Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was east.

Last in Parliament April 1997, as Liberal MP for Edmonton East (Alberta)

Lost her last election, in 1997, with 35% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Social Programs February 15th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, the premier of Alberta recently received a B-plus grade from the Fraser Institute for his government's approach to fiscal management and deficit reduction in my province. In its eyes he is an honour student.

However in another report card, one given by the people of Alberta, the premier received a failing grade for his approach in cutting essential services. The disapproval is growing. Some 69 per cent believe changes in health care services have been brought about irresponsibly while 67 per cent disapprove of how the province has handled cuts in education.

Albertans, like all Canadians, support leaner and more efficient government but they will not accept an assault on their most valued and essential services. The premier's approach may be praised by a few but it is not a responsible one in the eyes of many.

The federal government on the other hand will act responsibly in the upcoming budget by controlling spending and reducing waste. However we refuse to sacrifice the things that Canadians value most for the sake of a few accolades.

Petitions December 14th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition bearing the signatures of 371 people from Edmonton and other areas in Alberta on the issue of euthanasia. It is a very difficult subject and has much interest to the citizens of Edmonton.

Along with recent correspondence and meetings with individuals and organizations, such as the Ukrainian Catholic Women's League who organized this petition, about their views on the topic, we are planning to hold a policy forum on January 20, in

Edmonton East. We will bring together individuals well versed in legal, medical and ethical aspects of assisted suicide.

It is our hope that this discussion will be informative and broad in scope because I really feel the need for the wise counsel of my constituents on this issue before I can make a final decision on how to vote in the House.

Supply December 8th, 1994

Madam Speaker, there are several aspects that I would like to respond to. I want to make it absolutely clear that we are not defending federalism. The record of federalism in this country is clear to all Canadians.

The hon. member talked about the quality of people. I think that is where federalism's greatest gift lies. It does not matter in this country which province we live in, which city, which community, which neighbourhood. This country cares for all of its people.

We have provided education, social programs and economic prosperity through good times and bad times. We do not determine that on where we live. It is available to all citizens. Those who live in the inner city of Montreal are feeling the same pain as those who live in Edmonton East inner city neighbourhood. Federalism can deal with that in a fair and equitable manner.

Supply December 8th, 1994

Madam Speaker, I am sure that many Canadians watching the events of the past two days must be experiencing a deep and visceral reaction as the new Government of Quebec and its separatist allies in this Chamber finally launched their desperate push to realize their dreams and tear Quebec out of Canada.

Some Canadians must be feeling a sense of concern and anxiety about the future of a country we cherish. Some Canadians must be feeling a sense of dismay, of déjà vu. Are we ever going to put these issues behind us or are we condemned to regular flare-ups of a national unity crisis like a bad toothache?

Some must be feeling deep frustration, a sense of wanting to get involved, to have a say, to make a difference. The frustration comes from seeing the separatist politicians trying to hijack a great and successful country. The frustration comes from having to hear the kind of nonsense spouted by the separatists, nonsense about how simple and easy separation would be, nonsense about how Canada does not work and especially nonsense about how Canadians in other provinces feel about Quebec.

The separatists are already presenting us with a wide array of distortions. Their rhetoric will get louder and louder and more and more extreme as they draw closer to their day of reckoning. They will be trying to tell Quebecers there is no place for them in Canada, no recognition, no accommodation. They will be telling Quebecers other Canadians want them to leave or no longer care one way or the other.

They will ignore the nearly 1 million francophone Canadians who live outside the boundaries of Quebec, whom they intend to cast overboard, to sink or swim.

They will be telling Quebecers our partnership has reached a stage of irreconcilable differences, that it is time to divvy up the assets and to get on with our separate lives. They will be telling Quebecers it would be a painless breakup, while telling the rest of Canada that we cannot get along anymore, but by the way, we will still need the use of your dollar and open access to your markets.

It is hard to know how to react, to laugh at the absurdity and the contradictions of the separatist project, to cry at the tragedy of so much talent, time and energy being wasted chasing a totally unnecessary leap into the unknown, or to get angry at the dishonesty and the contempt that permeate the separatist arguments.

There is so much that is absurd, the prospect of soldiers in the new Quebec army lining up to be paid in Canadian dollars, the idea that Quebec needs independence to choose its own immigrants side by side with promises by the PQ of unrestricted mobility of labour with the rest of Canada.

It is strange to hear the lamenting about how there is no room for Quebec in Canada when we can look around this city and see Quebecers occupying the highest offices this country has to offer. It is strange to hear Mr. Parizeau vaunt the accomplishments of Quebec at every opportunity, waxing eloquent and quite rightly so about the social, economic and cultural progress Quebec has made these past 30 years.

He does not even blush and acknowledge that all of that progress took place inside Canada. It came through hard work and partnership between Quebecers and other Canadians and through partnership between two levels of government. It is strange to hear the separatists denounce the rigidities of a system that gave Quebec so many tools and the French language and culture a secure home.

There is much that would be saddening if the separatists ever had their way, the dismembering and discarding of a model of governance that points the way to the world of the future. The future does not belong to microstates, it belongs to partnerships of communities sharing their sovereignty to pursue a better life for their citizens.

It is sad to see the separatists' headlong race back into the past. There is much to provoke anger. The separatists will denigrate and belittle accomplishments of Canada. They will play fast and loose with the truth. They will show contempt for anyone who does not share their vision or their zeal.

To laugh, to cry, to get angry, I urge my fellow Canadians not to give in to an emotional reaction, to realize what is going on here. This is the beginning of an increasingly desperate and panicky assault by the separatist movement. They have one shot at making the case to break up Canada. They know deep down they carry an enormous burden of proof and it is starting to rattle their nerves. As they get more and more rattled, they are desperately trying to put their opponents on the defensive and it is not going to work.

There is an overwhelming consensus that it is time for Quebecers to make a decision. In 1995 we will come to a fork in the road and we will take one path or the other. It is that simple. The stark clarity makes some people uncomfortable. That is understandable, but there is no longer any use denying that the fork in the road is here in front of us.

I share in the consensus that the time has come for a decision, but I want that decision to last and to be accepted gracefully by the separatists. For the decision to stick it must be seen by Quebecers and by Canadians in every other province as a clear result on a clear question after a fair and full debate. It should come at the end of the process used twice before, the Quebec referendum law. That is what the Parti Quebecois promised in order to get elected, albeit by the narrowest of margins. That is what it is morally and politically obliged to deliver now.

The resolution is misleading because it ignores the reality that Quebec's future is Canada's future, that after two centuries of partnership, of building a political, social and economic union together, Canadians in other parts of the federation would be indifferent or unaffected by a decision by one-quarter of its members to leave.

Other Canadians have a right to talk with Quebecers about that decision, about the options they have. We want Quebec to stay. We want to get back to what all of us Canadians do best, working out practical solutions to real problems, innovating and adapting, bending and compromising, adjusting and changing. We have always found the ways to live together, to work together, to build together. We have found ways to acknowledge and indeed to cherish our differences and at the same time realize how much we share. We have had a successful federation in this country for 127 years. We have woven together an economic union, a sharing social community and a democratic political union so well that too many of us have forgotten what we have to lose.

Why federalism? It is disarmingly simple. Federations allow communities to come together under peaceful and democratic political structures to share the benefit of social and economic co-operation while retaining the very high degree of local control over issues that matter most to local communities. It is a simple idea like most great ideas. It is an idea that has worked in societies that are on the surface relatively uniform, societies like Germany, Australia, and the United States.

It is a particularly important idea in societies where communities based on language, religion or ethnicity live side by side, societies like Switzerland, India and, yes, Canada. It is a great idea but it is constantly under attack. All over the world there are politicians who promote difference, who offer people false hope

that their lives would suddenly improve if walls went up with other communities.

Some of them sit in this Chamber. Federalism gives local communities the scope to exercise control over many aspects of their lives, especially in matters close to the cultural vitality and the social development of the community.

Federalism enables communities to co-operate with their neighbours and to work together in pursuit of common goals. Federalism is a way to pool resources, talent and energy in pursuit of these goals. Federalism provides a framework of peace, order and security and allows communities and individuals to live side by side.

Federalism creates a common identity and a purpose that can transcend differences without replacing local identities and local communities. Federalism provides the structures of an economic union but places them under the control of a democratic legislature. Federalism provides the basis for a sharing community, for a redistribution of wealth from richer to poorer regions and from richer to poorer citizens.

Federalism allows minority groups to exercise democratic control over their communities and to tailor laws and government services to meet their own needs and preferences while at the same time exercising a powerful voice in the legislature and executive that serves the community as a whole.

It is true that some of these benefits can be realized by partnership between small and independent nation states. Around the world there are military alliances, trade agreements, various forms of co-operation and mutual assistance but a closer look shows there is a common striving in many parts of the world to move beyond security pacts and free trade.

The extra element to the sharing community and democratic control over matters of common interest are the bonds that are the most difficult to forge and the most vulnerable to being cut. A successful federation is a whole that is much stronger than the sum of its parts.

It involves at least two or maybe three strong levels of government and a natural tension between them. It involves disagreements and compromises. Running a federal system of government is a noisy, sometimes messy, affair. Sometimes it is frustrating, especially to those who seek quick fixes and bold dramatic gestures.

Supply October 25th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question from the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest.

It is my understanding that we are discussing a vision of the government's role in the economy. It was for that reason I spent most of my time talking about how we would invest in people so that they would be productive and contribute to our economy and the fabric of life in our country.

The member spoke rather negatively about the success of these programs but let me remind my hon. colleague that the whole idea of the $800 million for this strategic initiative was to try to experiment and be creative in new and innovative ways to train our people for their future roles in the work of the country. That is the essence of my comments.

I might mention another thing that is extremely important. Every program I talked about today will undergo the same program review in the future that all our existing programs today are undergoing. That is what makes us sure we will be able to measure success in terms of whether or not it delivers what we expected it to deliver.

I look forward to working with my hon. colleague on those exact kinds of reviews.

Supply October 25th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. I bring to his attention, however, that we are talking about vision and vision relates to the future. While we can learn from the past it is important to look to the future with hope; with great political will on both sides of the House, as he has suggested; with a tremendous amount of courage; and with a lot of sticking with it. I truly believe the Liberal government understands and will deliver.

The member talked about new approaches. That is what this is all about. As we go into our budget deliberations we certainly know that we need to do things in new and different ways.

We talked about leadership a little earlier. There was one suggestion that the Liberal government decides what it wants to do and does it. That is the old approach. The new approach is to talk to the stakeholders and talk to the people who pay the bills. That is where we get the wisdom. That is where we learn to understand the priorities of the people.

It is my view that what is in the red book is truly the priorities of Canadians. That is why the government was elected.

Supply October 25th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to address the hon. member's motion today. This past week the Minister of Finance made it abundantly clear this government is fully committed to reducing the debt and controlling expenditures.

I can assure the hon. member that reducing spending is not the only action this government is taking to strengthen our growing economy. We are working in partnership with other levels of government and the private sector to build strong, vibrant economies that will keep our standard of living among the top 10 nations of the world.

I know hon. members will agree that our young people are the future leaders and builders of this great nation. This government is fully aware of the importance of ensuring that Canadian youth are given every opportunity to excel. That is what the youth employment and learning strategy is all about.

The hon. member asked about the government's vision. Let me tell the hon. member for St. Albert that our vision for young Canadians is to do everything possible to ensure they fulfil their educational potential, get a rewarding job and contribute to the social and economic health of Canada.

One way the government is doing that is through youth service Canada. We already have more than 1,000 Canadian young women and men participating in youth service projects. In the coming months we will involve an additional 1,400 participants. That is not the only investment we are making in the future of Canada. Through our youth internship program young Canadians are being given the opportunity to experience training in new and emerging sectors.

I assure the hon. member this is not a haphazard approach of smoke and mirrors. Far from it. Youth internship projects will train young people in skills that will lead to long term, highly skilled jobs. For example, we recently announced a demonstration project to help those interested to gain the skills necessary to pursue careers in the electric and electronic industries. Each project will involve 20 students in five provinces, with the benefits going to students all across the country.

I imagine my hon. colleagues will agree there is no better teacher than experience and experience is what the participants in the government's youth employment and learning strategy are receiving. We have said before, and perhaps the hon. member should hear it again, partnership is the key to making these programs effective. With the demonstration projects under youth service Canada and youth internship, the government is working hand in hand with a variety of partners, including sector councils, that are taking the lead in these endeavours.

One of the major aspects in economic renewal is that sectors share responsibility in determining and addressing their human resource needs. We are working closely with sector councils that represent their respective industries. I will say a little more on that in a minute.

Regarding vision, this government has enough vision to realize that we have to make adjustments where needed. That is what we are doing with the Atlantic groundfish strategy. The main objective of TAGS is to reconstruct the fishery in Atlantic Canada to make this traditional industry economically viable and environmentally sustainable.

We are working closely with fishermen's associations and the provinces to make necessary adjustments to the labour force, realistic adjustments that must be made. Since TAGS was announced in April, we are serving the needs of men and women in the fishery through the difficult transitional time.

So far close to 41,000 fishermen and women and fish plant workers are receiving support through TAGS. For the majority that support will continue to 1995. Financial assistance is not the only thing the government is doing for women and men whose lives have been devastated by the reduction in the fishery. We are also providing counselling to about 15,000 individuals thus far, and about 3,000 of these men and women are participat-

ing in other aspects of the TAGS program on their way to becoming self-reliant and able to once again contribute to the Canadian economy.

When the hon. member for St. Albert talks about vision I am wondering if he is aware of the resourceful measures this government has taken through its strategic initiatives program. We have set aside $800 million in the February budget to come up with creative ways to address employment problems associated with structural changes in the economy.

I am pleased to tell the House that the strategic initiatives program has been a marked success. Let me cite a few examples. In New Brunswick we are supporting NB jobs corps with a $40 million investment to help older employed workers. This project is very successful. At this time most of the 1,000 participants are working in nine provincial localities.

In Newfoundland a strategic initiatives project is investing $10 million to help students and the unemployed continue their education using tuition credits and wage subsidies.

In Prince Edward Island we are investing $1.4 million to tutor unemployment insurance claimants and welfare recipients to gain literacy and life skills.

In Nova Scotia the strategic initiatives program has invested $7.5 million for training and employment opportunities for adults at risk of going on welfare.

We also have strategic initiative projects in Ontario, the Northwest Territories and Manitoba. I am pleased to tell the hon. member that the provinces and the territories have shown enthusiasm for strategic initiatives from the very beginning.

Women comprise about 40 per cent of our labour force but they are still in many low paying occupations. The government is helping women realize their potential through projects such as the one the Minister of Human Resources Development recently announced in Rimouski, Quebec. In this case women who have no income are being trained to enable them to create their own businesses. These entrepreneurial women have a business plan but they need support to get it off the ground. This is another project that is providing an excellent example of what we can accomplish through co-operative partnerships.

I am delighted to report also the case for sectoral partnerships. This too is part of our vision. Sector councils are comprised of leaders in industry, labour, education and all levels of government. They work together to build a common vision of their human resource needs and to establish comprehensive and practical training programs to meet those needs.

We currently have some 18 sector councils breaking new ground in labour-management relations and we are working to establish more sector councils. This partnership includes education and training in the community so the school curriculum will help students develop the up to date skills necessary to work in today's economy.

Sectoral initiatives are involving the private sector in decision making in a way that government has not done before. Business and industry are investing dollars, time and expertise.

In closing, I suggest that the hon. member not be so pessimistic in his outlook. Just last week the International Monetary Fund reported that Canada's industrial production has surpassed the pre-recession peak of 1989-90. Of course there is still much to be done, but through programs such as the one I have outlined, investment in people, and through a revitalized social security system we will help Canadians to improve their standard of living and ensure a strong economy for decades to come.

Social Security Program October 24th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I think what we have seen in the past few years is a real desire by communities to be self-sufficient, in essence to take care of their own needs. If those needs relate to children, whether they be recreation or nutritional programs or whatever, I certainly see there being real value in community groups and organizations taking over those functions.

It is important to know that those organizations will need some kind of support to get them going. It is happening now.

Social Security Program October 24th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I think universality is perhaps one of the most undefined and misunderstood words that we have. I guess it is for that reason I will choose not to use it.

What I believe in and what is incredibly important to embed in all the programs that we offer, be they social programs or economic programs, is equity. That to me means that there is equitable access, that there is fairness and equity and everyone has equal, equitable opportunities.

The hon. member has asked what kind of social programs should be excluded. I really believe this consultation process that we are undergoing now is incredibly valuable. For one thing I think it has all Canadians focused on exactly what we need to offer in the way of social policy. What has come through very clearly is that we need to target those in need.

The other incredibly valuable thing that we have done is we have discussed this with those who receive the programs and the benefits, not just the provinces and not just those who deliver those programs but the people who actually receive them. What we find from that is that is where the wisdom and the experience with those programs comes from. That is where we see some of the very best suggestions of change on how to make those programs better, more efficient, more cost efficient and more effective.

Social Security Program October 24th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on revising our social programs.

There have been questions in the House about the consultation process and some assertions that it is not genuine. There have also been statements that the discussion paper is out of touch with Canadians. Some have even said Canadians do not want to overhaul our social support system, while others have argued that Canadians want major reductions in our social programs.

I will deal with both those arguments, not by using conjecture or my own opinion but by using the results of a public forum on the future of social programs held in Edmonton East in June. The results of the forum were submitted to the government before the discussion paper was finalized. I am happy to report that the document tabled this month reflects much of what my constituents said. It is in touch with Canadians.

By way of background, in my first speech here I indicated Edmonton East is a microcosm of Canada in many ways. We have a very diverse population with a mixture of occupations, income levels, social and cultural backgrounds. All this diversity is similar to the diversity of Canada and was represented at the forum. The group had in common a desire to do what was best for local communities, what would best meet the needs of all people there. That is also the basic value that Canadians hold.

It is significant there was general agreement that our social programs needed to be revamped to accommodate current realities. I heard two general themes that night. One was an appreciation for Canada's history of social programs as a good way to demonstrate caring and to build community. No one said to do away with them. Second were suggestions for modifications and improvements. No one defended the status quo as good enough.

There were differences of opinion, lots of them, as there are across the country. Even more, there was an appreciation that the government is ready to tackle the problem, not to destroy our heritage but to improve on it. The residents of Edmonton East also put forward some general directions for improving what we have and a number of specific suggestions. I am happy to report to the House that the discussion paper includes many of the suggestions. Let me highlight a few.

It was no surprise that increasing employment opportunities was a high priority in every discussion group. "Training is not much good without jobs", said one participant and others agreed. More worthy of note was the recognition that there is a positive role for government to play in job creation in partnership with the private sector and local communities. No one can solve the problem alone.

Of particular value for the coming months of debate in the House was the willingness of my constituents to recognize and to deal with the bigger question of how we define and distribute work in Canada. They want to see a better sharing of employment opportunities. They want to see that people who contribute to building our communities have adequate resources for their basic needs whether they contribute through traditional jobs or by doing the work that needs to be done, such as caring for children or community work.

They recognize our economy may have a shortage of paid jobs but there is a lot of work to be done in the country. They said volunteer work was productive work and should be recognized by federal programs. They also recognize that employers sometimes exploit employees because the lack of jobs makes them vulnerable. "There is no accountability for employers in the present circumstances", said one participant.

Going one step further, we as a society need to come to grips with new ways to share the dignity of work and its just rewards. "Overtime should not be allowed when so many people go unemployed", said one person. Others questioned the belief that being home with children is no longer considered acceptable work. We look forward to the proposals that will come from the task force currently working on the question of distribution of work in our society.

Another strong theme was the need to improve training programs and educational opportunities. Residents show an incredible wisdom. They care about the quality of the programs and getting good value for their tax dollar, not about who delivers them.

Portable skills, on the job training and life skills were all suggestions that found their place in the discussion paper. One specific suggestion was apprenticeships for women at any age, recognizing that they may be re-entering the workforce after raising children. More opportunities for less academically oriented youth was another emphasis. We do not need just more access to university but more diverse kinds of education to develop the many different skills of our young people and help them find their niche in a global economy.

In addition to improving the quality of individual programs, residents want better linkages between jobs, programs and services. Income support programs need to be linked with training programs and training programs with real job potential. "Many of the good programs are too small", said one group. Several groups suggested replacing fragmented programs with a mix of guaranteed annual income and guaranteed employment.

The participants in the Edmonton East forum understood that cheap is not the same as efficient. They recognize that adequate support is necessary to achieve self-sufficiency. We need to invest in people if we want them to invest in building our country. People must be able to meet their basic needs in order to be productive, learn new skills or care for children.

Of particular importance in our debate is the emphasis on the needs of children and the importance of giving children a good start in life. To me an important test of the success of our revision of social programs will be whether or not children living in poverty in my riding are better off. Maybe Premier Kline can close his eyes to what is happening on the streets of my city. I cannot. I see poor children who are too hungry to learn well. Last week I met school children who are without warm enough clothing to go out and plant tulips in the Canada Remembers Program.

Everything is not all right in Alberta and that is not the vision of Canada we want for our children. Some may not see the connection between substandard housing, unemployment, frustrated young people and public safety. The residents of my riding know the connection because they live with it every day. They know what it takes to build strong communities and that is what they want governments to invest in.

That leads me to the last but perhaps the strongest theme I heard: the importance of community support, non-financial support. An income cheque does not create security. Young people and seniors need a sense of belonging and involvement in their community rather than isolation and alienation. Young families and children need more than money. They need community support for the important task of raising the next generation.

Edmonton is known for its strong neighbourhood associations and its many community run agencies that respond to local needs and help to build local community networks. This network is under severe distress, thanks to drastic provincial cuts without consulting the people affected by them. Ironically it is especially in times of uncertainty and rapid change like we are living through today that every community needs some social support services and networks.

The participants in the Edmonton East forum want the federal government to take an active role in co-operation with cities and local communities that know what needs to be done. If we do not want people to fall through the cracks and become dependent on federal government handouts, we must ensure that local communities, not just provinces, have a voice in deciding what kind of social support network is effective.

Focus on local action, residents told me, not national committees or endless federal-provincial consultations. It is community networks for example which provide young people with a sense of belonging that leads away from crime to safer streets.

Perhaps our fixation on federal-provincial relations is too narrow. Perhaps communities, especially our large urban ones, should have a more direct voice when it comes to the social development of our country. The people in my riding are concerned that we are losing that sense of community that built this country and they want to rebuild it. This is the most important goal for our revitalization of Canada's social programs.