Jean Augustine

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, April 3rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am responding to the hon. member's question of March 17.

The WGTA reform will have a major impact on our grain handling transportation system. The Ministers of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Transportation, in consultation with all stakeholders, have developed plans and strategies to assist farmers in making the transition to a new market environment.

This will include a legislative and regulatory framework which will assist in the achievement of efficiency gains. For example, the provision of the National Transportation Act will help to foster competitively priced grain transportation services and cost savings for farmers and shippers. A system will be put in place to ensure the provision of necessary information, monitoring and review processes. These in turn will be used to track system revenues, costs, efficiency achievements and an appropriate sharing of benefits. In other words, provision has been made to pass efficiency savings on to the farmers.

Regarding the hon. member's concerns related to the government's ex gratia WGTA payment, it is important to note that the transportation subsidy had an impact on land values. With the elimination of the subsidy, the payment addresses the subsequent changes in these land values.

In addition, the payment is decoupled. This means it will be market neutral with respect to future production and marketing decisions of producers. It is also in keeping with Canada's international trade obligations.

It is important to note the government's assistance is not limited to this payment. Saskatchewan will share in a $300 million adjustment fund.

[The Economy, April 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as economic growth continues to accelerate, this government is making great strides toward steering Canadians back on the road to competitiveness. Strengthening Canadian industry will continue by building a healthier marketplace, promoting workplace innovation, expanding trade, improving our infrastructure and harnessing leading edge technology.

Etobicoke-Lakeshore business leaders who previously impressed upon me the need to make Canada more competitive are now telling me that we are on the right track. They support the government's effort to assist the private sector in innovation and job creation. Competitive wages, low manufacturing costs, available tax incentives, encouraging research and development, a suitable workforce and an excellent quality of life all add up to an ideal community in which to do business.

I look forward to the Etobicoke-Lakeshore business community and the government working together in a greater partnership to build a more innovative economy.

[Liver Disease, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, March was proclaimed Help Fight Liver Disease Month.

The liver is one of the body's largest and most crucial organs. Much like a complex chemical factory, the liver manufactures essential proteins, cleanses the blood and stores energy vital to the functioning of the human body.

There are over 100 known liver and biliary tract diseases, including hepatitis, cirrhosis and cancer of the liver. An estimated one in 12 Canadians of all ages, races and cultures are expected to develop a liver disease at some point in their lives.

For over 25 years the Canadian Liver Foundation has been striving to reduce the impact and incidence of all liver diseases through support for research and education. Health Canada contributes to the fight against liver disease through its support for research into improved treatment and prevention.

I salute the Canadian Liver Foundation and all its volunteers who worked during this Help Fight Liver Disease Month.

[Peacekeeping, March 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to join in the debate tonight on a subject of utmost concern and importance, especially to the people of Etobicoke-Lakeshore and indeed to all Canada.

In light of the UN Security Council consideration of renewed mandates for UN forces in the former Yugoslavia and of the coming rotation of Canadian forces serving with UNPROFOR in the region, it is important that we have the debate tonight.

We live in a global village and very often the events that occur in the international community have a direct or indirect effect on Canada. We have seen evidence of this in the economy, in our social policy and in issues of security. We have a responsibility to the global village, especially when human rights are being violated.

The importance of peacekeeping to Canadians is obvious from the three times since January 1994 that the government has called a special debate on Canada's role as a peacekeeper throughout the world. In the past year we have dealt specifically with our commitments to UN missions in Rwanda, in Haiti and in the former Yugoslavia.

In the debates that took place members consistently referred with pride to previous Canadian participation in UN peacekeeping missions in Korea, Egypt, Vietnam, the Middle East and Latin America, to name a few.

Numerous members of the Etobicoke-Lakeshore community have been involved in peacekeeping activities around the world since the inception of the UN peacekeeping force. Their contribution to the security of our country and to peace in the world is something that my constituents and I will always be grateful for.

Described as an imaginative worker for peace, Lester B. Pearson received the Nobel Peace Prize for his leadership in bringing about the creation of the UN peacekeeping force. Canada has a proud history of participation in peacekeeping operations both under UN and non-UN auspices. Few if any countries have a more impressive record of dedicated and professional contribution to this essential activity.

Nowhere have dedication and professionalism been more evident than with our Canadian peacekeepers currently providing relief to the victims of the war in the former Yugoslavia. Some 2,080 Canadian troops now monitor UN protected areas in Croatia, provide protection for relief convoys and refugees in Bosnia-Hercegovina, and monitor ceasefire agreements in both countries.

Canada has supported the participation of its forces in this UN mission to promote peaceful settlement and to provide relief to its many victims. As one of the largest contingents to the UN protection force Canadians have selflessly put themselves in danger by undertaking difficult assignments. Service women and men have participated in the European community monitor mission and non-UN mission overseeing the ceasefire throughout the former Yugoslavia and were instrumental in opening Sarajevo airport for the delivery of humanitarian relief supplies.

Canada has also provided a ship to sanction enforcement operations in the Adriatic Sea and has deployed a naval support ship and the Aurora maritime patrol aircraft to this effort. In

addition, the NATO AWACS aircraft enforcing the no fly zone over Bosnia includes Canadians.

One must always recognize the daily acts of courage of individual peacekeepers. The threat of danger the Canadian personnel might encounter during the course of a day is what many of us here at home can only imagine. Their presence in this war torn region presents a risk to their lives and is a constant worry to their families at home.

One must always ask whether we can continue to make a difference. We know our presence in the Balkans has made a difference to the children, the elderly, the women and all other innocent victims of this cruel war.

Is the UN presence continuing to make a difference to the peace process? If the answer is yes, it is our responsibility to remain in the area. If little progress is being made toward peace, the government must seriously consider our current commitment.

The service of Canadian peacekeepers in Bosnia and Croatia has not been without its ordeals. In the last six months the danger to our Canadian peacekeepers has increased daily. Many Canadians have been shot at by snipers and non-UN soldiers. Several of them have been seriously injured.

In November, 55 Canadian soldiers were taken hostage and held against their will for over two weeks behind the confrontation lines of this war torn country. The time has now come to reconsider our commitment to the mission in Bosnia and Croatia. That is the purpose of the debate tonight.

In light of the increase in risk to the lives of Canadians we must come to a decision on whether to send neutrals to the UN peacekeeping mission in the former Yugoslavia and we must consider our role.

We have not stopped the fighting but we have prevented the war from spreading to other regions. We have made accomplishments in the region and have made a difference to the lives of many families living in the midst of a horrifying war.

Canada's involvement is said to create the breathing space within which diplomats and political leaders can negotiate a peaceful solution to a bloody war. New developments have taken place since we last debated the subject in the House.

As the defence minister recently mentioned, Croatian President Tudjman stated that he wanted all UNPROFOR to leave Croatia. An agreement was worked out, however, and the details of these terms and conditions are presently being negotiated.

The dynamics are now changing and the UN forces are undergoing a restructuring process that will affect all participants in the UN mission. Under the new agreement Canada's role should be to continue to help implement a ceasefire agreement worked out with the maintenance of borders and the maintenance of the all important humanitarian measures.

At the moment we have about 2,100 soldiers preparing to replace the personnel who have been in Bosnia and Croatia since their tour of duty began six months ago. We know they will continue the excellent work being accomplished in the region but it is dangerous work.

We have also had excellent leadership on the issue from the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I commend their efforts. A good number of my constituents' comments on Canada's peacekeeping strength and their determination to ensure the promotion of international human rights and our humanitarian contribution in the Balkan region are on the record of the ministers.

In closing, Canadians continue to see peacekeepers as an important contribution to the maintenance of international order and stability. The people of Etobicoke-Lakeshore will after careful consideration continue to support the involvement of the Canadian forces in this peacekeeping effort. After all, we are helping to ease the suffering of millions of innocent people.

I am confident we will continue to fulfil our international obligations through negotiations and peacekeeping to bring about peace in the Balkan region.

[Rail Strike, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, another day into the rail strike is taking its toll on the Canadian economy.

In Etobicoke-Lakeshore the strike has affected activity at the food terminal, passengers using the Mimico station, and manufacturing, industrial and commercial businesses in the area.

As rail service slows so too has the export of manufactured goods, grains and natural resources. While trains sit idly in the yards so do the thousands of workers whose jobs are dependent on the rails to ship their products across the country.

The self-interest of the Bloc Quebecois in this labour dispute has resulted in the suffering of small and medium size business, commuters, and Canada's reputation as a reliable international supplier.

Since collective bargaining and government efforts to facilitate an agreement have failed so far, now is the time for all members of Parliament to unite and act in the interest of all Canadians.

[Access To Information, March 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to address the motion raised by the member for Red Deer. I compliment him on raising the issue of public access to information held by crown agencies and Parliament.

It is obvious from the debate that has ensued from the motion, and indeed from the voices of Canadians across the country, that there is need for greater openness and accountability in government. I agree with the spirit and objectives of the motion of the member of the Reform Party. I cannot, however, lend my support to it because I find it is lacking the comprehensiveness needed to achieve appropriate improvements.

In keeping with our commitment to make government more accountable, open and honest while at the same time controlling costs, the justice minister fully intends to consult with Canadians to develop more comprehensive and up to date access to information legislation.

My constituents in Etobicoke-Lakeshore along with other Canadians are calling for updated and forward thinking legislation. It must involve a careful examination of the complete framework of the Access to Information Act, with careful consideration being given to each institution. By expanding the coverage of the Access to Information Act to Parliament and crown agencies, as the member has suggested, all practical implications must be taken into account.

In our efforts to control the deficit and achieve economic recovery the government has had to modernize programs, making them more effective and cost efficient. The values of openness must be balanced with fiscal responsibilities. I believe it is the government's role to assist Canadians in the evolution that is currently taking place across Canada and around the world. That is why the government is looking at ways to enhance public access to information.

With the explosion of new technology and the evolution of government policies greater openness and transparency are needed to ensure that government structures and programs are geared to the highest priorities of Canadians. The Liberal government's policy defined in the red book is to promote more open and accountable government. Our commitment to it is demonstrated in the introduction of several initiatives aimed at restoring government integrity. The review of agencies, boards and commissions, the introduction of amendments to the Lobbyists Registration Act, and reduced costs in the operation of the House of Commons are just a few of the initiatives.

Canadians are demonstrating faith in Parliament. According to an international poll conducted by the Times Mirror in the U.S., Canadians ranked highest among the eight of the world's richest countries in confidence in their legislative institutions. Our Prime Minister has said that we have managed to restore the prestige of this institution. It is a credit to all members of Parliament who were elected, whatever their opinions and options.

With this in mind I believe we should look beyond the motion and support and participate in the justice minister's upcoming review of the access to information legislation. The opinions of access experts, the information commissioner and individual Canadians who have an interest in the act should be taken into account.

Numerous recommendations have been made since the act came into effect in 1982 by the two successive information commissioners. Its effectiveness as a supporting tool to democracy has been monitored and assessed over the years through the courts and by a parliamentary committee of the previous government. Most recently recommendations have been submitted to the information commissioner advising a broadening of the access law. One by one the provinces have been enacting their own access legislation, including Ontario.

This too must be assessed in the modification of this very important legislation. In our review we must be sure to look to the example of other foreign democratic governments that have developed similar legislation.

The people of Etobicoke-Lakeshore continually remind me of the importance of incorporating new technologies into more efficient and open government. They tell me to remind the justice minister that his review must be sure to take into consideration the advice of the information highway advisory council and the blueprint for improving government services with new technologies. This thorough review will go steps further than the motion does. It is the best way to ensure enhanced openness of government for Canadians.

I also question the addition of other agencies to the existing legislation. I agree with the suggestions of my constituents that the government consider improvements to the existing legislation rather than simply adding agencies to the current schedule list.

The recent report of consultants to the information commissioner has recommended measures such as increases to request fees, swifter and more open responses, a reduction in years for accessibility to cabinet documents, et cetera. The recommendations should be considered, focusing on government account-

ability rather than, as the motion proposes, expanding the legislation to cover more independent agencies.

Crown agencies independent of the government should be subjected to scrutiny. This is provided for in other ways. In this area of the legislation our priority should be planning for a modernized access act that benefits Canada through open and accountable government.

The hon. member for Red Deer stated in his motion that he would like to see Parliament and crown agencies subjected to scrutiny under the Access to Information Act. The motion would give a general definition to crown agencies. This open ended wording does not define exactly or take into consideration the individual circumstances of the various agencies.

Modified access legislation should take care to carefully define the specific relevance of institutions to the federal government. We would be wise to follow the listing methods contained in the majority of provincial access legislation. Different laws apply to different institutions and the different laws may constitute varying applications of the law.

The wording of the motion could also lead to increased litigation in an already overflowing courts system. I can easily foresee differing interpretations of the law being used by an agency in an attempt to exempt itself from the access legislation. This would eventually end up in the courts, further burdening the legal system.

In this manner the motion would only serve to decrease the efficiency of an institution while increasing the cost to taxpayers. That is not the goal of the Liberal government.

Before considering such broad legislation suggested by the Reform Party member, one must take into consideration the implications of the motion on Parliament. It is important to protect the personal information of a constituent when considering applying the access act to the offices of members of Parliament and senators. All sorts of questions arise and we must ensure that greater thought be given to the privacy of the individual taxpayer. Any legislation must therefore be precise in its purpose and the motion is certainly not precise.

I believe the motion was an excellent stimulant for initial debate on the subject of access to information and government openness. The motion offered general amendments to an act that requires more detailed reworking. Knowing that the justice minister is planning a more full and comprehensive review of the Access to Information Act I cannot support the member's motion. Further, I cannot emphasize enough the value I place in a thorough consultative process with the Canadian people.

[Racial Discrimination, March 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, last week marked the third anniversary of the end of apartheid in South Africa.

Tomorrow around the world people will commemorate the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, raising awareness that racism still exists in our communities and that we must work toward its complete elimination.

In Canada equality is the law but is not always the reality, as many people must be bear the burden of racial discrimination. It is everyone's responsibility to acknowledge and address racism and its presence in employment, social life, housing and the justice system.

Through education true respect and equality can be achieved. By sharing the differences in our heritage and increasing awareness of each other's struggles and strengths we will end much of the discrimination that plagues our society.

[Forum For Young Canadians, March 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, last evening I had the pleasure of meeting many participants of the Forum for Young Canadians. This yearly forum has once again brought together high school students from all across the country to learn firsthand the workings of our federal Parliament.

This year Etobicoke-Lakeshore is well represented by Melissa Jenkins of Bishop Allen Academy and Raphael Pacquing of Father John Redmond High School. These two students travelled to Ottawa to exchange ideas and explore their interests in the process of government, the media and the role of members of Parliament.

I commend the efforts of all who have contributed to the success of this year's forum. May these youths return to their communities across Canada with the knowledge this government is working hard to ensure a strong and prosperous country for future generations.

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we need the collaboration and co-operation of the members across the way to do a whole series of things. Just as the member is asking for our co-operation in this respect, there are certain ways in which we also should be asking for his collaboration as we move forward.

The issue of the status of women is not just a Quebec issue. It is not just an issue outside Quebec. It is an issue for all women. Therefore we each need to be concerned about the status of women in Canada, to speak about the status of women in Canada and to work for the laws, regulations, policies, equity issues that would bring about the quality of life for all women.

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member across the way that in order for women to fully participate in the economic life of the country, it is important that we begin to address issues such as women as child givers, women as care givers and women who participate in the care of elders in a specific way.

It is also important to note that we have made some commitments. We made a commitment to increase the number of child spaces when we reach a certain percentage of the GDP. That promise is still on the books. We have not reversed our position on our commitment to child care or the commitments we made to ensuring employment equity and the whole series of issues and commitments we made to women.