Lynn Myers

[Canadian Farmers, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this year has been a very difficult one for Canada's farmers. A crisis is unfolding in Canada's agriculture industry.

This industry, which is Canada's third largest employer, is suffering great losses and is facing financial ruin. Farmers in my constituency of Waterloo—Wellington have approached me about their great concern for this problem. Hog and grain producers across our country are facing horrible circumstances in relation to commodity prices. Financial forecasters are expecting conditions to get even worse.

These circumstances are beyond their control since many of the problems have their roots in Asia and elsewhere in the world.

Family farms are a very important resource in Canada. They are the cornerstones of our country and when they experience difficulty all Canadians are affected.

The national farm income crisis is a sad realty and one that needs to be dealt with and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is doing so. I wholeheartedly support the efforts of the government and the Minister of Agriculture and thank him on behalf of the residents of Waterloo—Wellington for his help on this very important issue.

[Canada-United States Days Of Peace And Friendship, December 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, poverty is an issue that concerns all Canadians. A phenomenon that is called the growing gap, the inequality between the country's rich and poor, continues to be pronounced. Although programs already exist to combat the growing gap, the effects continue to be felt by many.

As more Canadians fall below the poverty line we must ask ourselves what we might be able to do to counter this process. The government needs to look at this issue and make changes to rectify the situation.

As members know, a social report released this fall indicated that a growing gap does exist between the rich and the poor. It seems that the wealthy are getting wealthier and the poor are getting poorer. Many factors contribute to this phenomenon and they must be examined and countered.

For example, top executives in Canada consistently receive enormous raises while the average worker faces a wage freeze or a layoff or other effects of all too common cutbacks.

The already rich owners, managers, chairs and CEOs of the country continue to get richer. The average worker meanwhile is not getting large increases and in some cases is actually getting poorer.

While in the 1950s and 1960s the average family income more than doubled, this is certainly not the case today.

The average CEO in Canada now makes $862,000 a year, which jumps to $1.5 million if we include stock options. This amount has increased at a rate of approximately 13% over the last few years. They continue to make more money and to gain power and prestige. Meanwhile in the same amount of years the wage of the average Canadian worker has risen no more than 2%, which is less than the rate of inflation. Furthermore, many Canadians are laid off and must settle for lower paying jobs or depend on government support.

In 1971 the average income for the richest 10% of families, being $107,000, was 21 times that of the poorest 10%. The gap was already present but to a smaller extent. By 1996 Canada's richest families were earning on average 314 times the amount of Canada's poorest. These figures are self-explanatory. The gap has widened.

This growing gap between the nation's poorest and richest plays a big role in the lives of most Canadians whether it be for the better or for the worst. Poverty is a problem in Canada. It is our duty as parliamentarians to implement legislation to try to correct this problem.

In a country like Canada poverty is simply unacceptable. Canada is a rich country both in natural and human resources. We are proud to be one of the world's richest and most developed countries and therefore cannot let the issue of poverty change this status. We have always prided ourselves in being a strong country economically, which is one reason why we will not accept that this gap continues to grow. Something needs to be done. It is important that as parliamentarians we try to rectify the problem.

I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development to outline exactly what we as a government should do to correct this situation.

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for the questions.

Certainly we on the government side need always to be cognizant, as do all Canadians, of the importance of respecting the Constitution in all these matters. That is fundamental not only to all Canadians but to all of us in this place. To present the Constitution in a fair manner is important. It is also important to provide a social union framework and context which enable us as Canadians to promote and preserve those things that we hold dear and which need protection and promotion in a fair and equitable fashion.

It is very important that we on the government side continue to do that. We have traditionally and historically been a party and a government of nation building. We intend not to tear down but rather to build in a manner consistent with the kinds of values and ideals all Canadians want us to use. It is important to continue on that vein and do so in the best interest of all Canadians.

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the current negotiations on the social union. This is a very important issue. These negotiations give us the opportunity to improve Canada's social and health policies.

Discussions are presently being undertaken at all levels of government in Canada in the hopes of making improvements to the social union for our country. These governments are attempting to find the best way for governments to help and serve Canadians.

While there are elements of the motion that are difficult to understand and certainly impossible to support, the motion provides us with a valuable opportunity to debate important new initiatives started by our government to strengthen federalism and to make the country work more efficiently for the benefit of all Canadians.

These negotiations are an important opportunity for Canada to improve the social and health policies that mean so much to all Canadians wherever they may live. All governments in Canada are currently involved in negotiations on how to improve Canada's social union. They are trying to design the best approach for helping governments to help Canadians.

What we call the social union most Canadians know through their direct experiences in their communities. Over the years we have learned to take for granted that wherever we live in Canada quality health care is available when we get sick. Young people can count on first rate education. Those who have lost their jobs or who have been hit by bad times are able to get the help they need. Pensions and benefits are available to secure quality of life in old age. These programs and services are the social union.

The concept of social union focuses on the Canada-wide nature of these programs and services, as well as the importance of providing all Canadians regardless of where they live in the country, or where they travel to, an equal opportunity to benefit from the programs that meet their fundamental needs.

Perhaps more important, the concept of social union captures our commitment to one another, our understanding that we are stronger together and that as Canadians we help each other wherever the need may be. We are always willing to help.

The current negotiations are tackling some difficult issues, but it is important to keep in mind that we already have one of the best social systems in the world. It is to ensure we can improve this quality of life that all governments are committed to succeeding in the negotiations.

The negotiations were launched by the Prime Minister and Canada's premiers at the first ministers' meeting on December 11 and December 12, 1997. At that time first ministers agreed that each jurisdiction would appoint a minister to negotiate a new social partnership to help improve decision making and delivery of social and health policies. While this may seem like a long process these issues are important for Canada and for all Canadians. We must take the time necessary to get it right and the time necessary to succeed.

We have tried not to allow the process to become political. That is why all governments have agreed not to negotiate through the media where too often positions become rigid and exaggerated and the focus is on power and conflict. These negotiations are and must be focused on what is right for Canadians.

I will provide the House with a sense of our current social union, with a sense of why the government believes we must improve it, and with a sense of what we are trying to achieve through those negotiations.

Most of us take for granted the advantages we receive from the social programs put in place throughout the country. The network of social benefits that permits us to have our high level of living is relatively new. It was established only after the second world war when the depression was still fresh in our collective minds.

Old age pension plans, employment insurance, student loans and health insurance were all founded within the last 50 years with the collaboration of all levels of government in Canada through debate, dialogue, disagreement and ultimately compromise.

The history of the social union is a remarkable story of creativity and mutual respect. It is a story of the commitment of generations of Canadians to caring for one another and to accommodating our differences as we pursue our common purpose. Most impressive has been our ability simultaneously to achieve Canada-wide initiatives while enhancing the freedom of provinces to act for their residents.

The commitment to improve is particularly important now because Canada like all countries in the world faces tremendous challenges. As the baby boomers begin to enter the retirement years our aging population will put real strains on our pension, health care and social systems. Within 20 years the number of Canadians over 65 will increase by 50%. With no change in the system in almost 30 years fully one-third of the federal budget will be needed to be spent on seniors pensions.

Federal and provincial governments after consultations with Canadians have already taken steps to ensure the Canada pension plan. With globalization and the emerging information economy we will need more than ever a literate technologically skilled and mobile labour force. Our social programs must adapt to the changing labour market and new directions in the nature and organization of work. Our youth are entering a labour market that is very difficult and different from the one we knew. We must equip them with skills and information they require and need, and the freedom to pursue opportunities wherever they arise.

We must ensure for all Canadians access to learning and unfettered mobility. We have more to do for Canadian children to ensure that they are ready to learn and have the fair start necessary to participate fully in Canada's economic and social opportunities. Each Canadian must have access to the opportunities afforded them by all for all of Canada.

All governments have had to take tough measures to balance their budgets and thereby increase our flexibility for the future and our resiliency in the face of global forces. This has put a premium on efficiency and on making sure that governments do not duplicate one another. We share risks and resources and we learn from one another. We can and we must work together and make it better for Canadians.

Given the value we attach to our social and health programs, given our contribution to our quality of life and given the challenges before us, governments are working together to set out the basis for an even stronger partnership, a new social union framework. The negotiations on the new framework provide an opportunity to strengthen our co-operation for the benefit of all Canadians. To do this we must be consistent with the core values and principles of our Canadian federation.

The first we must note is that the Constitution must be respected. Respect of the Constitution and constitutional power and competencies is essential to maintain the effectiveness of public policy and the mutual respect that is a basis of this partnership. The foundations of this social union must respect the Constitution.

Second, we must show greater co-operation to meet the needs of Canadians. Governments are now co-ordinating their work on behalf of children, youth and persons with disabilities through recent initiatives. That should carry on.

Third, the ability of governments to act must be preserved. Greater co-operation should not and cannot mean that governments cannot do anything without asking permission of each other. We can strengthen our partnership without hindering our capacity to act. We can avoid what the Europeans call the joint decision trap. The framework must preserve the capacity to act and to adapt to change as required and as needed.

The fourth idea I present is the principle that the federation must be flexible. We are learning how to reconcile joint action with enhanced flexibility for the provinces. We have seen this in the recent labour market agreements which allowed provinces to choose the approach most suited to their labour market. We have seen this in the national child benefit in which provinces were able to invest as appropriate to the challenges they faced. A new framework must ensure that flexibility.

The fifth notion is that the federation must be fair. Canada has lead the G-7 in bringing down its deficit and gaining fiscal control. It has achieved this with relatively less conflict and friction than what might rightfully be expected but not without consequences. Canadians are worried about the adequacy of funding for core programs. With the prospect of a fiscal dividend the federal government is conscious of the challenges facing the provinces, and we need to act accordingly.

We must keep each other informed. That too is important and fundamental to the framework. We must also enhance accountability for Canadians and to Canadians. That too is part and parcel of this union. It is very important that we have the opportunity to establish this new partnership and a new balance to manage the interdependence of services for all Canadians. It will prevent the elimination of the doubling of cost and it will lead to a much better federation.

The test of our efforts is simple. Are Canadians better served? Are governments more transparent and accountable to Canadians? Are we in a better position to improve our health and social policies and to promote the well-being of Canadians in all parts of Canada? Have we improved mobility for Canadians? Above all, have we achieved greater equality for opportunity in Canada?

The answer is that we will do that in the best interest of all Canadians. While the motion before us appears reasonable enough on the surface, it cannot and shall not be supported. We need to carry on in a way that is in keeping with the values, institutions and the symbols that define us a people and unite us as a nation.

[National Home Fire Safety Week, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, National Home Fire Safety Week runs from November 24 to 30. This week, sponsored by the Canada Safety Council, emphasizes the importance of smoke alarms in all Canadian Homes.

Most fatal fires start at night when the household is asleep. Since the fumes of a fire can send one into an even deeper sleep, it is extremely important to verify regularly that all smoke alarms are in working order.

Canadians are starting to learn that smoke alarms save lives. Most Canadian households now have at least one of these life saving units. It is important then, throughout the year and specifically during this week, that all Canadians take the opportunity to educate themselves about this very important matter. I urge everyone in Canada to remember the theme sentence for this week: “Are you sure your fire alarm works?”

[National Aids Awareness Week, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this week is national AIDS awareness week and I would like to take this opportunity to address the House on this very important issue.

As most Canadians know, AIDS is a deadly disease. By the end of 1997 Health Canada had reported a total 15,528 AIDS cases since the beginning of the epidemic. Many of these cases have ended in death.

I think it is important, especially during this week, to emphasize the risks and dangers of this horrible disease. Only through public awareness and education can we attempt to solve this problem. In recent years the level of reported cases has dropped, but there is still much ground to cover.

I urge all Canadians to find out more about AIDS and to help in the fight against it. We must and we will defeat this terrible disease.

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, November 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough East.

It is a pleasure to rise in the House today to debate this important matter, and I do so on behalf of the residents of Waterloo—Wellington.

I note at the outset that the proposed Canada Small Business Financing Act builds on the proven success of the previous loan guarantee program which has a 37 year history of meeting the needs of small business. It introduces features that will continue to guarantee stable access to financing for one of Canada's most dynamic growth sectors.

I also note at the outset that the Standing Committee on Industry did an excellent job and excellent work on Bill C-53. Committee members have been conscientious and helpful in improving the legislation and the regulations. I think that is important to note. They understood the needs of stakeholders and the bill is stronger for their scrutiny and their attention.

We are all aware that the legislative and regulatory process is evolving. The bill is one of the first to have the proposed legislation and regulations before a committee at the same time. That too is important to note. It is worth noting that we have all learned some important lessons from this process. We still need to work on improving that process to meet the expectations of parliament. In particular, we have to make sure we consult affected stakeholders about regulatory changes well before a bill is considered in committee. Members of the Standing Committee on Industry were sensitive to this issue and we need to thank them for their assistance in this matter.

This raises a second point about regulations under the new process. It is an issue that came up in committee and it is one to which I would like to draw the attention of members of the House. This legislative initiative reflects a new way of drafting legislation. The details of the administration of the program are now to be found in the regulations. Members have expressed some concerns about how this may impact on the scrutiny of the program. Nevertheless the government has responded to their concerns by agreeing to table all regulations.

The amendments adopted by the committee require that every proposed regulation be laid before both houses of parliament before it is made. They also require that the regulations be referred to the appropriate committee of each house.

The intent of these amendments is to impose an obligation on the government to notify parliament of proposed regulations and ensure these are brought to the attention of the appropriate committees. If they choose to do so, committees would then have an opportunity to schedule time to study the proposed regulations and to provide comments.

Although this notice requirement would not delay the making and coming into force of the regulations in accordance with the established regulatory process, where the proposed regulations are prepublished in the Canada Gazette , the committee's comments as well as those of other interested stakeholders made during the prepublication period would be taken into consideration.

I will now turn to another example of this government's openness and willingness to consult stakeholders. I refer to the bill's provisions for pilot projects in capital leasing and the voluntary sector, and the greater involvement of parliamentary committees.

I reiterate what the minister said and the promise that he made when introducing the bill. He said then that he intended to call on the advice of hon. members through the Standing Committee on Industry to help in designing the pilot projects.

Capital leasing is a rapidly growing form of financing for small business, but our consultations indicated that the leasing industry generally does not approve leasing for firms under two years old and which require financing of less than $100,000. Similarly, our consultations indicated that a number of voluntary groups would find the loan guarantee program useful, given that these groups are also an integral part of the economy and the labour market.

The pilot projects would determine the feasibility of extending the program to the capital leasing market and the voluntary groups. I believe that the input of committee members will be most important in devising sound pilot projects.

This is above and beyond the notification of the committee in respect of any proposed regulations for bringing in the pilots provided for in subparagraph 13(5). In essence we hope to benefit from the committee's expertise at both stages, program design and examining regulations.

I have just mentioned that this bill embodies provisions for greater accountability to parliament in regulatory matters. In calling for greater committee involvement in designing the pilots, I hope that hon. members will also see this correctly as a response to members' desires to be involved earlier in the policy development process.

I would like to conclude with a brief overview of the main strengths of the proposed Canada small business financing act. Most significantly, this bill meets the needs of small business, the entrepreneurs who are the driving spirit behind nearly 80% of new jobs in this country. They are the young small firms recognized and targeted by the bill's loan guarantee provisions. Bill C-53 offers them continuing stable access to financing even as the financial services industry is restructuring, access that a large majority would not have without this program.

The bill offers taxpayers the reassurance that the loan guarantee program will continue to move toward cost recovery. It is delivered by private sector professionals, not bureaucrats. It uses private sector money, not taxpayers' dollars.

Under the revised program, parliament will release more accurate information and performance measurements by which to judge the program's effectiveness. The new five-year review provision gives parliament a closer and more active role in scrutinizing the program. That is very important.

Canada's 2.5 million small businesses and self-employed entrepreneurs can flourish and grow in an encouraging environment. That environment is exactly what Bill C-53 will continue to provide, and rightfully so.

Our women and men in small business need to see that the federal government values and encourages their willingness to take risks. It is our small businesses after all that devise new products and services, and create jobs by their hard work. This bill recognizes and supports their contribution to Canada's prosperity. Their financing needs are exactly what this bill recognizes.

The bill before the House is a product of informed review by financial and audit experts, of widespread consultations with borrowers and lenders, and of exhaustive examination by members of this House. It meets the demonstrated requirements of small business people, large and small lenders, and taxpayers.

On all accounts it is a very sensible and integrated set of improvements to an already strong and creative program. Therefore I would urge all members in this House to support the passage of Bill C-53, the Canada small business financing act. It is an important piece of legislation and is deserving of our support.

[Division No. 276, November 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, illegal immigration is becoming a big problem in Canada.

A recent report given to the federal government has indicated that as many as 16,000 illegal immigrants are entering Canada every year with the help of smugglers. Whether they are entering the country by boat, on land or through the air, the number of illegal immigrants passing the borders and coming into the country is costing the Canadian taxpayer an enormous amount of money.

Whether it be in the processing of false immigration claims or in the fighting of organized crime in which a large number of illegal immigrants are involved, the money being spent in relation to this problem continues to grow.

The trafficking of illegal immigrants is becoming a profitable business and furthermore an international business. Smugglers have set up syndicates for these types of operations in countries around the world.

This demonstrates how vast the problem really is and how much of a global dilemma it is becoming. Not only should we deal with the problem here in Canada but the issue should also be dealt with internationally.

The costs that the federal and provincial governments have to cover also include over $400 million a year for the handling and processing of false refugee claimants. Moreover, it has been estimated that each claimant costs the government $50,000 in social benefits.

The study that I mentioned earlier indicates that between 30% and 60% of the claimants that approach the Canadian government lack proper documents. In addition, experts estimate that most of the people without documentation are linked to smugglers.

Some people can be expected to pay up to $50,000 to be transported into countries such as Canada, although the price does depend on the destination and complexity of the circumstances surrounding the trip. However, since most recently apprehended smugglers have received fairly lenient sentences, the majority of them claim that the risk is worthwhile.

These newly arrived people often enter our country with substantial debt due to the enormous price they had to pay to be transported across the border. Most really could not afford the high costs but often found it necessary to leave their homes anyway and head for another country. Imagining they would be able to repay it once they had found employment at their destination, they often arrive and have trouble finding a job, which becomes problematic. Many of them then become involved in low paying jobs or other things and some in fact become involved in criminal activity, which also becomes a problem. This obviously contributes to the rise in crime in Canada.

The organized crime problem in Canada is a multibillion dollar burden on society. This study given to the federal government maintains that the illegal immigration problem that we are encountering is doing nothing but adding to the already tremendous amount of money that is coming out the country's pockets. Illegal immigrants are adding to Canada's costs of operation, both in fighting crime and in processing false immigration claims. Something needs to be done.

I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General once again what he proposes be done to suppress this problem. We need to do something about this on a national level and then bring it to the attention of an international forum. How can we as Canadians rectify this problem?

[Canadian Human Rights Act, November 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate this very important issue. It is a matter of great importance not only to the residents of Waterloo-Wellington but to all Canadians.

I support the essence and spirit behind Bill S-11, an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act to add social condition as a protected ground under the act. I believe the drafter of Bill S-11 intended it to provide protection to the poor and to prohibit discrimination based on economic discrimination. This is laudable and should be supported by all members.

My concern is not with the object and aim of Bill S-11 but rather the overly broad and necessarily confusing nature of the exact wording. Simply using an open ended term such as social condition will add confusion to the act and will result in an endless sea of litigation.

If we are serious about assisting the poor and disadvantaged in society, we must create opportunities for jobs and provide education, training and the necessities of life so that they will be able to participate as full and equal members of society. We must provide a remedy through our human rights legislation for prejudicial treatment of the poor in a manner that makes that protection meaningful.

This year we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the UN declaration of human rights. It is a fitting time to review our current human rights legislation to ensure that it protects the most vulnerable of society. In Canada we have honoured our commitment to the declaration for 50 years. I might remind all members of the House that article 25 of the declaration states:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself or herself and his or her family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, old age or other lack of livelihood and circumstances beyond his or her control.

Recently the United Nations in its human rights development index report gave Canada top marks as being the best place in the world to live based on 1995 data. The hon. member mentioned that in her opening speech. I believe that Canada received the high rating because Canadians take our commitment to human rights very seriously. That is why the government is committed to a broad review of the human rights act in this area. We want to ensure that the act is an effective instrument that protects the human rights of all Canadians.

Let us go a step further and note that although Canada received high marks the authors of the report cautioned Canadians to note that there was a growing wealth disparity among Canadians. This is unacceptable. Acknowledging this, the federal government is very committed to protecting all Canadians. We are particularly concerned with designing programs that provide specific relief to the most needy.

The Government of Canada and provincial and territorial governments have agreed that children are a top public priority and have jointly participated in the design of the national child benefit system. This initiative is an important one which aims to prevent and reduce the depth of child poverty and to promote attachment to the workforce.

In addition, the 1997 federal budget announced a $850 million per year increase to the Canada child tax benefit for low income families. The 1997 Speech from the Throne committed at least an additional $850 million within this mandate for the national child benefit, and this was confirmed by the recent 1998 budget.

The addition of the ground of social condition as stated in Bill S-11 is to extend the protection currently provided by the act to include economic rights. However we need to ask what we mean by economic rights. We must be very clear on the meaning of this additional ground if we want the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the tribunal and the courts to understand the exact type of problems we hope to address by adding the words social condition to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Let us sit back for a minute and examine the purpose of the Canadian Human Rights Act, what it can achieve and what impact adding this new ground will have on the act as a whole. The Canadian Human Rights Act is an anti-discrimination statute. It does not provide for rights directly but rather it provides for redress of an individual or a group of individuals who believe that they have been the victim of discrimination.

The act covers discriminatory acts in the context of employment and the provision of services and facilities customarily available to the public. Notably the act only applies to the federal sector. This includes the federal government and federally regulated employers and service providers such as banks, airlines, railways, telecommunication and interprovincial trucking companies. The vast majority of small businesses, schools and religious institutions are governed by provincial human rights legislation.

Groups that appeared before the senate committee on the bill such as the National Anti-Poverty Organization provided firsthand experience about the poor in Canada. They spoke of the plight of the homeless, the problems of people below certain income levels finding housing, for example, and the difficulties they encounter in accessing services from banking to telephones. These are some of the problems ostensibly that this amendment was designed to resolve.

However this motivation may be somewhat misplaced. First, housing is primarily a provincial matter. Many provincial human rights codes currently provide as an enumerated ground of discrimination sources of income or receipt of social assistance.

This ground provides a remedy for discrimination for individuals living on social assistance. For example, when a landlord refuses to rent to a family because it is on social assistance, this type of discriminatory act is captured by the provincial human rights codes that contain the ground of social assistance.

It is important to note that the only province in Canada that has the ground of social condition in its human rights legislation is Quebec. Quebec formally added this ground in 1996. There have not been a large number of tribunal decisions on this ground but we know at this point that this term includes both the objective element of being poor with the social aspects of prejudicial treatment against people who are poor. It is too early to determine the impact of adding this ground in Quebec and of course the impact on the federal jurisdiction as I stated earlier is not clear.

There are problems in the federal jurisdiction that do not need to be talked about here but clearly need to be addressed. The National Anti-Poverty Organization for example, citing Quebec statistics found that 80% to 90% of the poor were refused services from the banks, services such as cheque cashing or opening an account. I understand that the banks have taken some measures to correct these actions. We must be sure that no one is denied a service because the source of their income is provided by the state.

I am concerned that the banks and telecommunications companies may not be doing enough to ensure that their policies do not discriminate against the poor. It is this type of situation that needs to be looked at in the broad review of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

We will look at determining the scope of the problem of the poor in this country in the context of what relief the Canadian Human Rights Act could possibly offer. We will then work to find a solution that is tailor made to address the specific problems that we uncover.

Left as it is, Bill S-11 simply incorporates a term that might make us feel good but it does not effectively address the problems in the federal context nor provide a truly effective remedy for the poor.

By comparison, look at the prohibited grounds currently listed in the act, for example, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability, and conviction for which a pardon has been granted. For the most part these grounds are immutable characteristics.

We know what the ground marital status means for example. It includes single, common law, same sex partners and married couples. This ground has resulted in changes to federal programs to ensure that they do not discriminate on the basis of someone's marital status.

I am strongly in favour of addressing the real needs of the poor. No one can support discrimination against anyone simply because his or her income is below a certain level. But I am concerned that we have not in any meaningful way fully canvassed the legal implications of the term social union in the federal context. There would be real concerns in terms of where we are heading.

Does it mean we must not discriminate because of someone's level of income? We apply different income tax rates based on different income levels. Does it mean then that the Income Tax Act could be suspect as potentially contrary to the human rights act if we adopt such a term? We would have to be very careful.

We would also have to note carefully the employment insurance program which requires specific criteria to be met before someone is eligible to obtain benefits. Would this program also be suspect?

Could RRSP provisions be subject to scrutiny under the Canadian Human Rights Act given that individuals of certain income types and levels, or very low levels of income cannot take advantage of this provision? I certainly hope not. That would be most unfortunate.

If we are going to provide additional protection for the poor, and I believe we should and I think all members of this House believe we should, we want it to be meaningful. Let us take the time then through the broad review of the Canadian Human Rights Act to research this problem and to find a solution that will provide meaningful protection for the poor. I believe that is what all Canadians want.

[Concentration Of Print Media In Canada, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all of the members who shared their opinions and expressed their points of view regarding this very important matter. I think the importance of this issue has been demonstrated through their thoughtful interventions.

In the eyes of some media, ownership concentration, until now at least, does not seem to have caused many noticeable problems. But as ownership continues to be put in the hands of fewer and fewer people, problems may arise. This is why the potential exists for the Government of Canada to examine this issue.

Let me reiterate a few important facts that were brought up in my introductory comments and which other members alluded to as well.

The three biggest newspaper chains in Canada are in charge of 72% of the daily circulation. One person owns Hollinger Inc., which controls 27 of Canada's newspapers. This company owns over half of the interests in Southam Incorporated, Canada's largest chain, with 34 papers.

These two companies, essentially in Conrad Black's control, are in charge of 60% of Canada's newspapers and distribute 50% of its dailies. Their control spreads across the country and is present in most of the provincial capitals.

Owning 100% of the Toronto Star , Canada's largest paper in terms of circulation, Torstar Corporation also has a very large grasp on the information being given to Canadians. Its bid to take over SunMedia Corporation, still in the works, would provide it with an even greater hold on the newspaper industry in Canada.

I think it is obvious that Canada's newspapers are in the hands of a few people. The question that we must ask ourselves, though, is whether or not the concentration of the media's ownership adversely affects the ability of Canadians to obtain different points of view on the affairs of the day.

The newspaper industry has a tremendous impact on public opinion in Canada. The information presented by this medium reaches many people in our nation. Therefore it is everyone's duty to ensure that this information be presented in a balanced fashion, showing differing points of view.

We must therefore all work together to ensure that the media are giving the public what objective information is needed and is desired. At the very least I think it is our duty as Canadians and here in the House of Commons to examine and discuss this matter. It may be difficult to judge whether media ownership concentration is detrimental to the industry or to society as a whole but it is important to talk about it nevertheless.

We should therefore be vigilant as mergers and acquisition tend to concentrate the media even more. This is especially true in many areas of the country. Accordingly, I reiterate that we should exhibit caution as mergers and acquisitions in the media take place. We should monitor the situation closely, recognizing there may come a time when further government action is required.

I thank all hon. members for participating in this very valuable dialogue and debate.