Elinor Caplan

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I know the member finds it hard to accept good news, but the fact is the GDP to debt ratio is on a downward trend. We have already seen some $14 billion repaid on the debt. We have put in place contingency amounts of $3 billion this year, next year and the year after.

These funds will be used for debt reduction. This is part of the debt reduction strategy that I believe is in the interests of Canadians and that is part of a balanced policy. It meets our commitment which says that 50% of any budgetary surpluses will go to social investment and protection of our quality of life and 50% to debt and tax relief. That, of course, is over the course of our mandate.

I am pleased that the member brought this to the attention of the House because the debt repayment strategy and the reduction of the debt to GDP ratio is something that is very important as part of that strategy.

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise today to participate in this very important debate.

February 24, budget day, was a very good day, a good day for Canada and a good day for the people of Thornhill.

I am proud to stand in my place today in this Canadian House of Commons where I have the privilege of representing the people of Thornhill and the opportunity to support this balanced budget, a very balanced achievement.

The previous Conservative government had brought this country to the brink of financial crisis. Our deficit was $42 billion, the largest in Canadian history. Now for the first time in almost 30 years the budget is balanced, the deficit is gone. In just a few years this country has gone from what was described as an economic basket case to the country leading the G-7 nations of the world in economic and job growth, and this year we will be the first country in the G-7 to balance the books.

Yes, I am proud. I am proud that we are now able to make strategic investments in our priorities, our children, our youth, our health and our communities. We are preparing for a secure future.

The budget is our vision. It reflects our values and our plans for that secure future. By investing in knowledge and creating educational opportunities we can complete the transition from an industrial economy to one that is information based.

The key component of our plan is the Canadian opportunities strategy. The centre piece of our strategy is the Canadian millennium scholarship endowment fund. Our plan will provide more young Canadians with access to post-secondary education than ever before. It will provide post-secondary scholarships for tens of thousands of deserving young Canadians in the next century. It will help ensure that Canadians can fully benefit from the new jobs and the new economy of the 21st century.

This government has also introduced the Canada study grant to assist students with children or dependants, which is so important. We have also included new tax credits for interest paid on student loans and a Canada education savings grant which will provide a grant of 20% of the first $2,000 of annual contributions to RESPs for beneficiaries up to age 18. That will ensure that people save for their children's education.

Beginning next year, Canadians will be able to make tax free withdrawals from their RRSPs for lifelong learning. These approaches will help address the burden of student debt as well as enhance access to educational opportunities.

This government understands the importance of education. We also understand the importance of research. That is why over the next three years we will increase the budget to the three research granting councils by $400 million. This will create jobs, generate economic growth and establish Canada's position among world leaders in research.

In this budget the government has acted on our commitment to add an additional $850 million to the Canada child tax benefit, bringing our total commitment to $1.7 billion. This is important progress in the battle to end child poverty.

The riding of Thornhill is a new riding, created in the federal riding redistribution before the last election. Thornhill has two municipalities within its boundaries, Markham and Vaughan. The riding is bordered on the east by 404, on the west by 400, to the north by highway 7 and Rutherford Road, and the southern boundary is Steeles Avenue.

On the east side of Yonge Street is the town of Markham which was founded in 1794. Markham is a remarkable community which combines the charm and atmosphere of a small community with the amenities and business advantages of a cosmopolitan centre.

On the west side of Yonge Street is the city of Vaughan, a growing and thriving young community. The area of Vaughan which falls within the riding of Thornhill is commonly referred to as Thornhill-Concord.

Thornhill is like this wonderful country. It is a mirror of the world. For example, in the town of Markham over 40% of the residents were born outside Canada and there are some 65 languages spoken. In the last election the people of our community were given a clear choice. Thornhill overwhelmingly chose the balanced policies and fiscal prudence that the Liberal plan offered.

Thornhill also had a chance to judge the record of the first Liberal mandate. I had the honour to be elected as the first member for Thornhill, another reason why I am proud to speak today in this House of Commons.

Let us for a moment review the Liberal government's record. More than one million jobs have been created since 1993. In 1993 unemployment was 11.4%. In January of this year unemployment was at 8.9%, still too high but the lowest level in seven years.

Canada has gone from having the second highest debt to GDP ratio to the lowest of the G-7. In 1996-97 Canada's debt to GDP ratio recorded its first significant decline in 25 years. This government is committed to moving in the right direction, keeping the trend on a downward track.

I am happy to stand here today and proudly tell my constituents that by any international comparison the Canadian economy is strong and we have earned the United Nations ranking as number one in the world, as the best country to live in, to work in and to raise our families in.

I want to maintain that quality of life. There is still work to be done. That is why I wanted to come here to Ottawa to do that work. I can assure my constituents that this government will continue to work on behalf of all Canadians as we move forward toward the millennium and beyond.

The Minister of Finance told this House and this country that we have won a major battle. However, we all know we have not won the war. Yes, the deficit is gone but the heavy legacy of 25 years of deficits remains and Canada's debt burden is too high. Through the debt repayment plan and other fiscal measures we will bring down the debt.

Our fiscal plan is clear and balanced. Over the course of our mandate half of any budgetary surplus will provide debt and tax relief and the other half will be invested in our social priorities. Why? This government is committed to taking the necessary steps to reduce unemployment and social inequities in our society.

Youth unemployment at 16.5% is too high and we are taking steps to ensure that all Canadians can get a first job and use their skills and talents to help build our economy and secure not only their future but our future. Yes, we have cut taxes but the impact from those taxes is going to the people who need it the most. Why? It is simple fairness.

We have reduced the unemployment insurance contribution by $1.4 billion for 1998, our fourth consecutive reduction of employment insurance premiums. Furthermore, we have created an important incentive, an employment insurance premium holiday for employers who hire young Canadians in 1999 and in the year 2000.

Over the next three years $7 billion of cumulative tax relief will be provided. Nearly 400,000 low income Canadians will be removed from the tax rolls and another 4.6 million taxpayers will pay less income tax. Almost 13 million Canadians will no longer pay the 3% general surtax and another 1 million people will see that surtax reduced.

I am proud to repeat the commitment of the leader of our party, the leader of our government, the Prime Minister of Canada, when he said we will never allow the finances of the nation to get out of control again.

I am happy to tell the people of Thornhill that not only will this year's budget be balanced but so will next year's and that of the year after.

To conclude, I thank Thornhill for its confidence. I will always do my best to act in its best interest, the public interest. I am proud to support this 1998-1999 balanced budget on its behalf and on behalf of the public interest of Canada. I am proud to stand in my place today.

[Ministry Of Justice, February 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my statement today is a response to those actively lobbying against the appointment of Neal Sher as an adviser to the Ministry of Justice war crimes unit.

This government has had the courage to do what few others have and that is make a commitment to move on the deportation and denaturalisation of those convicted of war crimes.

Canada must not be seen as a haven for Nazi war criminals and others suspected of having committed war crimes 50 years ago or last week.

Our actions will speak louder than words and by appointing Neal Sher, a man with a proven record, this government is taking action.

Neal Sher's appointment as special adviser to the war crimes unit of the Ministry of Justice is good for Canada's international reputation and I hope that he succeeds in doing a very important job for Canada and Canadians.

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very serious question for the member opposite. I too believe it is important to have discussions in ridings across this country. I am having a town hall meeting on the multilateral agreement on investment, an open forum, publicized in newspapers, as are many people.

My question for this member who speaks so sanctimoniously about how terrible it is to invite people to Ottawa is why has he as the whip of his party not spoken to Grant Hill? The health committee of this House of Commons wants to travel on the issue of natural products and substances. We had a proposal that was approved by the Board of Internal Economy and only because your member refused we were able to travel the country to listen to the views and concerns of people in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Halifax and other parts of this country where the committee wanted to go.

I ask the member, who is the whip of his party, why has he not spoken to Grant Hill and given—

[Criminal Code, February 17th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate.

I begin by saying that I believe for one of the challenges of technological innovation, particularly in the health field, we must answer this question. Just because we can do something, should we do it and should we permit it to be done.

That is the question for us here in the federal legislature. It is also an issue that I dealt with in the provincial legislature during my time there. One of the pieces of legislation I had the privilege to introduce and carry through the Ontario legislature was the independent health facilities legislation.

Most people here probably have never heard of it. However, one of the public policy reasons for introducing that legislation was that many things were happening outside the hospitals in Ontario without the same kind of quality assurance and accountability that we had in hospital.

The reason was that technology was permitting things to be done in doctors' offices and in clinics outside the hospital that traditionally had always had to take place in hospital.

This legislation was to provide a regulatory regime that would provide public safety and quality assurance for the new technologies that were permitting things to be done outside hospital.

One of these new technologies was the whole area of reproductive technology, in vitro fertilization and so forth. To my dismay, following the passage of this legislation, the NDP government deinsured the whole area of in vitro fertilization.

The legislation, the independent health facilities act legislation, of course only applies to those services that are insured.

Therefore there is the situation occurring in Ontario and in most provinces across Canada with all the issues, ethical and moral, of cloning, sex selection, genetic manipulation; of uses for research purposes of the extra embryos, extra sperm; and sperm banks. It is an entirely unregulated environment.

There are some things that the provinces could do today if they wanted to deal with this issue as it related to uninsured services. They could move to set up regulatory regimes to begin that process.

I believe that federally we have a responsibility as well to look at these emerging issues. Much work has already been done. We know there was legislation previously tabled and I know the federal Minister of Health is planning to table legislation that will address many issues, including the issue of cloning the member has brought forward today. I think she has done the House a service in allowing us to begin this debate.

I want to make the point that I do not believe human cloning has a place in Canada. We have an effective voluntary moratorium on the use of many of these technologies. Those people with the expertise to do these things have agreed collectively that they should not do them outside a regulatory environment. It is not happening and I do not believe it will happen because they know there is legislation pending.

I say to the member and to all those who have an interest in this topic, as I do, that it is my view the legislation should be health legislation as opposed to Criminal Code. The reason I believe it should be health legislation is that this is health policy. It has to do with health issues.

Having said that, there are legal implications that I would like to put forward, those that must be considered when this kind of technology is considered.

In the test tube there is a sperm and an egg for the production of an embryo that will become a fetus, which ultimately could become a person, a baby. Who is the parent? That is one of the issues. What inheritance rights would that child have?

These issues are raised not only about that which could be produced in a Petri dish or an incubator. They are also raised because of the whole issue of surrogacy where an egg is taken from one donor, sperm from another donor and then implanted in a surrogate mother. Heaven knows what will happen in the future. We have heard it might be possible to have them implanted in a male. There could be a surrogate birth mother who is male. Does that sound impossible? Is that science fiction? Given the rapid changes in technology nothing is impossible.

We must contemplate the issues which face us in order to protect our children in the future. These are societal issues. They must be addressed comprehensively.

The issues of sex selection were dealt with in the previous bill, Bill C-47. It stated very clearly that sex selection could not be used in Canada, which I support, unless there is a very good medical reason. Some exceptions and some reasons were identified.

I know that in some cultures there is the desire to have one sex over another. I personally find it offensive that anyone would want to have a designer baby and would choose the sex of their child in advance. It would not only disturb the laws of nature, but there could also be very serious population problems on this planet if that became the norm, so I want to express my concern.

Gene therapy needs to be highly regulated. In this world in which we are living there may be in the future the opportunity to eradicate disease through gene therapy. We may be able to say that cancers can be beaten. We may be able to cure hereditary diseases through gene therapy.

These are the debates we need to have. In a regulatory environment we can do that. We need to discuss and debate these things in the appropriate forum because when we discuss these issues we also discuss our values and our beliefs. While we would like to think that our values and our beliefs are Canadian values and beliefs, we know there are some things we do not all agree upon.

The overriding public policy consideration must be the protection of those most vulnerable and the protection of our children for the future.

Something else which was addressed in the previous bill had to do with research. What kind of research are we going to permit be done with the excess embryos which are produced as a result of the extraction of eggs and the production of sperm in sperm banks?

I believe we all agree that we must ban commercial surrogacy. We must ban anyone from profiting in the trafficking of eggs and sperm. We must state very clearly that human cloning has no place in Canadian society.

We need comprehensive legislation. I know this government intends to introduce legislation hopefully in the very near future which will enhance Canadians' well-being by permitting us to make choices about their involvement with reproductive and genetic techniques. That is appropriate.

Many couples are desperate to have a child. We must understand that people want access to this technology but it must be appropriate. They must know that their choices will not include the right to do anything which is unethical or harmful to their health or to the health of their children.

I am particularly concerned that women have information about what kind of results they can expect from the use of this technology. We know that in some cases the results are questionable. We need balance to protect the individual interests of women and children.

I look forward to the legislation that will be tabled. I thank the member for bringing this debate to the House of Commons. I am pleased that I had an opportunity to participate.

[Markham Resolution, February 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would request the unanimous consent of the House to table a resolution from the town of Markham which I referred to in my statement earlier today and I ask that it be distributed to all members.

[Markham Resolution, February 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as the supreme court begins to consider the legality of unilateral secession next week, I would like to read part of a resolution passed by the town of Markham in the riding of Thornhill on January 13, 1998. As I only have 60 seconds, I will read a small portion. It is entitled “People's resolution for a united Canada”:

Whereas the municipality of Markham believes that all Canadians are equal and all Canadian provinces have equality of status; And whereas the municipality of Markham believes that Canada, with its existing constitution and charter of rights and freedoms, offers all of its citizens and provinces an equal opportunity to prosper and flourish, this same constitution has enabled and must continue to enable the province of Quebec, a fundamental and valued partner of the Canadian confederation, the opportunity to promote and protect its culture, civil law tradition and French language.

I am proud that this resolution came from my riding of Thornhill, and I will later be asking for unanimous consent of this House to table this resolution.

The end of the resolution says:

Now therefore be it resolved that the municipality of Markham, in a spirit of friendship and in the name of unity, proudly adopts this “People's resolution for a united Canada” and we hereby urge all Canadian municipalities to join us—.

[Access To Information Act, February 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to participate in the debate on Bill C-208, to amend the Access to Information Act.

I begin by commending my colleague, the member for Brampton West—Mississauga. She has done us all a great service in raising this issue and bringing the bill before the House. By all I mean not only the people in the House of Commons but the people of Canada. It gives us an opportunity to talk about the importance of access to information, access to information legislation and having a access to information commissioner. The flip side is the protection of personal privacy and the regime that we put in place for making sure that we have openness and transparency in government.

As a member of the Ontario legislature I was proud to be part of a government which in 1985, as its very first piece of legislation, brought forward the access to information and protection of personal privacy legislation. It was a first for the province of Ontario. From that experience I know that no piece of legislation is ever perfect. The only thing that is ever carved in stone, unlike the wonderful ice and snow sculptures on our front lawn, are the gargoyles in this beautiful Chamber.

Legislation is living and it must be reviewed from time to time. My colleague has brought forward an important issue. The people of Canada not only deserve and need to know what government is doing, but government needs to know that it has an obligation to give information. Government is not only the elected officials. Government is those people who work in the bureaucracy and public service. It has an obligation to ensure that the public is made to know and has access to that which is in the public interest.

We know there have some problems. Certain events during the Somalia and blood inquiry have drawn to the public attention the fact the Access to Information Act contains no penalty for the destruction of information. That is what this piece of legislation is about. It proposes that an infraction be added to the existing act.

My own personal commitment to freedom of information and access to information should be unquestioned. On September 30 I raised the issue in a question to the President of the Treasury Board who has responsibility for access to information in the Government of Canada. I raised a question because of a report that had been tabled by the access to information commissioner.

My concern was that in his report the access to information commissioner also identified problems. One problem he identified was the lack of timely access. It was taking too long to get the information after a request was made.

Another thing that he identified was the concern that often it was the identity of the requester which determined whether or not the information was going to be given. In other words, who was asking for the information was a part of the judgment in the decision as to whether or not the information could be released in the public interest.

I believe these are problems. I do not think it should matter who is asking for the information. If it is possible to release the information and protect the personal privacy requirements of the legislation, the information should be made available regardless of who is asking.

I would hope we see an amendment to the access to information legislation as it exists today. It might be possible to amend the bill to include the policy that already exists in the privy council office where the identity of the requester, the identity of the individual or the organization asking for the information, is protected. It is not known in the minister's office or in the senior bureaucratic offices who is asking for the information when the decision is made about release of the information.

That is a very good policy. I hope we see it either transformed into an actual part of the statute or a regulation that could accompany the statute. However I certainly believe it should be the policy of every government that it does not matter who is requesting the information.

I also believe that timeliness is very important. Delayed information should not be used as a way of limiting the public's right to know those things. It has a legitimate right to have that information.

I am also very strong on the protection of individual and personal privacy. It is a value that I hold dear and that I believe in. In the information technology age it is a challenge to have access to the information we need to do the research we do at the same time as protecting an individual's right to privacy.

I do not believe the right to privacy is absolute. Nothing in this world or in the House is ever clearly black and white. I have said often I think we live in a world where there are shades of grey. Sometimes there is a legitimate public policy reason why we should have the ability to determine available information.

For example, I had a call from a constituent who was very upset because she had filled out a customs form and as a result had been informed by the employment insurance office that she had collected employment insurance illegally. She had left the country on holiday for a few weeks. When she returned she was a good citizen and filled in the customs form.

I told her that the people of Canada believe people who are out of the country on holiday should not be eligible to collect employment insurance benefits. That is a correct policy. I also think it is appropriate for the department of revenue to share information about people who have left the country. In the name of good practice and more than good practice but effective use of the resources of individuals, taxpayers want to know the laws are being obeyed and upheld. I believe it was appropriate for that information to be shared between departments.

The bill before us today is supportable in principle but I have a few problems with it. As I said, no piece of legislation is ever perfect. I would like to offer one of the problems I have with the bill.

Under the existing Criminal Code offences are defined by three categories. There is a summary conviction offence which carries the lightest penalty. Then there are indictable offences which carry the heaviest penalty and allow a person to elect trial by judge or jury. Then there is the hybrid offence.

In this piece of legislation the member has chosen the indictable offence route. Given the state of the courts in the provinces my concern is that with indictable offence we would see our courts further clogged.

The access to information legislation is under review by the Treasury Board and by the Department of Justice. I hope they take into consideration as part of the review the issues I have raised and most particularly the issue raised by my colleague from Brampton West—Mississauga.

There should be an offence for the destruction of documents. As a result of this debate and the support in principle I would have for the legislation I hope we see changes to make our Access to Information Act better so that the people of Canada and the public interest could be well served. I compliment my colleague.

[Petitions, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a petition to the House of Commons regarding the abolition of nuclear weapons. I was specifically requested by my constituent, Mr. Mark Frank, to table this petition. It asks that Parliament support the immediate initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an international convention that will set out a binding timetable for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.

[Supply, February 5th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am not even going to respond to the member opposite. He is absolutely ridiculous. What he says is not true. I would say to him that anyone who scrutinizes Reform Party policies would understand that they would fundamentally dismantle all those things which have built the country into a great and wonderful country where everyone has access to medicare, public education and, for those in need, to pensions.

I can say to him that I am proud of the fact that I have been in public life for almost 20 years and I am proud of my reputation for always telling the truth.