Jane Stewart

[National Unity, October 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am addressing you today as a Canadian of British origin, who remembers the commitments made to the French in the Quebec Act, and as a Liberal, who is proud of the contributions made by Laurier, St-Laurent, Trudeau and Chrétien.

I am speaking as a Canadian from Upper Canada, who remembers how Papineau, Brown, Lafontaine and Baldwin made it possible for two nations to build a common future.

I am speaking as a Canadian who is afraid to see her country destroyed by a spell cast through fabrication, deceit and personal attacks.

If only I could just snap my fingers and free Quebecers from this spell before it is too late. We have shared too much to just drop everything.

Je me souviens. Indeed, I remember.

[Endangered And Threatened Species Act, October 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in the debate on this bill.

Our colleague from Davenport has worked his whole career in the area of environmental sustainability and environmental support. I am pleased to support him in the efforts he brings to the House to help us understand and continue with his striving to support the environment and in this case endangered species in Canada.

One of my favourite things to do in my riding of Brant is to go into the schools, public schools or high schools. Without a doubt in every circumstance the issue of the environment is always raised.

When I think back to my days as a young student it was never a top of the mind subject. We truly have come a long way in terms of appreciating and understanding the importance of our environment and the role it plays in the lives of our young people. I am so glad to see the changing attitudes of Canadians toward our environment, toward the importance of sustainability.

In my riding I have the great fortune to live on a farm. My family has been there for five generations. One of the things we enjoy doing every Sunday if possible is walking through the fields along the railway tracks, through the wooded areas and looking at the wildlife. We see red foxes, racoons, deer. We look at the flora and every spring we wait to see the blooming trilliums and the may-apples. It has become a tradition in our family that we pass along from generation to generation. It is one of my favourite things to do with my two sons on a Sunday afternoon.

At the schools the children always ask me what the government is doing about the environment. I am always very pleased to explain to them that our Deputy Prime Minister also has the responsibility for the environment and that she is taking very assertive and definite approaches to making sure the things that have become very much a part of our country remain in our country.

I was shocked to find out as I was preparing for this discussion that there are 244 endangered species in Canada alone; 244 endangered, threatened or vulnerable species. Knowing that, we can understand why the hon. member for Davenport feels so strongly about the importance of this legislation.

I am not sure this is true but as I look at information I see nine extinct species, things in my lifetime I will never see. A further 11 species used to exist in Canada but are now extinct. The importance of preparing to maintain and protect our fragile environment is something that has to be critical to all of us.

I am very proud of a project undertaken by a number of groups in my riding, the Brant Waterways Foundation, the Grand River Conservation Authority and the Grand River Trails Association. They came together in partnership with the federal government through the environmental partners program to develop the Brantford environmental education project. Along the Grand River, now a heritage river, we have created walkways, bike paths and trails that all can enjoy.

The thing that is so important in this regard is along the shores of the Grand River are Carolinian forests, themselves an endangered and rare set of flora and fauna. We are very lucky in our community to have them as part of our surrounding environment, something we can enjoy with ease. We are also lucky to have organizations in Brant that are conscious of how fragile this great resource is.

Coming together and with the support of the federal government we have protected that it in a way that people can enjoy it. It is not for the people of Brant only. I encourage members of the House and Canadians from across the country to come and join with us.

At our local level we have a consciousness, an awareness of the importance of the environment. I am glad that will continue. However, when we look at the rest of the country it is interesting to note that only in Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick is there legislation to protect our flora and fauna. Again, another reason why I would congratulate the member for Davenport for bringing this legislation forward.

The federal government can play a real role in ensuring that our natural heritage remains with us. It will not be a role that is interventionist or that gets in the way of what the provinces want to do. Rather it is one that will co-ordinate activities, that will add to that which we already have, that will make sure the Canadian citizenry understands the importance and has access to our environment.

We know from looking at things that have taken place in the past, and I have to reference the Canada Health Act, that very often it is promises that start with good pieces of legislation. However, it may be very slow to evolve across the country. That is where a strong federal government can play a role.

I make that relationship with this particular piece of legislation and say there is a role for us to play at the federal level to ensure that Canada from coast to coast to coast maintains what has become world renowned in natural beauty, natural strength, natural resources and natural heritage.

I am pleased to be part of the debate. I know people back in my riding who are so sensitive and appreciative of the issues of the environment will also be glad to know that the government is sponsoring this kind of legislation.

[Employment Equity Act, October 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to join in the debate on Bill C-64 not only as a legislator but as a practitioner who in the private sector has applied this legislation very effectively. I reiterate what my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood has pointed out. This act when utilized to its fullest potential allows Canadian businesses to be more competitive than any other businesses in the world.

Let us look at the act and figure out what it really asks employers to do. First the act says that employers should look at the demographics of the labour force around their businesses. They should look at the percentages of white able bodied men, women, the disabled, visible minorities and aboriginals, and then look inside at the representation of their employee bases. In almost every case companies look inside and find that they are not representative, not even close to being representative.

When they see that displayed in front of them so clearly very often they ask how they can possibly be serving their customers or clients effectively when they do not have members in their employee bases that come from those communities, that have those ethnic backgrounds or that have that gender understanding.

They then say there is something to the legislation, that there is something they have to do. They begin to ask themselves how they have let this happen. How have they allowed their employee bases to become so homogeneous? What is it about the way they do business that has encouraged this?

In the bill the government requests employers to take a look at the numbers, at the representation, and build targets for themselves, targets and not quotas to give themselves a time line so that they can make shifts and their employed population is more representative of the surrounding society, their customers, their clients. The recommendation in the regulations is that they look at the employment systems that exist within companies: how people hire, how people promote, how they recruit, how they fire and how they retire.

When we actually start to look at the internal mechanisms of how these activities occur it is fascinating to find, unfortunately very often, aspects of systemic discrimination. This is not to suggest that we want to be discriminatory. People do not want to discriminate. However over time things have become systemic or part of the way we do things.

The value of the legislation is that it says that we should stop and think about what we are doing. Is this really what we want to be doing? Every time the answer is no.

For purposes of illustration let us look at some examples. When people decide they want to hire a new employee they think about the skills, the abilities and the qualities that need to be filled by the person who is going to take the job. They may take a lot of time. Some companies take no time to do it; other companies take time. When they get into the interviewing process natural human characteristics sometimes take over and we tend to hire people who are most like us.

Even though we may say we need someone with a particular education, with particular life and job experiences to fill the job effectively, sometimes in the course of interviewing we find somebody who looks like us, likes to play golf, perhaps goes to the same church, and we know he or she will fit in. All of a sudden that is the person who is selected for the job.

We need to recognize we want to make employment decisions based on skills, based on qualifications and based quite frankly on merit. We do not want to mix in things that are not bona fide requirements. When companies sit down and think about how this happens, they prepare for the interview and recruitment process more effectively and as such get better results.

We can think about how jobs are advertised. For example, large companies typically advertise in the Globe and Mail . They know a certain kind of person reads that newspaper. Do they think about advertising in the ethnic newspapers, in the Teka in my local community that goes to the Six Nations, to broaden the base and increase the numbers of people who are on the slate for consideration?

There is nothing in the legislation that says companies have to select anyone but the most qualified, but they have to create a situation so that the slate is broad enough to include all members of society.

When people start to see the impact of the decisions they make in terms of the recruiting process they say that they do not mean to be but they are being selective. The system has generated itself to be this way and we need to change it. We can think of how jobs become available through word of mouth: the president says to the vice-president who says to his sister or whomever. That is a very selective source of candidates.

Companies need to use different strategies to broaden the slate, but there is nothing in the legislation which says once a slate is determined they have to pick someone from a particular designated group.

We start by going through the employment systems analysis at the hiring stage and at the recruitment stage. Then we start looking

at what happens with the day to day norms in the company, the activities and the way employees interact. One important matter that has come from the legislation is an understanding of the importance of having policies that support a harassment free workplace so that once people come together in a workplace community they can work effectively together. They understand each other's differences. They know they have to treat each other with respect and dignity.

One important learning as a result of the legislation which has not been developed very quickly but with patience, understanding and education over 20 years is that harassment free workplace programs are vitally important.

Another thing which I have seen magically take hold in communities is the value of cultural diversity training where we sit down and understand social, economic and ethnic differences among Canadians. When we sit down, talk about them and understand them suddenly the barriers that stopped people from working together are gone and the value of being able to enjoy differences, celebrate diversity and understand different ways of getting to the same end makes a company a thriving, competitive organization.

First they have to take a look at the demographics. Then they have to take a look at their companies to see if there are processes that are systemically stopping them from engaging all Canadians in the workplace. This is not a bill that revokes the merit principle but quite the opposite. It says to use the merit principle but use it fairly and equitably. Their decisions should be based on skill, bona fide job requirements, qualifications and characteristics; not on a person's social history.

I can tell a personal story about working for a company. After I had been there for a couple of years and had been identified as perhaps being someone who could progress through the system, I was given a test to write. It had nothing to do with whether I could do mathematics or whether I could relate to people. It asked me about the history of my parents. Did my father belong to the Moose Lodge? Did my mother belong to the UCW? How many children were in my family?

This was not very long ago. I sat back and thought these were the measures they used to determine success in the organization. They were building a homogeneous population of white able bodied men at the top, typically from the same university and with the same graduating degree. Thanks to this legislation that company looked inside and discovered it was a detriment to its capability and its competitiveness and it is no longer there.

The bill is not about revoking the merit principle. It is not about reverse discrimination. It is about reversing discrimination and making sure we have a level playing field for all Canadians to participate. It is an important piece of legislation.

As a human resources practitioner I can say that if they follow the model presented through regulations they will effectively create for their companies a very good, strong working human resources plan and process. It is all there in the bill. Quite frankly it is all about treating individuals with dignity and with respect.

Like my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood I am proud to stand in the House in support of Bill C-64 as we continue very slowly but very effectively with the changes we need to make the country's workplace the engine of our future: competitive, fair and equitable.

[Petitions, October 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to present a petition to the House that has been signed by hundreds of Canadians and continues to be circulated across the country.

The petitioners understand that more than 100 million anti-personnel land mines are laid around the world and indiscriminately kill or maim between 1,000 and 2,000 men, women and children every month. They understand that land mines impoverish communities by denying access to land and impede social and economic post-conflict reconstruction.

Therefore they petition Parliament to legislate the prohibition in Canada of the use, production, stockpiling, sale, trade and transfer of all anti-personnel land mines; to work for an international convention banning these activities; and to ask the Canadian government to increase its contributions to the United Nations for assistance in land mine clearance and for programs that would rehabilitate mine victims.

[Day Care, September 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I draw to the attention of the House a concrete example of our government's commitment to day care.

In my riding of Brant we have day care centres attached to two of our local high schools. They provide care to the children of single adolescent parents who are continuing their education and to the children of mature students who are also parents.

Our thinking here is that if we provide appropriate day care to the children, their parents will continue with their education, which is so important to their future in terms of getting a job and in some cases to breaking the welfare trap.

Unfortunately because of significant provincial government cuts these facilities faced closure on October 1. Thanks to the quick action of my colleague, the Minister for Human Resources Development, we found funding through the human resources investment fund to keep the facilities open.

I congratulate him on recognizing the direct and important link between day care, jobs and education, and thank him for allowing us to continue this unique and effective day care strategy.

[Cultural Property Export And Import Act, September 28th, 1995]

The parliamentary secretary makes a good point. He says: "If that were true, then you would think they would support it". I tend to agree with him. What they are saying is that the government is not being fair, that it is all one sided and that it is only going to the rich. No, it is not. Donations are made to our art galleries, our libraries and our museums and we all benefit.

Members of the Reform Party are suggesting, I believe, that people who are not rich are not interested in art, do not value our history and our culture and do not like to go to museums. I can tell them that is not true. By virtue of this kind of legislation we have a very unique and important way of ensuring that our heritage remains in Canada, that it is here for us to enjoy and value, and that it is here for our children.

If we go to the National Art Gallery, just behind Parliament Hill, we can go for free. Anybody can go for free and see incredible works of art, whether they be from the Group of Seven or from the Renaissance period. That is of value to all Canadians. Perhaps Reformers want us to charge for that. I do not know.

The results of the bill do not just service the rich, they service us all. They enrich our culture, our society and our heritage. These are important points which have to be put on the record as we discuss Bill C-93.

I was interested in some of the comments from the third party, in particular those that suggest the members of that party are credible art critics. If we go back through Hansard we can read of those members talking about particular pieces of art in the National Art Gallery and chastising that gallery for the purchase of those works of art or for even presenting them. It makes me wonder if the members from that party can spell art, let alone understand what art is all about. Quite frankly, art is a very personal thing. Art speaks to people in different ways, given the experiences, the culture, the point of view or gender of an individual. It is something that is very important as we discuss this bill. We are clarifying, crystallizing the differences between the party in government and the party on the other side of the House by showing an appreciation and value for our history and culture. Quite frankly, the attacks that have fallen on us are all focused by the third party on the dollar figure. Nothing else is important.

I agree that when times are tough, and we are finding it that way now, it is very easy to say stop, do not spend. Stop everything and focus on one issue. That is not good for our history, not good for our future. We have to remember that culture is continuing. Do we want a void in our history, in our collections, in our programs just because at this time we have a tough fiscal circumstance? I do not think we do.

Fortunately the government in place is a balanced government which understands the importance of all aspects of culture and of the fiscal realities of society. As my colleague pointed out, we are a national government that knows the importance of differences. Art comes from the Atlantic provinces or from Vancouver, British Columbia or from the prairies. Those are things we should be thankful for and they should continue.

The most important and telling point in this debate for me comes from my understanding of my own riding where we have a wonderful museum, the Brant County Museum, which has recently benefited from the philanthropy of one individual, Mr. Scheak, who over the course of his lifetime has collected a fabulous and very eclectic grouping of art, artefacts and historical documents. As a philanthropist he donated that collection to us in the riding of Brant. We now have an opportunity to look at historical pieces from around the world, whether it be from the Middle East, Asia and Europe, right in our own hometown. We do not have to travel to see it. There was nothing like that in my community before. Through legislation such as this, that is allowed to happen.

No one in my community would chastise Mr. Scheak for getting a 50 per cent return on that collection. Let us be clear. That is what he gets; 50 per cent of the value of the collection. He does not get it all, just 50 per cent. We as a community benefit greatly not only because our children get a firsthand attachment to that history, but because others come to our community to see it as well. From a point of economic development and tourism the riding of Brant is going to win.

As we listen to the strategies of the third party and their attack on this bill, we realize that a one-track, myopic approach to legislation is just not good enough. There are so many other aspects. There are no simple questions and there are no simple answers. Governing is very difficult. It takes a broad perspective, a complete understand-

ing of a country, its people, its history and its values. Fortunately, I believe the government shows that.

In this bill we are tangibly indicating that commitment. It is a proactive approach. As I mentioned, it is a unique strategy. There is one other country, interestingly enough, that provides tax incentives for donations to cultural institutions. That country is our neighbour to the south, the United States.

I continue to find it interesting that the third party touts the United States as the be all and the end all. They want us to have a political system like the United States. They want us to be like Newt Gingrich. They want us to be far, far on the right and forget about those in our community who have not got the same resources, capabilities and skills as others.

Now they find their heroes to the south doing something not so different from what we are doing here in Canada and they do not like it. I wonder. It is very rare that it happens, but we in fact have with this legislation implemented a program where Canadians can make donations to our very important cultural institutions. By and large they are doing it philanthropically because as I mentioned they are not getting the full return for the value.

They could sell them. They could insist that their collections go out of the country where we do not have the value for them and sell them beyond our borders, lost to us forever. But no, many people are philanthropic. They give to our institutions. It is very appropriate for us to in return give them at least a 50 per cent return. As I say, the people of the country do not object to that.

I know each of us as members of Parliament find as we talk to our local cultural institutions that they do not have the money to go out and buy artefacts and pieces of art. It is through donations that they create their significance, their contents and their importance. We do not want to ever lose that.

This bill is a good bill, bringing together pieces of several acts that have been historically part of the mix, clarifying them, improving them and making our country, as a result, much better.

I would like to thank the House for its indulgence. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify some of the points that have been floating around over the course of the last few days of debate and at this point recommend the bill to the good graces of our House.

[Cultural Property Export And Import Act, September 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to debate Bill C-93, particularly because over the course of the last few days as we have been discussing the bill I have been interested in the misinformation and in some ways nonsense that have been lobbed at this side of the House, especially by members of the third party.

I should like to clarify certain aspects of the bill to ensure the people of Canada understand and fully appreciate its importance to them and to us as a country. As I was listening to the debate, particularly the day before yesterday, there were indications from members that the bill would cost the government $60 million. That is wrong.

As a result of the bill and the notion that Canadians can donate artefacts of importance to our cultural heritage to museums, libraries and art institutions, we have had 1,100 donors give to our country the value of $60 million. The cost to our country, from a tax incentive point of view, has been just about half of that, $25 million to $30 million. In fact, what we have are priceless donations of our country's history, culture, and art from other nations which is remaining in Canada for all of us to enjoy, value and appreciate. We have received $60 million dollars worth of priceless art and goods for the value of $25 million.

That makes good sense to me, yet the members of the third party are misconstruing the information and having it printed in Hansard that it is costing us $60 million because they have not taken the time to understand the bill. In fact, I understand that they refused briefings from the parliamentary secretary and bureaucrats from the ministry. As a result we get misinformation in the House and that is not acceptable. It is good to have this opportunity to clarify that particular point.

There were challenges from the third party saying: "Did you know that this does not only apply to Canadian artefacts and art,

but to art from around the world? Is that not terrible?" I do not think it is terrible at all. Are we to assume that Canadians are not interested in works of art done by people from other parts of the world? We are a melting pot. We are a multicultural society. We can all learn from and appreciate art from other cultures. Those are the kinds of donations which are accepted under the bill. They are of value to us. I want to clarify that for the House. It makes sense and I appreciate it as a Canadian.

The particular argument that the third party makes of the bill is that it only benefits rich people, in fact it is the Canadian government again servicing the rich, giving them an opportunity to receive a tax incentive for making a donation to a museum, an art gallery or a library.

[Land Mines, September 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

Today in Vienna members of the world community are coming together to begin another round of talks on the United Nations protocol for certain conventional weapons, including land mines. It was reported in the media today that the Ministry of National Defence does not support a ban on land mines. I would ask the minister if he could tell the House the government's policy on this controversial issue.

[Land Mines, September 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I recently returned from Cambodia and subsequently from the Second World Parliamentarian Conference in support of the United Nations, which was held in Gifu, Japan.

I would like to again draw the attention of the Chamber to the important issue of land mines. Despite real progress in Cambodia toward political and economic sustainability, the people in the rural northwest are still subject to the aftermath of the war with the Khmer Rouge. I saw internally displaced people who cannot go home because their fields are mined. There is still a steady stream of men and women and children into the hospitals with seriously disabling injuries as a result of land mine accidents. We know that the de-mining activities are going to take generations to complete because the process is so painstakingly slow.

At Gifu, the world's parliamentarians voted unanimously to work aggressively toward a ban on the manufacture, deployment and use of land mines. I would ask the members of the House to please consider doing the same.

[World Bank Report, September 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

Yesterday the World Bank made public its report on the wealth of countries. We are all thrilled to see that Canada ranks as the second richest country in the world. I ask the minister to tell us what this means for Canada and for Canadians.