Karen Kraft Sloan

[Aboriginal Affairs, September 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am standing here to support the member for Churchill in his initiative to organize a sacred assembly. The assembly would bring together aboriginal and non-aboriginal spiritual leaders to begin a process of healing and reconciliation.

Spirituality, as the member says, has been the missing element in the political process to reclaim native land and the right to self-government. Spirituality has sustained native people for generations. The importance of spirituality was demonstrated during the recent standoff at Gustafsen Lake where a peaceful settlement resulted through the interventions of a native spiritual leader.

The member for Churchill has urged all his colleagues in the House to support his initiatives. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

[The Underground Economy, September 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for Mississauga South for bringing an important issue before the House which demands the attention of members on both sides. The seriousness of the underground economy cannot be understated.

I am sure other members have talked to constituents about how difficult it can be to compete with those who deal in the underground economy and who insist on being paid cash. The greater the activity in the underground economy, the less revenue there is for government.

Underground economy activities create unfair competition for honest businesses. Jobs are lost and honest taxpayers are forced to pay more than their fair share. The government is committed to ensuring fairness in the tax system and has a strategy in place for ensuring compliance with the law. In November 1993 the Minister of National Revenue announced a series of measures to address non-compliance underground economic activity and tax evasion. The department has strengthened its ties with the private sector and the provinces.

During the past year Revenue Canada has consulted with more than 240 groups, which has helped the department to define its strategies, identify areas of non-compliance and explore measures for improving compliance.

Co-operation arrangements are in place with all the provinces. This has led to joint audits with the provinces, the sharing of audit strategies, training material and expertise. The department has strengthened its ability to identify non-filers and non-registrants and has increased and targeted its audits to focus on areas of high non-compliance.

The construction and home renovation sectors are being paid special attention. Revenue Canada officials in their consultations with industry and trade representatives have been told how revenues and jobs are being lost. Consumers lose out. They forfeit any guarantees of a quality product backed by a reputable firm. Workers seeking steady, secure employment are also cheated.

The government has taken steps to respond to the needs of an industry battling under the table entrepreneurs. The reason is straightforward. No business that plays by the rules should have to face unfair competition from those that do not. The honest taxpayer should not be disadvantaged by those who are cheating.

Revenue Canada has put special audit teams in place to look into transactions. The department examines the classified ads and visits construction sites in search of information that will help identify non-filers and non-registrants. With information from the financial records of lumber yards and building supply companies Revenue Canada can verify that the people who purchase construction materials are paying the tax they should on the work they perform.

There is also follow-up on leads from private citizens which often include individuals who are unhappy with the work they paid for and who could not get their cash contractor to respond to their complaint.

Revenue Canada has been working with the Ontario Association of Lumber and Building Supply Dealers. The association has agreed to display in its member stores a flyer which emphasizes the pitfalls for consumers when dealing under the table.

The department is involved in ongoing consultations with the Canadian Home Builders Association. Specifically Revenue Canada and the CHBA have established a working group to co-ordinate efforts to address the underground economy in the home renovation business. The working group considers how the CHBA and its local associations can assist Revenue Canada to identify those businesses involved in under the table activity. The CHBA and Revenue Canada can work together to ensure Canadians are aware of the risks associated with dealing in the underground economy. Consultations between the department and CHBA are taking place at the local and national levels.

The February budget measure for a reporting system for payments to subcontractors in the construction industry is a direct result of consultations with representatives of the construction industry. The measure and others in the budget reinforce the government's commitment to a fair tax system and a level playing field for businesses.

Revenue Canada is now discussing with representatives of the industry and trade associations as well as professional accounting and legal associations how the reporting system should operate and what other measures might be taken. The government wants to improve compliance in a way that does not increase the burden and cost of compliance for business.

The motion of the member for Mississauga South contains a proposal for a tax credit for home improvements and renovations as a way to create a paper trail. I support the intent of this proposal. It is something the government might wish to look at but it must be recognized that there would be a cost associated with its implementation.

Revenue Canada already reviews records of GST rebates paid out for substantial renovations along with provincial sales tax credits to ensure that proper deductions and claims have been made by taxpayers. This paper trail is very helpful.

I thank the member for putting forward the motion allowing us to debate an issue of key concern to Canadians.

[Child Poverty, September 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak for a group of constituents in my riding of York-Simcoe and indeed from across the country who cannot vote. I am standing here today to speak for the children of Canada.

There are 1.5 million Canadian children living in poverty. Children are poor because their parents are poor. Sixty-four per cent of children living with sole support mothers live in poverty.

Canada has been declared the second wealthiest nation on earth. We have the resources in this country to improve the lives of our youngest citizens. I urge the government to turn its attention to the crucial issue of child poverty in Canada.

[Auditor General Act, September 18th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, my understanding-and I guess it is the best way to state it-is that whenever anything is done to the natural environment, when we decide to intervene in the course of a waterway, when we decide to make changes on the land or if we decide to cut a forest, we have to think of the implications of the action on the seventh generation down the road.

It is not just how it is going to affect us next month or in the next year. We have to think of the seven lifetimes of people who will follow us. When we are dealing with environmental issues they are very complex and often we do not properly extend the time horizon.

One of the reasons I am so supportive of the concept of sustainability is that it takes into consideration ecological aspects, economic aspects and social aspects. Something I firmly believe in is intergenerational equity. Our children inherit what we leave for them, their children and so on to the seventh generation.

[Auditor General Act, September 18th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, as always people have different visions of where they might like to go. Certainly the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development had decided on a particular vision after interviewing a number of witnesses and through discussions with committee members. We thought perhaps a stand alone commissioner might be the way to go in this regard.

The red book commitment talked about a commissioner of sustainable development within the auditor general's office. The government in its wisdom decided to go with that particular position.

Part of the discussion we had as members of that committee looking at the particular issue was the tradeoff of a stand alone office or the clout within the auditor general's office. Given the kinds of financial constraints the government is operating under, I think we can utilize the expertise that has already been developed in the auditor general's office and move in that direction.

[Auditor General Act, September 18th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, Canada has recently been declared the second wealthiest nation on earth. This is in large part due to our natural heritage.

Canadians from coast to coast are privileged people who live in a great nation. We are a country of richly diverse temperate rain forests, prairie grasslands that expand wide on open horizons, great inland waterways, beaches full of the scent of ocean life, and fragile Arctic flowers that hang tenuously on to life season after season.

Fresh potable water, clean air and arable soil are resources that cannot be fully valued. Once they are gone they cannot be replaced. More and more world conflict will arise from fighting over scarce natural resources. Human health is clearly linked to a healthy natural environment.

In the spring of 1994 I had the honour of accompanying the Minister of the Environment to attend a G-7 ministers of the environment conference in Florence, Italy. At that conference they made it very clear to the Canadian delegation that the world was anxiously watching Canada. Canada, they told us, was one of the last countries of the world to contain large tracts of pristine wilderness.

The delegates very eloquently told us how they learned too late about their mistakes. Vast tracts of forested land had been denuded, arable soil had been turned into desert, fresh waterways polluted and air made unbreathable.

Paul Hawken, in his book "The Ecology of Commerce", paints a very bleak future for this planet. We currently use 40 per cent of the earth's biotic capacity to produce. In 40 years the earth's population will double. If we continue to use the earth's resources at the same rate with no change, in 40 years when the earth's population doubles we will use 80 per cent of the earth's biotic capacity to produce.

Major ecosystem failure occurs at 60 per cent to 70 per cent. We have already experienced a major ecosystem failure on the east coast in the fisheries. The long debate over the ecological implications of our behaviour is over. We can see before our eyes what is happening. We feel the effects on our health. Our communities and

industries know firsthand about the devastation of an ecological crisis.

Canadians, from what polls indicate, are very concerned about their economic well-being and the economic health of the country, but underlying all these concerns the environment is still an issue they have a strong attachment to.

In my one and a half years as vice-chair of the environment committee I have heard Canadians from all parts of the country, from all walks of life, both industry and environmental groups, First Nations people, scientists and lay persons, speak about their concerns regarding environmental degradation. I have heard senior representatives of large corporations talk with pride in their voices about environmental initiatives they are pursuing. We have heard from community groups, from band councils and from government agencies all outlining what they are trying to do to help Canadian society make the shift to sustainability.

However it is not enough. Not everyone in industry, in the private sector and in the public sector is doing all he or she can. Government must show leadership, first by taking the initiative to model environmentally sensitive behaviour and, second, by developing best practices that can be used by others in the shift toward sustainability.

The commissioner of the environment and sustainable development as outlined by Bill C-83 will go a long way in demonstrating leadership. First, it very clearly demonstrates to Canadians that the government is committed to sustainable approaches. Second, it will provide very good working examples of how we can make the move from theory to practice, from problem analysis to problem solving.

One key issue addressed at the G-7 ministers of the environment conference in Florence focused on the practice of sustainability. How is the shift made in practical terms and how do we undertake green or environmental accounting? Through building on the efforts already initiated by the auditor general in the field of green auditing, the government can help to build capacity in Canadian society.

Third, the government can show leadership in the shift toward sustainability by helping to co-ordinate and connect all efforts currently under way. Many undertakings are happening in various government departments that need to be documented and co-ordinated.

Originally the committee had recommended a stand alone office of the commissioner of the environment to assess government policy proactively before it is implemented. I would certainly prefer the forward looking approach of this model as opposed to the rearview approach of the office of the auditor general. However this must be balanced by the added clout of the office of the auditor general that Bill C-83 provides and the ability of the new commissioner to integrate fully ecological considerations with all government auditing functions.

The government has fulfilled its red book commitment even though what is reflected in Bill C-83 is not exactly what the committee recommended because the committee recommendations differed from the red book.

I campaigned on the issue of a commissioner of the environment and sustainable development in the office of the auditor general. I was very excited about the progressive nature of this campaign promise. I am very pleased that Canada will join New Zealand as the second country in the world to have a commissioner of sustainable development.

In addition to amending the Auditor General Act to require the appointment of a commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, Bill C-83 sets out other things to support the shift toward sustainability. These include ensuring that environmental considerations in the context of sustainable development are taken into account in the auditor general's reports to the House of Commons, imposing requirements for responding to petitions received by the auditor general about federal environmental matters, and requiring that departments prepare and table sustainable development strategies in the House of Commons. All these will increase public accountability as the government exhibits leadership in the shift to sustainability.

We have the resources in the country, the human talent and expertise and the rich, diverse natural heritage of our land to meet the challenges that face us as a nation; but as people must be nurtured, supported and protected. So must the land, the air, the water and all that they contain.

I ask members of the House: Who ultimately owns these things? How can a document give full and absolute ownership to a forest or to a tract of land? Perhaps we should consider how the aboriginal peoples of the country view their relationship to the land. They do not individually own it. Rather they must care for the land. Anything that is done to the natural environment must be thought of in the way it will affect the seventh generation.

As individuals our time on earth is fleeting. We are like a mere speck on the beach of time. Yet, in a fluttering second we can destroy that beach and all the life that depends on it for survival.

It is time to challenge our unsustainable behaviours. It is time for the government to show leadership in the shift to a sustainable future in both the spirit and letter of the law.

[National Grandparents Day, June 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes I think grandparents are wasted on the young because it is not until later in life when we can look back that we really appreciate what our grandparents have given to us.

I had the great pleasure of knowing three of my grandparents very well. One grandmother, who has been gone from us for almost 40 years, is still revered by her family as a strong, principled woman who worked hard to provide a life for her family in the new country.

My grandfather impressed on me the importance of my responsibility as a citizen, as a new Canadian, ensuring his

children took great care in participating in and supporting the democracy of Canada. I am here today because of him.

My other grandmother provided me with another strong role model, a woman with her own special brand of humour, intelligence and tenacity.

While we discuss a grandparent's day for Canada I would like to introduce the idea of reciprocity. The trend from single to dual earner families has restructured the family as we know it. This has required substantial lifestyle changes within households. The trend has produced uncertainties in role expectations for spouses, their children and grandparents.

Family members or friends provide most of the support for seniors needing care. In return, seniors are active contributors to their families. They provide financial assistance, care for their grandchildren, do housework, they bake and they undertake household repairs. More important, they provide emotional support and continuity for the younger members of their families.

Grandparents donate their time as volunteers, they share their experience-

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues on this side spoke about different aspects, about victim impact and other aspects of the legislation. Other members on this side have spoken about many different aspects of the legislation. However, some of us have been choosing to speak to the hate crime aspect of it simply because members opposite are not getting the point. We thought we would like to do it again and again until perhaps-

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, what I said was this is a typical example members on the other side use to illustrate what they refer to as reverse discrimination. I do not refer to reverse discrimination. I refer only to discrimination. I am referring to the things members opposite have used particularly in debates on employment equity when they are constantly screaming about reverse discrimination.

What I said, if the member opposite had been listening, was if a person is convicted of a hate crime based on race or ethnicity it does not matter about skin colour.

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

To Canadians watching tonight, this is another example of bogus, reverse discrimination consistently used by members of the third party.

This legislation refers to sentencing based on race and ethnicity. It does not specify the race of the ethnicity of the individual. If an individual is convicted of a crime motivated by hate based on race or ethnicity it has nothing to do with whether they are black, white, red, yellow, green or purple.