Sharon Hayes

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, November 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, certainly as a Reformer and as a supporter of the accountability of programs being in the hands of those closest to the people who have to put the programs in place, I support the premise that the control of programs and decisions that are made be as close to the people as possible.

I must add at the same time that every part of our nation should have the same input into what those decisions are. Certainly provinces can be deemed equal in the administration of the programs. The federal government's participation in those programs should be minimized as much as possible while maintaining the integrity and protection of Canadians across the system. The actual delivery of programs should be in provincial hands in an equal fashion from coast to coast.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, November 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if that was a question or a comment.

I enjoy the opportunity to answer my colleague's presentation. He talks about the Canadian family. I am talking about Canadian families, the root of our society.

I would like to reflect on what has happened in the last 20 years to Canadian families. In that time, especially in the last five years, youth violence has more than doubled. Real income, the amount of money a family has to support itself with, has dropped by some 6.5 per cent in the last five or six years because of taxation, because of government overspending and because of fiscal policies that are putting tremendous pressures on the people that are trying to hold this nation together.

Consider suicide rates. We have the third highest suicide rate among male youth in the world. The divorce rate has increased 10 times in the last 35 years and we are shuffling the chairs around on the deck saying: "We'll spend more money".

What are the priorities of Canadians? Is it their priority to find out what government can do or what they can do in job creation? We want to put the tools in the hands of Canadians so they can create the jobs. It is not what government can do, it is what Canadians can do. Government priorities should not be prompted by special interest groups, but what Canadian priorities are.

The Canadian priorities are that their families be strengthened and that they be given the instruments to create their own future. That is exactly what the government's fiscal policies, justice policies and social policies are stripping away from those families. I put that to the hon. member who made the comments.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, November 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-96, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources Development and to amend and repeal certain related acts.

Last week in my office I received a status of women document that prompts me to speak to this bill today. That document was a prepared camera ready piece to be used as an insert in householders from members of Parliament across Canada.

It describes Canada's role at the fourth UN conference on women to an unsuspecting public. It described the government as recognizing the importance of strengthening the family. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Department of Human Resources Development is one of 24 federal departments included in the status of women plans. I will read from the document:

In preparing for the Conference-

-that is the fourth UN conference on women-

-Canada developed its own national action plan for gender equality "Setting the Stage for the Next Century: the Federal Plan for Gender Equality," published in August, is a framework for federal action to advance women's equality in Canada to the year 2000".

This federal plan for gender equality outlines eight lofty sounding objectives. Today I would like to touch on five of the eight objectives to which the Department of Human Resources Development has committed.

The first is to implement gender based analysis throughout federal departments and agencies. The second is to improve women's economic autonomy and well-being. Sixth, incorporate women's perspective in governance. Seventh, promote and support global gender equality and, eighth, advance gender equality for employees of federal departments and agencies.

Human Resources Development before and after the reorganization this formalizes agreed along with other federal departments to implement this gender based analysis. What is gender based analysis? What is the definition offered by the government in its own publication? According to the federal plan:

A gender based approach ensures that the development, analysis and implementation of legislation and policies are undertaken with an appreciation of gender differences. It also acknowledges that some women may be disadvantaged even further because of their race, colour, sexual orientation, social economic position, region, ability level or age.

Notice the subtle reference to sexual orientation in this list. This word, until recently with the passage of Bill C-41, did not exist in federal legislation. Even now the recognition of sexual orientation is not yet in our Canadian Human Rights Act. With this government document, however, it is now official policy in every government department, courtesy of the Status of Women and not of Parliament.

It is the ambiguous concept of gender I should like to give close attention to today. The dictionary definition of gender refers to a person's sex. In contrast to this, according to the federal plan:

Gender refers not to men or women, but to the relationship between them and to the ways in which the roles of women and men, girls and boys, are socially constructed.

The document goes on to expand on the concept of gender equality. To achieve gender equality, the social arrangements that govern the relationship between men and women will have to change to give equal value to the different roles they play as parents, as workers, and so on and so forth.

The word parent does occur here. Does this mean that the importance of parent and family is being recognized? Has the traditional family or family been deemed to be worthy of the government's attention? If we go further in the document we realize that this is not the case. It goes on to say such statements as:

Equality for all women will come about only as these attitudes embedded in the workplace, education institutes and family are challenged and begin to change.

Another example of this policy duplicity is the following:

Unequal participation and progress in paid work further undermines a woman's ability to achieve and sustain personal autonomy throughout her life.

This statement reflects the bias that it is only paid work that defines a woman's ability, value and worth in society. This illustrates the government's contempt for home and family relationships.

Participation in the workplace defines ability, value and worth according to this Liberal government document. With this bias it is not only family structures that become criticized under the microscope of their gender equality, but such things as religion, customs and traditional practices. The free choice or preference of individuals is replaced by this government imposed priority of workforce participation.

Gender equality is also based upon the assumption of attaining equal outcomes, as noted in the federal plan:

Attaining gender equality is predicated on the achievement of equal outcomes for both men and women.

That is brought about not only by equal treatment but by "positive actions". Positive actions imply government intervention. This document blatantly states that treating women and men identically will not ensure equal outcomes. Thus the philosophy of gender equality leads to the policy of employment equity and affirmative action from the workplace right through to the kitchens of our national homes. This policy has been rejected outright by Canadians and certainly by my constituents in Port Moody-Coquitlam.

A recent survey I conducted of my constituents indicated that some 87 per cent believe that merit and merit alone should be the sole criteria for hiring and promotion. They have rejected employment equity and affirmative action, certainly in the workplace and most certainly in the home.

The policy or practice of employment equity is a fundamental insult to the abilities of women. It is a fundamental insult to me. The government cannot and should not mandate equal outcome in workplace participation between the sexes, between men and women. That should not be its role. Rather, the government should seek to encourage equality of opportunity and freedom of choice. Individuals should be free to decide how they wish to participate, both inside and outside the home.

The government obviously has no respect for the value of nurturing or sustaining families. The government does not take into account nor does it respect that women may have other alternatives and priorities in life, may wish to make choices other than government choices, and may wish to invest their time and efforts in their families. Therefore it was to my great surprise to read the status of women document which states that they recognize the importance of the family and the importance of strengthening it.

The minister pays only lip service to the needs and priorities of Canadian families while giving full service to radical feminists through such documents as the gender equality plan and the Beijing platform for action. It should be noted that neither the platform for action nor the federal plan for gender equality has been presented to the House. We have not seen a shred of those documents in this place for discussion. We have not been able to scrutinize what is in them, as we deserve to do. The government has legislated in 24

federal departments, including human resources, without this legislature.

Where is the accountability in our system of government? The government, according to its notorious red book, stated that "open government would be the watchword of the Liberal government program". Why has not the government brought this agenda to the public's attention? Yet the two documents to which I referred, one being domestic and the other an international UN agreement, will have wide-ranging impact upon our legislation, our public policy, our society and our families.

We will recall last month the passage of Bill C-64, a monument to employment equity in all federal departments. It is no coincidence that this is in the Beijing document.

Human resources development is a main player in the realization of the Liberal government's gender based analysis agenda. It intends at any moment to interfere in the free choice of Canadian families by introducing a national day care program. It intends to add a further tax burden to all Canadians with this program in its desire to become a nanny state.

We thought last year that the power of the radical women's lobby was defunded and disempowered with the removal of the National Advisory Council on the Status of Women. The Human Resources Development Department has committed to continued and added support for and influence from gender equity activists through the platform for action. This department among many others has committed to the funding and advice of gender feminist NGO groups to implement their gender equality objectives.

We find that even the promotion and support of global gender equality is one of the mandates of the new human resources development. It applied to the department's funding radical feminists going to Beijing. It will apply to ongoing NAFTA labour agreements. Its mandate even applies to other international activities.

Nothing is free or even cheap in federal government. What will the new priority cost this department or other departments? In lean economic times should the limited resources and sadly needed resources of a human resources development department be used to realize the unwanted agenda of a powerful special interest group, or should its limited resources apply to the needs of real Canadians?

Instead of debating substantive and controversial policy issues such as the gender based employment equity contained in the platform for action and the federal plan for gender equality, we are debating a pro forma bill, Bill C-96, which actually offers nothing new, nothing fresh, nothing bold enough to reform this department or, more important, to reform federal-provincial relations. While RD is enacting fundamental, costly, revolutionizing social policy behind the scenes, Bill C-96 does not even have a royal recommendation attached to it.

I am sure however that the cost of implementing the plan for gender equality and the platform for action will be considerable not only in this department but in every department across government. This is an issue that I intend to pursue. This cost will not only be in dollars but it will be in the weakened viability of our most precious societal institutions, and one such institution is our families.

The government's non-legislative agenda is of great concern to me. This non-legislative agenda permeates every nook and cranny of every federal department at this point in time.

Earlier the minister was saying that their policies affect the social fabric of the country. They certainly do. This one in particular strikes the very centre of our social fabric. The general secretary to the Beijing conference, Gertrude Mongella, declared at the opening ceremony of that conference that "all evidence points to a social revolution in the making".

The two documents I have mentioned, the ones going into this department and others, will have a profound effect on our governments, our laws, our society and our families. What Bill C-96 shuffles around on the surface and what we are talking about today actually belie a whirlpool of change underneath.

[Health Care, November 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's blood supply system is in a state of crisis.

Day after day, testimony before the Krever commission reveals a tale of bureaucratic bungling and government inaction that has compromised Canadians' health by exposing them to such dis-

eases as HIV, AIDS and hepatitis-C. Credibility and trust in our health care system has been severely compromised.

What has the government done to restore credibility to our blood system? The minister recently declared that our blood system is as safe as any other in the world, yet Canadians know it is not good enough.

Handing over another $3.3 million to the commission is not the answer. Doubling the budget of the Bureau of Biologics is not the answer. It was this bureau that originally was part of the tragic bungling.

The answer Canadians want is not more study, but decisive action and leadership now.

[Auditor General For The Family Act, November 8th, 1995]

I ask my Liberal colleagues if they walk into a village that has been ravaged by some disease whether they would simply walk away from those who are suffering while muttering something like reality must be faced.

I shall highlight two specific and current examples of some issues that the auditor general of the family could examine.

I recently attended the world conference in Beijing. I was there to ensure that the views of the family and of family life were represented within the Canadian delegation and the conference itself. At the conference our government committed to the Beijing platform for action which requires that the government implement over 500 actions in the next five years. Although the conference was supposedly about women, the document introduced barely mentions family and when it does it is often depicted as a place of oppression and violence.

One of the actions discussed deals with children's rights. The document elevates children's rights above those of parents, including unrestricted access to "reproductive health services and education" and confers upon our children so-called sexual rights. Parental prerogatives and authority are replaced routinely with government and bureaucratic intrusion. The document ignores the value of family relationships, seeking to use words such as caretaker or girl child in place of beautiful words like mother and daughter.

This platform for action has not been tabled in the House. It has not been debated and it has not been examined by members of the House. In short, it has simply not received the scrutiny that it deserves. It is a Liberal government endorsed product without any reference to the Canadian people that will have and has a profound effect and impact on the Canadian family in society.

A second example is also related to the Beijing conference. Before the conference started the Secretary of State for the Status of Women publicly released a document entitled "Setting the stage for the next century, the federal plan for gender equality". The plan was released as the government's position on the objective of the conference while it simultaneously instituted gender equality and gender based analysis throughout the 24 departments and agencies of the government. I quote the plan from page 17:

A gender based approach ensures the development, analysis and implementation of legislation and policies with an appreciation of gender differences.

It makes gender, not family, a priority in all policy development and seeks to deconstruct "stereotypical roles" and replace them with a social revolution that shakes the very foundation of the traditional family. In dismantling barriers that supposedly impede the progress and equality of women, it denies the value of women and families anywhere outside the workplace.

The plan and its implementation would have far reaching consequences for families and society. That is what the minister intended when she wrote that "every aspect of our lives is being reshaped" by the plan. It is sad but true.

If there were an auditor general of the family he would be able to assess the impact of programs like the platform for action, report his or her findings to the House, make recommendations to the government and the House, and raise the profile of these issues. This Reform bill would do much toward attaining that goal in terms of providing information about the family and introducing greater accountability to the system.

Reports on the family would generate interest in family issues. They would cultivate a culture of respect for the Canadian family that is sorely lacking in federal legislation and throughout the federal government.

These are basic, fundamental and significant accountability measures that I believe will expose an anti-family agenda endorsed by the Liberal government. An auditor general would strengthen and improve the condition of the Canadian family.

Let me conclude by stating that Bill C-322 will do much to establish a family first philosophy that will establish a culture of recognition and respect for the Canadian family within government and here in Ottawa.

Moreover, by establishing an auditor general of the family it will do much to ensure that family friendly policies are developed and implemented. Current policies and programs would be examined from the perspective of benefit or harm to the family and not for special interest groups.

It is with these considerations that I urge the House to support the bill developed wisely by my colleague from Fraser Valley East.

[Auditor General For The Family Act, November 8th, 1995]

To answer my colleague's question, two-parent families with children now compose approximately 80 per cent of families in Canada. That will answer my colleague's question.

[Auditor General For The Family Act, November 8th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-322, an act respecting the office of the auditor general for the family, developed and sponsored by my colleague from Fraser Valley East.

The Reform Party has long recognized the importance and value of the Canadian family through our policies and actions, such as we see here today in Bill C-322. As my colleague earlier so well stated, few topics are as important to this nation at this time.

This bill seeks to establish the office of the auditor general for the family. The mandate of the auditor general is based on the premise of evaluating and assessing the impact, performance, and effectiveness of government policy, programs and administration.

Clause 4 of this bill outlines this proposed auditor general's duties. The auditor general for the family shall examine federal programs and institutions to determine their impact on the nuclear family in Canada; expose programs and policies that are detrimental to the well-being of the nuclear family; and recommend through his annual report to Parliament changes to federal government programs and policies that would enhance the well-being of the Canadian nuclear family.

Like the Auditor General of Canada, the auditor general of the family would be an official officer of Parliament and would report to the House on an annual basis. The auditor general of the family would also be empowered to make special reports to Parliament on "any matter of pressing importance or urgency" as outlined in clause 5 of the bill.

As I alluded to in my opening remarks, the family is the most fundamental institution in society. The family nurtures its members and provides for the security and needs of its members. The family provides for the transfer and protection of our values, our heritage and our culture. The family provides the stability and the prosperity

of society. It is most appropriate to think in terms of an auditor general in assessing the well-being of Canadian families.

Over the past decade the Canadian family has been under increasing social, political and economic pressures. These pressures originate from many facets of government policy direction. For example, the mismanagement of our nation's finances has created tremendous pressure both on the earning power and even the job availability of Canadians and their families.

The average family income in 1984 was $43,204. In 1993 it was $43,225. After tax income has actually fallen 6.5 per cent from 1989 to today. The tax bite out of money earned is over 30 cents on the dollar. The facts indicate that it requires almost double the paid working hours to support a family as it did 20 years ago. Translated into action that means two income earners in a family as opposed to one simply to survive.

Sixty-two per cent of mothers with children below the age of three are now in the workforce compared to thirty-nine per cent in 1981. Economic pressures can be devastating to family stability.

A recent study has found that two-thirds of parents presently experience moderate to severe levels of tension in balancing work and family commitments. According to a recent study teen suicide rates for young men has quadrupled since 1960. According to UNICEF in 1995 we now have one of the highest rates of teen suicide in the world after New Zealand and Finland.

Violent youth crime has been shown to have doubled since 1986. Meanwhile our divorce rates have risen tenfold to where Canada is second only to the United States with one divorce for every 2.4 marriages. Statistics such as these reveal what can only be described as a social revolution taking place in the heart of our homes. We as legislators in the House must do what we can to strengthen and improve the condition of Canadian families.

What concrete measures has the government taken to improve the state of families in Canada? Where are the legislation, the tax relief, constructive and effective programs? Where is the sincere commitment or are mere platitudes enough?

The Liberal government has been tragically absent and worse yet in some cases culpable in this crisis. Citing facts as we heard a few minutes ago that less than half of Canadian families are dual parent with children is grossly misleading, or saying that we must face reality and do nothing about ailing families.

[Canada Health Act, October 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-284 today, an act to amend the Canada Health Act, sponsored by the member for Winnipeg-Transcona.

The purpose of the bill is "to incite the provinces to make sure that the health care insurance plan of a province provides for the obligation for hospitals to disclose to emergency response employees who provide emergency medical or rescue services to a patient, the name and nature of an infectious or contagious disease that the patient might have transmitted to them". The essence of this bill is to ensure the safety of those who work in medical or rescue operations who are at risk of being exposed by an infectious or contagious disease.

The dedication of the people to whom this bill is addressed is to be commended and admired. I have talked with different emergency response workers and know their dedication and the risk they face each time they respond to an emergency. These professionals are police officers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians and paramedics.

I can agree with the intent of the bill. However, I disagree with the the means by which it seeks to accomplish and implement that purpose. Specifically, the bill seeks to amend the Canada Health Act by adding additional criteria to the list.

I must agree with the Liberal parliamentary secretary that the Canada Health Act is not the vehicle for this. I will go on to explain why.

Clause 2 of the bill amends section 7 of the Canada Health Act. Section 7 outlines the principles of the Canada Health Act. These are public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessibility. The bill would add an additional criteria to that list and that is the disclosure of infectious or contagious diseases.

The Reform Party has consistently demonstrated how the Canada Health Act has allowed the federal government and others to play a carrot and stick game with the provinces. The carrot is the money that the federal government transfers to the provinces for medicare. The stick is the heavy handedness of the Canada Health Act that allows the federal government to financially penalize the provinces.

Sections 14 and 15 of the Canada Health Act allow the federal government and the health minister to financially penalize provinces if the minister has found that the province is in violation of sections 8 to 13 of the act. These sections deal with the five principles, as I have mentioned, of public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessibility and finally, the conditions for the cash contributions or payments to those provinces.

The bill adds an additional criteria to a list that Reform members feel is intrusive already. It adds the disclosure of infectious or contagious diseases. By adding it to the program criteria of section 7 of the Canada Health Act, it would create another basis for the federal government to financially penalize these provinces. We have just gone through a recent example of how the federal government imposes its will on provinces with the issue, debated in this House, of private clinics in Alberta and other provinces.

Although the purpose and the intent of the bill is commendable, I disagree with the way it is designed to legislate that purpose.

Reform has a different and fresh philosophy to approach medicare in Canada. Our approach, and we call it medicare plus, contains the following: first, we reaffirm that the value of medicare is the best health care safety net in the world. Second, we would define medicare as Canada's comprehensive set of core national health standards, publicly funded, portable across Canada and universally accessible to all Canadians, regardless of their ability to pay. These are essentially the principles that now exist in the Canada Health Act.

We differ from the Canada Health Act and from the view of the government and the approach taken in this bill by removing the restrictions and the ability of the federal government to penalize provinces within these criteria. That is the plus of medicare plus and the third of our proposals. We would give provinces greater flexibility to administer and deliver the health services within their own respective jurisdiction. That is our general philosophy and our approach to federal involvement in medicare.

It would apply to Bill C-284 as well. We believe the provinces should decide whether or not to pass legislation on the disclosure

of infectious or contagious diseases rather than be compelled by a federal government through the Canada Health Act.

As my colleague mentioned today, in June there was a federal-provincial notification protocol established in this area. This dealt with blood borne diseases and took into account the confidentiality concerns and the procedures that would result. I commend the government for proceeding in this direction.

One question I have today of the government, as my colleague also had, is why this was not proceeded with and then the information given to the people discussing the bill today? Again this is a reflection of the inactivity in the House or the lack of proaction on real measures that need to be addressed within this place. This is unfair to Canadians, specifically to the emergency response personnel for instance within this very bill.

Bill C-284 illustrates once again the failure of the government to proceed with substantive steps in the proper areas where Canadians need things addressed.

Generally my philosophy would be that it is grassroots not Ottawa that must reform an ailing health care system in terms of the Canada Health Act. Bill C-284 speaks to increased federal control over a medicare system that is increasingly unaffordable at the federal level. Ottawa's share of our medicare system was originally 50 per cent and is now down to approximately 24 per cent or less. Its share will likely disappear within 10 to 15 years.

The symptoms that we see are bed closures. In my own provinces hospitals have closed. There are long waiting lists, up to seven to twelve weeks for procedures. There has been a de-listing of medical services so that each province may have a different base from which to work. There is reduced medical coverage for Canadians travelling abroad. As important as any of the others, there has been an exodus of some of our expert medical personnel from our land.

Reform says that the five program criteria should be maintained but we have to re-examine the definition of those program criteria. We have to allow room for provinces to exercise administrative jurisdictions over the funding and delivery of our health care system. The crisis in our country is not what is done but of federal government intrusion into provincial jurisdiction.

Today, we think of Canada as a grand old house that has fallen into a serious state of disrepair. Today I stand with great trepidation as I see the foundations of that house facing a great test. It is true that the house of our nation has an unsustainable mortgage. It has a cracked foundation. It has serious problems with some of the ways that the walls are fitting together and how the communications work within that house.

However, within the last few days I have seen many Canadians speak out with a great love and a newly discovered feeling of the importance of this country to them. This is all the more reason that I feel today it is time for the government to recognize that there has to be a new relationship within this House, new federal-provincial relationships outside the Constitution. Our own party has suggested 20 ways where we can bring provinces and the federal government together so that as a nation we can stand together today and tomorrow in order to make this country work.

Decentralizing those powers includes a medicare system that works for all Canadians, that is sustainable and that will be here today and tomorrow. I challenge the government to change at our medicare system so that it will work. I also challenge the government to look at many other things, as we have suggested, so that we have a Canada today and tomorrow.

[Health Care, October 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, like Reformers, Canadians affirm the value of medicare. We desire medicare to be a core set of national standards. We desire a system that is publicly funded and universally accessible, regardless of one's ability to pay, but that system must make room for choice to be sustainable. Is the minister open to this kind of change?

[Health Care, October 27th, 1995]

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

Improving our medicare system is on the agenda of all Canadians. Reformers have proposed a series of constructive alternatives to solve the problems with our health care system for all Canadians. What changes are the minister and the government considering in the field of health care to make Canadians, including Quebecers, feel more at home in this Confederation?