Ron MacDonald

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her comment. I will certainly look at that.

The reality is that the best equality is a job, as the member for Western Arctic said. Unfortunately women in our economy do not participate to the fullness of their potential. It is only when we break down those barriers that we will have true equality.

I look forward to working with the member for Québec. I applaud her for her tenacity in raising these issues on the floor of the House. I am sure there are others, such as the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore who has worked tirelessly on behalf of minority women and women in society, who would be prepared to work with her to ensure that these things come about.

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is that I do not know why more attention was not given to that measure. I have to be quite honest. I am not entirely up to date on the Quebec legislation about which the member spoke.

However I listened intently and I can tell the hon. member for Québec that I applaud her efforts to bring issues before the Parliament of Canada, the proper venue for such issues to be discussed.

As a member who is here for his second term, let me say that unfortunately far too often good proposals from opposition members are almost treated with dismissal by others in this place. When we are dealing with issues of fairness and equality, particularly issues that affect over 50 per cent of our population, partisanship has to be removed. When good proposals are put forward the government should look at them.

I look forward to getting more information on the matter. However, if it is a progressive measure which seeks to equalize the role of women not just in Quebec but across Canada, it would be the type of measure I would support regardless of the official position taken by my party.

The hon. member for Québec talked about the fact that the debate was on economic equality. The reality is that social equality and economic equality are intertwined. We cannot deny one and expect the other to be a consequence. Clearly we have to move in tandem to take measures, both in legislation and by example as a federal government and as legislators, to ensure that society moves toward not just perceived but real equality socially as well as economically. To deny one is to ensure that the consequences of the second will be that there will not be the equality that is necessary.

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this motion today. Although I have to profess at the very beginning that I do not agree with the motion that has been put forward, I am pleased the member for Quebec has put it forward so that some of the positive moves this government has taken since it was first elected can come to light.

It is important that individuals and particularly parliamentarians are periodically forced to think about issues such as equality, be it between gender, or people of different races or colour, immigrants versus second and third generation Canadians or our aboriginal people.

We come to this place to debate the issues of the day. It is important for us to understand that unfortunately our society is not one that can claim with any purity to practise equality in nearly any aspect of life as Canadians. It is unfortunate that as a tolerant society there is still a tremendous amount of intolerance. It is unfortunate that as a progressive society there is still a tremendous amount of bigotry, a tremendous amount of isolationism and a tremendous amount of hate toward those who are different from us, whoever us is in any particular case.

It is important that we try to put this debate into some context. The Government of Canada, my party, has campaigned for many years on platform of equality. The record and sincerity of the statements of a party or political institution, of a parliament or a government, should be judged by its actions.

The actions we have taken over the last 18 months have been fairly significant. That is not to say they are the only actions that need to be taken. It is quite the contrary. When we are dealing with things like inequality, bigotry and racism we must be eternally vigilant. It has a habit of creeping up and when we take one step forward, unless we are very, very vigilant somebody will push us two or three steps backward.

I suspect this motion came about as a result of some of the budgetary measures. I suspect that some people are concerned, perhaps for good reason, about some of the changes that have taken place because of the fiscal realities of rising deficits and debts and the requirement to try to get our economy moving again.

I suspect that the member for Quebec was concerned that the National Advisory Council on the Status of Women is going to be wound up. I too was concerned when this first became a subject of public debate and consternation.

I note the government has taken the women's program which used to be with human resources development and has folded it in with Status of Women Canada. This is a very significant move by the Government of Canada for two reasons.

In the past when governments thought we had money, when it was thought we had more borrowing authority than we should have had, many times dollars were given to special interest groups. They would be given the money and told to go and represent women in society. That was a terrible thing if we think about it. What was the real intent behind that? Was it to try to say that women's issues were not worthy of perpetual vigilance by

parliamentarians? Did it mean they were to be pushed down to become the purview of a "special interest group"?

I have always had trouble with the way governments have funded special interest groups. Government funds me as a member of Parliament to represent the interests of my constituents. Repeatedly over the years it has become an accepted practice that parliamentarians can hide behind the fact that there are other groups to do this. We use taxpayers' money to front and support interests we are supposed to be raising and protecting in our duties as members of Parliament, as members of legislatures and as members of city councils right across Canada.

I do note this government has a good record with respect to the initiatives it has taken to promote equality, not just within areas of the federal purview. Governments must lead by example.

In my view this government has taken one of the most articulate, forceful and believable individuals in this Parliament and made her the Secretary of State for the Status of Women. Any independent observer would be hard pressed to find an individual in the last two Parliaments who has so consistently, forcefully and sincerely put forward the concerns of women and made it imperative that those concerns be dealt with by governments. It was not a fluke of cabinet roulette when it was decided that the member for Mount Royal would be the Secretary of State for the Status of Women.

Most women, most activists and most feminists in Canada, male and female, would agree that the choice of the member for Mount Royal as the Secretary of State for the Status of Women was clearly an indication of the seriousness with which the new government viewed these affairs.

However there have been other things such as Bill C-64, the Employment Equity Act. We came in and strengthened that act. It was one of the acts I have been extremely critical of in the past. I am withholding my praise to see how the recent amendments will play out in actual fact. It is fine to have a piece of legislation, but unless there is overwhelming and compelling reasons for the reporting mechanisms to be adhered to and some enforcement powers behind it we find it can be hollow words on very shallow paper. At least it is a step in the right direction.

The 1995 budget measures had some provisions to try to increase access to capital for small and medium size businesses. As everybody knows about 40 per cent of new entrepreneurs are women. Anybody who has been involved with public life, particularly as a member of Parliament, would know that women are doubly disadvantaged if they go to a bank or a financial institution looking for a loan. They are usually disadvantaged because it will be a small business proposal and the banks do not seem terribly keen on lending money for small business. They should be chastised and at times condemned for that. There is also sexism at play. Sometimes it is systemic, not overt. Women do not seem to be able to access capital in the same way as men.

More needs to be done. During the pre-election period we talked about establishing special programs for women entrepreneurs. The committee on industry has looked at it. I would encourage members of the committee, with all of the work they have on their desks, to recognize that women are doubly disadvantaged as entrepreneurs. That is one promise made in the red book during the campaign that must be fast tracked. We must find ways to set up women's entrepreneurial institutes and make sure there is real access to working capital for women entrepreneurs.

Anybody who has followed the social policy review, if in favour of it or opposed to it, will know that one of the main components was to try to address women and children in poverty and whether or not the current vehicles, the social programs, are addressing the real tragedy out there of women and children living in poverty.

The proposals put forward in the green book clearly addressed those issues. The proposals were meant to cause debate among the Canadian public about whether or not we had the wherewithal, the courage and the foresight to change social policy programs to ensure that some people who are missed, mostly single parent families headed by females, are no longer doomed to a life of hell and poverty for both themselves and their children. I hope some of the good measures in the green book will come to fruition and we will be able to address the real tragedy of women living in poverty and well over a million children living in poverty in Canada.

The red book commitment on the Canada Race Relations Foundation was fulfilled. Some individuals in the House believe with the fullness of their hearts that it was a waste of money to establish the Race Relations Foundation. All they have to do is go into any minority community in Canada, any black or immigrant community, to find out that the sting of racism still exists in Canada and that unfortunately its sting is no less painful today than it was years ago.

The Race Relations Foundation established by the government is aimed not just at minorities in Canada but at the triple disadvantaged in Canada who in many cases are women. Black women and native women are some of the most discriminated individuals in Canadian society. The Canadian Race Relations Foundation is a tangible example of the government's commitment to focusing government effort and attention to solving the real problems.

There are other matters that I will mention quickly. One is the task force on prostitution. I cannot think of a more violent and abhorrent crime against women than prostitution. The government, through the Minister of Justice, has indicated that we are prepared to take tough and decisive action to stop this heinous crime against society, against women, against our daughters and

against our grand-daughters. We are serious about it. Tough action will be taken either by the minister or people like me putting private members' bills forward in the House.

On the firearms legislation, 50 per cent of women who are killed are killed in domestic disputes by firearms that are kept in the home. We have taken tough and decisive measures.

In conclusion, the debate should not be only about money. It should be about attitude. When I look around this place and I see the quality of members of Parliament, and the quality of female members of Parliament, I know we have come a long way but we have yet a long way to go.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that there are some embarrassing things going around today, the most embarrassing of which is the dismal performance of the Reform Party's response to the budget that has resulted in its popularity in the country going right down the you know what, Mr. Speaker. We can hear it flushing.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his questions. I have a great deal of respect for the work that he does in Parliament. We have had discussions. I think he should drop this bit about sovereignty because he knows that Canada is a great place and I know he feels that fundamentally.

My colleague has asked me two questions. On the one hand, he has raised a concern about debt downloading to the provinces, that there are cuts in the transfers. I have to say to him that I am concerned about the cuts to transfers. The province of Quebec is much more able to withstand those types of cuts in transfers than places like Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

In New Brunswick and Nova Scotia the provincial ministers of finance said the number one wish they had on their wish list going into this budget was not that they did not have their transfers cut, but that the federal government come up with a credible plan for getting its finances in order. If that was not done it would have a major negative impact on the stability of the dollar and interest rates. Every province in the country is individually financing a debt. Their number one priority was to have some credibility from the Minister of Finance.

On transfers to the provinces we cut them by 4.4 per cent. That seems like a lot of money. It is 3 per cent of the revenue of the provinces. However, we cut our own programs, the ones we take credit or blame for, by 7.3 per cent. We cut ourselves more than we cut other people.

With respect to the second question about the debt being too high, I agree with him 100 per cent. However, I do not agree with members of the Reform Party that it is a debt monster and that we should dance to their tune.

We have tried to recognize that the debt is too high but that in order to control the debt we must control the deficit first. We are not prepared to sacrifice that fundamental nature of Canada to satisfy those on the far right, the ones who are off the mat. We are not prepared to go in and sacrifice ourselves to the big debt demon, as the former member said, by slashing programs and dismantling those things that are fundamental to the nature of the country.

I would think the hon. member opposite in a quiet moment would reflect on what we have done. We have probably created another good argument as to why Quebecers would want to stay in Canada. At this point in time, for the first time I might add in a long time, Quebecers just like Nova Scotians have a government in Ottawa that says what it means and when it says something it does it.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is never good for me to get up to speak after I have listened to the nonsense and the rhetoric form the other side, particularly the Reform Party.

I have sat in the House for quite a few years. I have listened to a lot of rhetoric in the House. The hon. member's rhetoric is perhaps the most unbelievable I have ever heard. He gave his entire speech talking about experiences in Michigan and New Jersey and the wonderful things that are happening everywhere else but in Canada.

I want to let him know something because he obviously has been out of the country for quite a while. There has been a revolution happening in Canada. It has been a revolution the Liberal Party has created about putting government back where it belongs, serving the public, allowing the free market to proceed.

Guess what? The Canadian public has looked at what we have done. It has not just given us a thumbs up. It has given us a resounding vote of confidence. Today the Angus Reid poll indicated the path we have taken with the recent budget is supported by over 70 per cent of Canadians polled. This was despite the doom and gloom and the nonsense the Reform Party spouts like a loose water cannon daily in this place.

Those members came into this place not because the Canadian public wanted a Reform style of politics but, with the greatest of respect, they came into this place in many ridings because the Tories simply lost the ridings, not because anybody agreed with the policies they had.

I consider myself to be a left leaning Liberal. I happen to believe that the New Democratic Party has a voice that Canadians need to have heard in debate. I look across at the Bloc Quebecois and I have listened to the members opposite. Other than the fact they are horribly misguided with respect to their bent on sovereignty, most of these individuals opposite are Liberals by philosophy. One has to listen to them. They may want to take their province out of Canada but they have an underlying concern for the individuals, for the social policy, for the programs of this country.

I would not call the Reform Party left or right. That would put it on the continuum of common sense. It is right off the mark when it comes to being responsible and reflective of Canadians.

I want to talk a bit about the budget and this borrowing authority. I know the member is new here but even if there were

a balanced budget there is still the need for a borrowing authority of government. The taxes do not come in every single day. They come in mostly at one point in the year. The borrowing authority bill is a time that we can stand up in the House and talk a bit about the fiscal reality of Canada.

When we took over government we took over a government that had lost the confidence of investors not just in Canada but around the world. We took over a government and an institution that had lost the confidence of Canadians.

The Prime Minister said time and time again when he was on the campaign trail that if he did not do anything else as Prime Minister of this country he would put respect back into politics. What we say we will do, we will do. He put most of the main ideas in a thing called the red book. Much to the chagrin of the Reform Party and members opposite, almost daily there is another commitment in the red book fulfilled by the Prime Minister, the cabinet and the Liberals in this government.

That is probably one of the reasons that Canadians, international investors, people who buy Canada savings bonds, people from all over this country and beyond finally sat up and said it is amazing, they can finally have a government in power in Ottawa that says what it means and does what it says it will do.

Let us be realistic here. I have been here seven years. We used to watch and wait for the Tory finance minister to get up and it was like throwing darts with a blindfold on his deficit projections, whether they were going to hit. We wonder why the international community lost confidence in the Canadian dollar. We wonder why it lost confidence in the Canadian economy. It is because the previous ministers of finance who were on the right wing of the spectrum, the Reformers of late, could not add up.

Every time they came in with a projection the international money markets and consumer confidence went right down the toilet. We could hear the big flush every time one of those budgets came in.

Our finance minister put a budget last year and he has not only met the projections, and that is the first time in recent history that has been done, he exceeded the projections. When he walked in this time and put a budget forward and the Canadian public and the people who invest and buy our bonds in the international community and who invest in business in Canada said finally they have somebody in government who is credible. So did the Canadian public in the poll released today.

I want to talk about how we have not abandoned our principles as Liberals. I am a Liberal. During the lead up to this debate and this budget I harboured grave concerns about where we were going as the Liberal Party.

I am one of those individuals who believe in the principles of liberalism, of fairness and equity. I believe the people of this country have a collective right of ownership of the resource that is Canada. While one of the roles of government is to ensure that the free market system works and is attractive to people to come and invest, the Government of Canada has a fundamental responsibility to ensure that wealth is redistributed. That is absolute horror to the ears of the Reform Party. I believe that with every ounce of my being.

When this great debate started and we had this deficit that had to be brought under control I thought we were going to lose our principles. I thought as the Liberal Party we were going to find ourselves following a right wing Reform-Tory agenda. We did not.

I have discovered something. I discovered that we can stand up and defend the vehicles that deliver the programs until the cows come home but if the vehicles are broken they are not going to be able to deliver the programs. The programs are merely a manifestation of the principles. The principles of those programs, our social programs, our transfers to the provinces, our equalization program, EPFs and health care, unemployment insurance, all of those things and all of those programs that we provide as government are merely a way to deliver the Liberal principles of wealth, regeneration and redistribution, of going in and making sure that government has the ability to help those who are least able to help themselves.

I was more than pleased when I heard the budget announced the other night. I was worried there would be an adverse regional impact. I guess once bitten twice shy. To be quite honest, last year I felt that the budget disproportionately hit some of the regions like Atlantic Canada.

I was extremely vocal in my concerns and in my criticisms. Over the last 12 months we have grown as a government and we have learned to listen. We have had the most massive prebudget consultations in the history of this country. We listened, not just to people out on the hustings but also to people in this party and people in the House.

The Minister of Finance has crafted a document I did not think could be done. First, he has satisfied the international investor community that Canada is serious about its deficit and eventually dealing with the debt. Second, he said that we are still a country that believes in the greatness of the resource that is this nation and the rights of the individuals to have their government give them a hand up when necessary. Third, he recognized this country first and foremost is a regional country. The economies in this country because of our geography and our history are regional economies.

The finance minister came in with a budget that did not disproportionately hit any part of this country, that recognizes that the real future of this country is getting our debt and deficit under control while at the same time not throwing the baby out

with the bath water and wherever possible preserving those basic and fundamental principles of Liberalism.

I am not happy that as a result of the burgeoning deficit some of our public servants who have done a tremendous service for Canada have had to go. The President of the Treasury Board has listened. He has come in with a package which is fair and in most cases more than reasonable. We have said to the public servants of Canada that times have changed. Yes, government has to do more with less and our priorities must shift.

With those individuals who have helped to build this country and deliver the programs we are prepared to sit down and be as generous as we can with early retirement, early departure and transfers, if possible, to other programs. No, we are not perfect as a government and this budget is not perfect, but it is the closest thing to perfection in a budget that I have seen and that the Canadian public has seen in many years.

[Fisheries, March 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of fisheries. Canada is standing firm on its position that the European union must adhere to NAFO's set quotas for turbot on the Grand Banks. However, the Europeans in a continuing campaign of misinformation are telling anybody who will listen that Canadian fishermen do not need, do not want and cannot catch the Canadian quota for turbot.

I ask the minister to confirm whether this is fact or fiction. Are Canadian fishermen ready, willing and able to take the rightful quota that has been set for them through NAFO?

[Black History Month, February 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the last day of Black History Month.

As the member of Parliament for Dartmouth I am proud to say that I represent the largest indigenous black communities in Canada, in Preston, North Preston, Cherrybrook and Lake Loon. The Preston communities have a rich and compelling history. It has contributed greatly to the culture of Nova Scotia and indeed all of Canada. Unfortunately for the rest of the country, much of this cultural heritage has been unwritten, instead being passed on from generation to generation by word of mouth.

Students of Cole Harbour High have sought to change this by using modern communications technologies. As a project for Black History Month students have created a site on the Internet's world wide web to give millions of computer users across Canada and around the world a glimpse of this rich heritage.

I ask the House to join with me in congratulating the students involved in this project for their tremendous efforts to bring Nova Scotia's black history to the world.

[Canadian Coast Guard, February 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday a tragic accident occurred over the Margaree River in Nova Scotia when a coast guard helicopter carrying four people crashed. The helicopter was returning home after completing a fisheries patrol along the river.

Transport Canada pilot Stephen Hemphill of Dartmouth was killed in that crash. His daughter Lindsay was injured, as were Wes Barrington and Adrian Tousenard, observers with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Mr. Hemphill was an experienced pilot and was one of the first North Americans to fly over the north pole during the 1994 Louis St. Laurent mission. In addition to his outstanding service to Canada, he devoted much of his time to helping others. He received a Medal of Bravery from the Queen in 1979 after he rescued three young boys at sea. He was very active in the

community for many years with the Dartmouth Crusaders swim team and coaching minor baseball.

I would ask that the House join with me in offering our deepest sympathies to Mr. Hemphill's wife and two children and our best wishes for a speedy recovery to those others injured in the crash.

[Young Offenders Act, February 24th, 1995]

I am worried, Mr. Speaker. Members of the Reform party are actually applauding me. I may have to rethink my position.

Canadians as a caring and just people have to understand that the accused has rights but there must be a recognition in law of the right of individuals to have safe communities.

I would like to see the government look at this provision. Maybe when this bill is studied further the government will assent to look at some exceptional circumstances where the rights of the community to safety override the right of the young offender convicted of a heinous crime, of a violent crime, to anonymity.

There is one other thing that is not in this bill which I have to raise because it deals basically with young people. It deals with offences against young people. I have spoken in the House before on this. An epidemic is going through the country of criminals who are committing perhaps the worst crime possible in our society today: adults who lure young women and in some cases young men into prostitution.

I say it is an epidemic. It is an epidemic which has not been spoken about loud enough or long enough in Parliament or in provincial legislatures. We are literally seeing some of our young children being lifted off the streets and forced into prostitution.

When we deal with the crimes of young offenders, the government must give priority to dealing with crimes against young people as well. I urge the Minister of Justice to quickly bring in new laws and new regulations to deal with this most serious crime. We need strict punishment and maximum sentences for those convicted of living off the avails of juvenile prostitution.