Lost her last election, in 2004, with 26% of the vote.
Health March 29th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
A recent Statistics Canada study indicates that women in Cumberland county have the highest rate of hysterectomies in the country. Because the rate is two to three times higher than the national average, because it is a costly invasive surgery removing the uterus, will the Minister of Health investigate to determine if these alarming statistics are unnecessary surgery?
Act To Revoke The Conviction Of Louis David Riel March 23rd, 1995
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business in its research paper and report on barriers faced by women business owners concludes that banks and lending institutions promote a double standard in their lending practices. This report points to a higher loan refusal, higher interest on the loans acquired and greater differential between capital applied for and capital accessed for women when compared with men who own businesses or male-female co-owned businesses.
The prejudice on the part of the lenders does not match up to the reality of the women in small business. Because of careful attention to detail, careful planning and tenacity, women are known to have a higher success rate in business start up and lifespan than men.
The CFIB as part of its research polled its 85,000 membership. It found that of the nearly 11,000 responses, 68 per cent were male who owned a business, 25 per cent were co-owned but only 6 per cent were solely owned by a female. These numbers in and of themselves mean very little until compared with the exploding number of women entering solely owned proprietorships.
Since 1981 the number of women owned businesses has nearly doubled from 323,000 to 639,000 in 1994. Current projections place the number of women business owners at 680,000 by the year 2000. This is not a fad that will end with the women of this country being silenced by the pistol whipping of bankers. It is a revolution born out of necessity being a response to changing family structures and an increasing sense of independence.
What is needed is either a change in attitude by the money lenders to accommodate this projected rapid growth, an increase in the number of banks and credit unions which cater exclusively to the needs of women entrepreneurs, or an intervention by government to ensure equality.
It would appear from the CFIB report that in spite of the inroads accomplished by women during this century, the banks have refused to wake up to modern realities and still consider women a bad loan risk even before they apply. This is a handicap that must be eliminated if small business is to continue to be the main engine driving our economy and if Canada is to continue realizing its full growth potential.
In the face of this apparent discrimination, what is the minister prepared to do to ensure a level playing field for the sector of our business community which is proving itself to be self-sustaining and very successful?
Rail Strike March 21st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, it is time to end this national rail strike which is crippling our economy. It is estimated that between $3 billion and $5 billion is lost from the Canadian economy in a single week by not getting our products to market.
National Gypsum, a company near Truro, produces 14,000 tonnes of gypsum a day which goes by rail, two trains a day, 7,000 tonnes a train, to the port of Halifax. From there it goes by
ship to the U.S. and to Quebec when the St. Lawrence Seaway is open.
National Gypsum is loading a ship at this moment, only partially and with great delay and extra costs because it does not have enough gypsum at the dockside. This company will have to lay off more than 100 men by week's end if the trains are not moving. The same may be said of companies throughout Nova Scotia as well as companies in Quebec and every corner of the country.
This is one case where a day really makes a difference. I urge the opposition and all members of the House to co-operate and end the railway strike.
Small Business March 20th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.
A recent report of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business shows that banks have a double standard when lending money to businesswomen. It suggests higher loan refusal, higher interest rates and less financing available to women entrepreneurs.
Will the minister investigate this apparent discrimination when in fact women entrepreneurs have a higher success rate than do men?
Charitable And Non-Profit Organization Director Remuneration Disclosure Act March 17th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in support of Bill C-224, an act to require charitable and non-profit organizations that receive public funds to declare the remuneration of their directors and senior officers. My colleague from Hamilton-Wentworth has spent a great deal of time and research on this matter in the interests of deficit reduction and in the interests of the Canadian taxpayer.
Accountability has been the battle cry of the 1990s. We have heard this cry coming from all sides: from business, from special interest groups and most important, from the individual Canadian taxpayer. What this bill does is provide for accountability in the charitable and non-profit sector of the economy, and the very large segment of the economy that it is.
This bill is about disclosure of the real value of non-profit and charitable organizations, not only in the human resource but in financial dollars to the Government of Canada. The people of Canada have a right to know. The reason I believe this is that we rationalize our growth as well as our debt against GDP. Therefore it is very important that we have accurate information on the real value of GDP. It should include the value to the Canadian economy of non-profit and charitable organizations.
This bill is not intended to harm or embarrass anyone. However it is intended to provide transparency and accountability. While Canadians hold their government responsible for its actions, they also trust it to report on all public matters with accuracy, openness and truthful representation.
These same keystones must exist for charities and non-profit organizations which receive public funds. After all, if government is to be fully accountable to the Canadian people and if we are to efficiently execute our mandate as the trustees of public funds, then it follows that we must have complete and accurate reports on where and how public money is spent.
At the present time there is no process in place that will allow for complete scrutiny, at least not without applying to the courts. Even then, full disclosure may not be possible. This problem has been a longstanding one which arises from the Income Tax Act and the legal system.
Neither department can absolutely or clearly define which category charities and non-profit organizations should come under because these groups cross several lines with regard to existence, function and purpose. They function like a business but unlike a business they do not make a profit.
Quite often not for profit organizations make large investments which earn interest or capital gains yet they are not taxed on this money. They have no product or service to offer in the normal sense of the word. However, we have heard the complaint that a not for profit organization will operate a tavern and pay no taxes while a small business person across the street pays taxes on a similar operation. Is this fair competition? Is this a level playing field?
These not for profit groups have a social function to ease or remedy some problems which may exist in our communities or national settings. They receive funds in one form or another, a portion of which are the taxes paid by hard working Canadians. With these funds they run their programs, pay salaries and execute daily business.
As anyone can see, a clear definition as to where charities and non-profit organizations belong is no easy matter. Since the assent of the Income War Tax Act of 1927, the courts have tried but have not yet been successful in absolutely defining any organization which has as its focus the improvement of the human condition.
This special category which charities and non-profit organizations are given exempts them from paying income tax. Yet there seems to be an inequality here. The amount of information these groups must provide to Revenue Canada, which exempts them from tax, and the accountability they have to funding ministries is minimal. Smaller still is the amount of information available to the very people who actually fund them, the Canadian taxpayer.
For example, the public is made aware daily through the press of the salary of every hon. member of the House. They are aware of the tax free allowance and they are bombarded with information regarding the MPs' pensions, all of this rightly so. Would it not seem fair that the same public have access to the same information of high profile heads of non-profit organizations?
One that comes to mind is David Somerville, the president of the National Citizen's Coalition, a non-profit organization. Mr. Somerville does great work on behalf of the public so should they not have a right to know his salary, his pension and his total benefit package?
If Bill C-224 becomes law, within 30 days of fiscal year end there would be full disclosure of salaries and benefits paid to directors and senior officials of these charitable and non-profit organizations.
I mentioned earlier that charitable and non-profit organizations were a large sector of our economy. To demonstrate how significant these numbers are, we know there are more than 130,000 organizations in Canada classified as charities or non-profit organizations. Available estimates show that approximately $120 billion flow through these organizations annually and that $49 billion comes from the various levels of government.
We know these organizations act in the public interest but we also know there is no measurement to gauge the effectiveness of the programs. By anybody's standards, that is a big bundle of money.
Some months ago we read in the newspapers in every city in the country where the Chamber of Commerce in Quebec City gave a gift to the premier of Quebec. The gift was a mansion worth $650,000 and $150,000 worth of furnishings. This was a gift to a politician, to Jacques Parizeau. The moneys that paid for this political gift were moneys claimed as 100 per cent business deductions passed through this Quebec City Chamber of Commerce as donations to non-profit organizations and the Chamber of Commerce bought the house as a gift to a politician.
Does the public not have the right to know how much money is going through non-profit organizations to buy mansions for politicians across the country? Does the public not have the right to know how many politicians at all levels may be receiving financial support or valuable gifts from non-profit organizations? I think most Canadians will agree with me that we have a right, especially since most Canadians are paying their fair share of taxes. In the final analysis, those who are paying are picking up the tab as well for those who are not.
If we are to be the guardians of the public trust and if we are to be fair to all sectors of the economy then I believe we have a great opportunity to at least take a first step toward more fairness with the implementation of Bill C-224.
I come from rural Canada, the Atlantic region, where people are generally very kind, very charitable with their friends and neighbours and very generous with what money they have. In most instances they would give you their last dollar if you really needed it. That is the Canadian spirit. I believe in my heart that with disclosure, the Canadian spirit of giving would be enhanced. The openness of information would generate greater trust and financial support to those organizations that we depend on in our communities and the thousands of volunteers who give so generously of their time and energy.
At this very crucial financial period in our nation's history, when the government has taken unprecedented bold, courageous steps to cut programs, to cut jobs and to cut spending, surely we have that same bold courage to support this bill.
Canadians are generous in their donations and each of us places great value on the work our charities and non-profit organizations do in our communities. However, I am sure that each of us has wondered where exactly the money goes. How much is spent on very high paying salaries and how much really reaches the needs of the child or the researcher for which it is intended?
Bill C-224 provides that information to the public. It provides disclosure. I believe that having full knowledge of where the money is spent, Canadians will be even more generous to the groups that are deemed worthy of financial support. I commend my seatmate, the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth, for his foresight, for his diligent research as well as his integrity and determination to do what is right. I believe in times to come this bill may be considered the very most important piece of legislation that comes before this 35th Parliament.
I believe Canadians are ready for this legislation and that the bill is very compatible and may even be considered a companion to the very recent budget bill.
In conclusion, it is my hope that all hon. members of the House will give serious consideration to this bill and offer their full support.
The Economy March 16th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
In light of recent press reports, both domestically and internationally, reporting favourably on Canada's economy, could the minister tell the House why the economic indicators are looking so good?
The Budget March 14th, 1995
Madam Speaker, no pain no gain is the watchword of today. Not only this government, but businesses have had to cut back. They have had to make the transition to be competitive and now the onus is on government. We have accepted the challenge. This is a watershed in budget. This is a turning point in financing for the government. That is because the people of Canada have asked us to deal with this. It is mandatory.
We are moving into the 21st century. We know we will create the jobs not through government, not through subsidization, but through the private sector. Small business is the backbone.
Nova Scotia is not unlike Quebec. We have so much similarity. Historically, we can go back to a time when Quebec was known as Nouvelle-Écosse. This is so important to us because it is the very backbone. In Nova Scotia with a population of 900,000 we have some 90,000 small businesses. That is one in ten. That is growing in Atlantic Canada, the highest in the country. That is because we are taking the prudent steps to deal with the deficit. We will go through the pain but there will be gain in the end.
The Budget March 14th, 1995
Madam Speaker, to the hon. member on his question as to what community has suffered pain, most of the communities across the country are suffering pain because we had to take the prudent steps in frugal fiscal management that we took. Canadians asked for it. The communities of Nova Scotia, the communities of Quebec and rural communities all have the same needs. The diversification and the competitiveness by which our farmers must meet the 21st century are parts of the budget.
Farmers in my riding, whether they are dairy farmers, feed producers or cattle producers, have told us to get rid of the subsidies. They said they could compete and would compete. Furthermore the government has allowed funding for transitional development through this period.
The Budget March 14th, 1995
Madam Speaker, it is pleasure to rise in the House to take the opportunity to address the second budget of the government as presented by the Minister of Finance on February 27.
I expect in the final analysis the budget of February 1995 will go down in history. It will be the budget that made a significant difference in Canada at a time when Canada was at a crossroads.
The budget will be viewed by future historians as a watershed budget, a turning point in which the government of the day had the courage to make the tough decisions and to make the necessary cuts in spending in accordance with responsible financial management.
While the budget makes drastic and unheard of changes to the face of government through spending cuts, it does so with fairness and compassion. Programs that are efficient and effective in serving Canadians will remain, but programs that are obsolete, redundant and dysfunctional will be eliminated. The budget prepares us for the inevitable trend of the 21st century, which is less involvement by government in the lives of people.
To do this we have implemented a transition process that encourages the individual to more self-reliant, more entrepreneurial, stronger as a community and less dependent on government programs and subsidies.
When the constituents of Cumberland-Colchester elected me to represent them I knew I would be coming to Ottawa at a very crucial time in our history, that I would be part of a government with a fiscal policy that would either make or break Canada, and that the Liberal Party would be the one to ultimately bear the responsibility of piloting the country out of deficit financing.
Canadians from coast to coast told the House that reducing the deficit and debt must be the number one priority of the government. They know how the deficit is like an albatross around the neck of each and every one of us and of future generations to come.
The government accepted the challenge, not only with the budget but with several budgets to come in the future, to work toward a balanced budget. It is not politically expedient but it is the right thing to do.
The measures taken in the budget will ensure that Canadians can face the economic challenge of international competition and that we will be able to do so with growth and confidence. The budget is about restoring confidence in government and confidence in the Canadian economy.
Measures that were taken last year in the first budget of the government showed positive results in our economy. Economic growth is at 4.5 per cent, the strongest of the G-7 nations. The most impressive year ever in Canadian exports was 1994. We showed a massive trade surplus with the United States. Inflation was at its lowest in three decades. There were more improved business profits than ever. Some 433,000 full time jobs were created last year.
The same implementation that saw the economy grow resulted in the annual deficit being reduced by $4.4 billion, lower than was budgeted for the fiscal year ending in a couple of weeks. That is the reality. That is progress in deficit reduction.
If we are to compare ourselves with the G-7 countries on how well our economy is doing, it seems only reasonable to compare ourselves and our debt situation to those of the G-7 countries.
It is sad to say that our net government debt as a nation is over 84 per cent of GDP second only to Italy of the G-7 counties. In comparison the United States has a net public debt of 32 per cent of GDP, while Japan's is around 10 per cent. It was therefore mandatory that the finance minister demonstrate in the budget not only to the nations of the world but to the financial lenders that Canada was serious about reducing its deficit and the high per cent ratio of debt to GDP.
Investors have been satisfied with the budget as have Canadians, but I must remind the House that it is only the beginning of a series of tough budgets until we have won the war on debt.
Cuts in government spending mean pain. The budget is about pain. However the pain was spread fairly to all regions. In the west grain transportation subsidies were eliminated while in the east the Atlantic region freight assistance program was abolished. However both the west and the east including Quebec will receive transitional funding, helping alleviate shipper hardship and upgrade transportation infrastructure.
Last week when I was in my riding I met with public servants whose jobs are being cut because they are classified as surplus or because long established forestry agreements were not renewed. These people are feeling the pain of the budget. However, after looking at options in the transition, one forester said to me: "Even though we are losing our jobs this had to be done and I would still vote for your government".
The people of Nova Scotia did not want me to come here to whine about the cuts. They wanted me to congratulate the finance minister for having the courage to do what he did. The people of Nova Scotia have a tradition of self-reliance and a grassroots fighting spirit. They have an entrepreneurial spirit that goes back to shipbuilding and merchant fleets of the 19th century.
The people of Nova Scotia know that the backbone of the economy is small business and that jobs will come not from government but from the private sector. The economy of Atlantic Canada is the fastest growing in the country. Atlantic Canada ended 1994 with the highest rate of growth per capita. It was 2.7 per cent, the highest of all the regions, followed by the prairie region with a rate of growth per capita of 2.5 per cent.
Dairy farmers in my riding are like dairy farmers across the country. They will see their subsidies cut by 30 per cent over two years. Public utilities will see the energy subsidy eliminated through the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act. Alberta and Nova Scotia are affected by the change. The Nova Scotia Power Corporation has already indicated that higher rates are to be expected, which in turn hinders small business development. There is pain with the budget, but as the old saying goes no pain, no gain. The people of Canada have accepted the pain knowing there will be real gain in the months ahead.
The women of Canada have a greater appreciation for the budget than anyone. Many women have spent their lives living within the household budget and living within their means. I would bet there is not a woman in the country who has not at one time or another in her life watered down the stew and thrown in another handful of barley simply to stretch the pot of stew for another meal. The money she would save would go to buy a dress or a pair of shoes for a child who has a very special
concert. I have done it many times. Thousands of women across the country managing Canadian households are the financial experts, and they too have done so.
Under the previous government the 1980s were a time of greed, surplus and waste. The 1990s under the present government are a time of basic need, not greed, a time of high efficiency and productivity, and a time of sustainability, not waste. It is a time to sustain our finances as well as our environment, our resources and our fish stocks.
We made a commitment to the women and the men of Canada to reduce the deficit while restructuring social policy. We take that commitment very seriously. The budget of February 1995 is more than a bunch of numbers. It is one part of a very large social plan, an economic plan as well as a financial plan that maps a prudent, courageous and credible path not only for our generation but, more important, for the next generation of young Canadians.
The Budget March 14th, 1995
Madam Speaker, with the taxpayer budget, as the Reform Party presented it, how would the member provide assistance to those old age people who are receiving OAS at the present time with the tremendous cuts they were prescribing for their budget?