do anything but enhance the future for Canadians because the plan is balanced. It recognizes that it is important to Canadians that we manage our house, that we balance our books, that we look at our debt and ask whether we can afford it.

As we see a decline in the debt to GDP ratio and as the debt is gradually reduced we will look at the debt and make an assessment, just as people do every day in the riding of Thornhill and elsewhere across the country. They come to the conclusion that they do not want to wait until their house is paid off before they give their children the opportunities they need to have a successful future. No one wants to insist that their house is paid off before their children can go to university.

The people of Thornhill would like to see tax reduction, but they know the fairest way of reducing taxes is to make sure those people at the low end are the first to get tax relief. It is in their interest to have a strong social safety net. It is in their children's interest. It is in their grandparents' interest.

The plan of the Liberal government, which is a balanced policy, will improve the future of all Canadians. I believe it is supported by the people of Thornhill. They know it is in their interest and in their children's interest. That is the reason they honoured me by voting for me and the Liberal Party during the last election in such tremendous numbers. Some 60% of the people voted for me. For that I say thanks. I believe they would want me to vote against this motion of the Reform Party.

[War Crimes, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe everything I read in the newspaper. However, I hope what was reported on Monday in the Toronto Star is correct. It was reported that tomorrow, December 12, the Minister of Justice will announce that Neal Sher will be hired as a special adviser to the war crimes unit in the Department of Justice.

My constituents in the riding of Thornhill will be delighted if this report is true. Mr. Sher will be of great assistance to the Canadian government, bringing war criminals to trial in Canada. While acting as the head of the U.S. justice department's office of special investigations, he had a most impressive record of deporting war crime suspects from the United States.

Canada must not be, nor be seen as, a haven for war criminals and I am proud to say that the government of which I am a member is taking action to correct a problem that has gone on for too long. I would like to welcome Mr. Sher to Canada and I wish him success in his attempts to rid our country of people who have committed unspeakable crimes against humanity.

[Finance, December 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I did listen very carefully to the member opposite as he described the important work that the fisheries committee did.

I have spoken with members from my own caucus who were a significant number on that committee. They too were seriously moved by the stories that they heard from the people who made presentations before the committee.

I think we all know there is a serious problem. The question that faces the government is how to respond in a way that will not only be helpful to those people who want to work, although the member talked about income support which is certainly an important part. We know the people of the Atlantic region want their jobs and the ability to work in the fishery. We also know there are problems with the fishery.

In making my comment to the member, I would ask him if he has heard any suggestions from the people who made presentations to the committee that would help to resolve the issue of how people will be able to find work in order to sustain themselves rather than looking to income support as a long term situation for the Atlantic region. We all know what the real problem is.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to clarify this point for the member. If he checks the committee proceedings he will see that a delegation of parents came before the committee and said that they felt this debate had tortured the community.

Yes, it was mental torture. It was anguish and it was anxiety. It was worry about the students and their future. It was about the divisiveness within the community which divided friends. It was cruel, mental torture.

I am not saying it. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the parents who came before the committee, used that word. They also used the words “chaos” and “divisiveness”. These difficult expressive words spoke volumes.

I hope the member who asked this important question will talk to his colleagues so that we can respond in a positive way to those people in Newfoundland and Labrador who have felt tortured by this debate and help them to put this in their history books and move beyond it.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and participate in today's very important debate.

I was a member of the special committee that studied term 17, that listened to representations from the people of Newfoundland and from others who are concerned about the amendment that is before this House. I thought I would begin my remarks today by sharing with this House and the people who are watching the debate some of the things that I learned while I was on the committee.

How did we get to where we are today? Why is Newfoundland and Labrador requesting this change to their terms of agreement, specifically to term 17? The reason that they are requesting this is because they want to change their school system. I found that Newfoundland and Labrador is the only jurisdiction in Canada, in fact the only jurisdiction in North America, that does not have a public school system.

Newfoundland and Labrador does not have a non-denominational school system. If you want to go to school in Newfoundland and Labrador, you must attend one of the schools run by one of the church groups that has denominational rights in Newfoundland.

Is there anything wrong with that? Well, it has caused problems in Newfoundland and Labrador. It has caused problems because often children or the parents of those children want the child to be able to go to the school across the street, but in order to register for a school in Newfoundland and Labrador, you have to take your birth certificate. You have to tell them what religion you are and the schools will accommodate first all of the children from that religious community and then, if there is space available, they will accept the children who are not from that denomination.

You have the situation where too often, too commonly, children are forced on to buses, pass several schools and can sit on that bus half an hour to an hour. We heard of students who spend three hours of their school day sitting on buses. We heard of students who could not participate in extra-curricular activities unless they could arrange for a lift home after school.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have been debating the type of school system that they want for their children for over 10 years. We heard from people who made representations to our committee that it has been a difficult and divisive debate. We heard that eight years ago there was a royal commission and we were told that the recommendation of that royal commission some eight years ago was in fact the change that is before this House of Commons, this Parliament, this Senate.

Think about that. Ten years ago the debate began. Eight years ago a royal commission recommended that term 17 be changed so that Newfoundland and Labrador could have a non-denominational school system. What happened in those intervening years since that royal commission?

What happened was debate, hot and heavy, passionate debate. That debate culminated and a compromise was proposed by the former premier Clyde Wells, someone who I did not always agree with, I have to tell this House. We did not see eye to eye on everything.

Premier Wells proposed a compromise and the debate that ensued on the compromise was a difficult and divisive debate. A strange thing happened in Newfoundland and Labrador. That debate became a non-partisan debate and at the end of that debate on the compromise, after listening to all sides, after a referendum that we heard at committee was confusing because it was by its very nature a compromise, we heard that there was a unanimous free vote in the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly.

As the compromise solution, the previous changes to term 17, was being implemented, problems arose.

Some of those who opposed the compromise took the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to court. In the court's wisdom, the compromise was struck down. The premier of Newfoundland, now Premier Tobin, went back to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador on July 31, 1997, days after the court struck down the decision on the previous amendment on term 17. Within days he said we were going to have a clear question. We are going to ask the people of Newfoundland and Labrador if they are prepared to support a change, a very significant change. We are going to ask them if they support a change from a denominational school system to a non-denominational public school system. We are going to ask them if they want to have religious course offered within that school system, but they will be non-specific, non-denominational religious courses on world religion. That was a very clear question.

What I discovered was that the same percentage of people in Newfoundland and Labrador who voted in the referendum that was held on September 2 voted in the last federal election. It is true the voter turnout was not high. It was not 80% or 70%, but it was a clear majority. Fifty-three per cent of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador went out to vote in this most important referendum, a similar number and a similar percentage as had voted last June 2 in the federal election.

Of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador who went to vote on September 2, 73% of them supported the clear question which was asked in the referendum by their government. They said we support change in Newfoundland, we support a change from denominational schools to public non-denominational schools. They said that clearly, they said it loudly and they said it after almost 10 years of public discussion and public debate.

What I found most compelling as I listened carefully to the passionate and anguished presentations that came before our committee was that the ensuing debate in the national assembly was again a non-partisan debate. No one questioned the other's motives. No one attempted to take political advantage. Everyone said, what is in the interests of our students? What is in the interests of quality education for those students? In Newfoundland and Labrador, which is not the richest province in this land, they said what is in the interest of cost effective quality education in Newfoundland?

We heard that time and again from people who came before the committee. What the people of Newfoundland and Labrador voted for was an end to the chaos, an end to the debate which had divided communities, an the end to the debate which was divisive and difficult for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

What they came before our committee and asked for was a resolution. Those people who came before the committee were not unanimous in their support. In all of my almost 20 years in public life, I rarely have seen an issue where there is unanimous support. In fact I have said, Mr. Speaker, you do not have to say it is a controversial issue because if it is not controversial, it is not an issue. If there is unanimous support, it is not an issue. What makes it an issue is that not everyone agrees.

They come to this House on this day and say can we in Canada be responsive to a province that has had a history such as Newfoundland and Labrador, which is unique, different? Certainly Newfoundland and Labrador's history when it comes to education is different from that of any other province in this country.

I have said to my constituents in Thornhill, to those who have expressed concerns about what is happening in Newfoundland and Labrador, that there are more differences than there are similarities between the situation in Newfoundland and Labrador and the situation in Ontario.

I do not believe that what we are doing in this Parliament is going to in any way set a precedent for any other province, particularly the province of Ontario. I do not believe it. I do not believe it because Ontario has a very different history than Newfoundland and Labrador.

Ontario has a very different education system than exists in Newfoundland and Labrador today. Ontario does not have the same kind of terms of union that Newfoundland and Labrador are trying to change.

To those people who are raising concerns that what we do in this House on term 17 may in the future have some negative implications for other provinces, may in the future have established a precedent, I say to them that the only precedent that changes to term 17 will create in my opinion is the precedent that says in Canada changes to our constitution are possible.

Our constitution is a living document. It is not carved in stone. It can be responsive to the needs of individual provinces. It can respond and it can be flexible. It is not difficult to understand why there are those who, for their own reasons, resist change.

Certainly I understand that those who have the power to control the school systems do not want to see that changed. I understand that. It is difficult to make change in a constitution.

This country has struggled with the desire for that change over the course of its history, but if ever there was a clear example of when this Parliament should be responsive to a request from the provinces, if there was ever an example of due process having taken place, of the expression of will from the people at a non-partisan free vote again in the Newfoundland House of Assembly, this change to term 17 is the very best example.

After the referendum where 73% of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador said that they want this change on a clear question, there was a non-partisan free vote, unanimous, in the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly.

The Conservatives supported it. The NDP supported it. The one independent member of the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly who represents a significant Métis and aboriginal constituency supported it. Yes, the Liberal government and all the members of that House, be they Pentecostals, be they catholics, be they any religion under the sun or no religion, they all supported this.

Do members know why? I believe it is because they all want what is best for the students of Newfoundland and Labrador. They want to be able to use their resources in the most cost-effective way that will give their students the best possible quality education and the best possible chance for success in the future.

I urge the members of this House to listen to the voice that has been tortured. We heard from one delegation that they had been tortured in this debate for a decade.

Let us help them put this into their history. If we do not pass this resolution expeditiously in the House they will not be prepared to look after their students come next September. It is irresponsible not to move forward if we care about the students of Newfoundland and Labrador, if we care that they will have the opportunity to receive the best quality, cost effective education that can be provided in that province. Let us give those kids a chance. Let the province get past this.

After sitting on the committee, I believe its majority report is the best thing for Canada and for Newfoundland and Labrador. I hope members of the House will support it.

[Violence Against Women, December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, December 6 is the day that should forever be remembered by all Canadians.

It was eight years ago last Saturday that 14 young women lost their lives at the Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal for no reason other than they were women. All the women massacred were between the ages of 21 and 31, in the prime of their lives.

The government has worked hard to try to protect women from violence. We passed tough gun control legislation, eliminated self-induced intoxication as a defence for violent crimes, strengthened the effectiveness of peace bonds to keep abusers away from women and children, and toughened the Criminal Code to deal with high risk offenders.

It is not a problem that government alone can solve. It is a societal problem. Only when there is an end to discrimination and violence and when there is true equality of opportunity for women in society will women feel safe in their communities.

I call on all Canadians to—

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the hon. member' speech. She and I were both on the special constitutional committee. I think she fairly described the historical context of the debate and the importance of this change to the province of Newfoundland.

I think she also understands how different the situation is in Newfoundland from any other province in this country and how important it is for our constitution to be living, flexible and able to change when the provinces make the case that their people are supportive of the changes being brought forward.

I want her to know that I agree not only with her historical perspective, but also with her hope that the people of Newfoundland will be able to move forward and get on with building the kind of education system which will provide quality, cost-effective education to all students of Newfoundland in a way which is unique to that province.

This will deal with much of the frustration and anxieties about which we have heard. We can set them aside. The divisiveness of the past will be in the past so that the people of Newfoundland will be able to work together in the interests of their children's education.

I thank the member for her intervention.

[Diabetes Awareness Month, November 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, November is Diabetes Awareness Month.

Nearly 1.5 million Canadians have diabetes which is a major cause of premature death and other significant health problems. The chances of having diabetes increase with age. It affects more than 11% of Canadians between 65 and 74.

Diabetes rates for aboriginals are three times that of the general population. That is why in the Speech from the Throne this government identified the need to develop new initiatives to address the rapid increase of diabetes in aboriginal communities.

Health Canada plays an important role in the fight against diabetes by supporting research through the Medical Research Council, by facilitating the operation of the multisectoral Diabetes Council of Canada and by working with First Nations communities to develop effective diabetes programming.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in wishing the Canadian Diabetes Association and its many volunteers a very successful Diabetes Awareness Month.

[The Environment, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, global warming is a problem that every person, every country and every level of government in the world must deal with.

I rise in the House today to tell of a success story. Toronto's outstanding progress in reducing greenhouse emissions is a model for the world and something that the House should be aware of.

According to the UN affiliated International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, metropolitan Toronto is the world's leader in fighting global warming. It tops the list of 150 cities in cutting carbon dioxide output between 1990 and 1996.

Toronto and its surrounding suburbs achieved cumulative reductions of 7.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide between 1990 and 1996. That is a 6% cent reduction.

The reductions were achieved using a variety of measures including landfill gas recovery, recycling initiatives, energy efficient street and land lighting and community water conservation programs.

This experience should serve as model for other cities in Canada and the rest of the world, showing that we can cut harmful greenhouse gas emissions, save money and create jobs—