House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 1993, with 43% of the vote.
Illiteracy April 24th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Prime Minister will agree that having seven million citizens who have difficulty or extreme difficulty in the every day tasks of literacy is hindering this country's economic and social development.
Will he commit to long term funding and a serious commitment by the government to attacking the issue of illiteracy?
Illiteracy April 24th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Today the book by Ben Wicks, "Born to Read", was launched on Parliament Hill, reminding us all of how important and how serious the problem of illiteracy is Canada. However, it is not evident by the actions of the government that it takes this seriously.
There are some seven million people in Canada who have difficulty or extreme difficulty reading. Because national literacy groups are still on year to year funding and not core funding it is very difficulty to plan.
Will the Prime Minister comment on this important day and commit to allowing literacy groups to have long term funding, not on a year to year basis to solve this problem?
Career Counselling Centres March 30th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Tomorrow funding will run out for many career counselling centres across the country that give career counselling to women, immigrants and others who need assistance to find work. At this point staff and clients are in limbo not knowing if these services will continue.
Earlier today the minister said he would like suggestions on helping to get people back to work. Many of these centres have success rates of up to 85 per cent.
Will he commit to continuing funding for these career counselling centres?
Health March 28th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, in the last 20 years at least 150,000 Canadian women have received silicone gel breast implants. Many of these women live daily with the harmful effects of silicone leaking into their bodies causing immune deficiencies, implants contracting and massive scarring from their bodies' attempts to reject a foreign substance.
Tomorrow Health Canada is hosting its second workshop on risk assessment of breast implants in Canadian women, two years after its first workshop convened to study the issue. The federal government has all but ignored the women most affected.
No more studies. It is time for the federal government to make a real commitment to the health of Canadian women by actively supporting civil suits for compensation, making sure women get the real information they need on removing the implants or making a choice about implants and playing a more active role in counselling and support.
Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96 March 2nd, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has been strongly speaking out against what he calls special interest groups. I am not clear whether the member has been equally as strong in including in special interest groups the Business Council on National Issues, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Manufacturers Association. If he has, he will have done a service.
I object to his term special interest groups. It has now become a Reform Party slogan. Often it is used to marginalize people rather than to include them.
There is a place in a thriving democracy for different points of view to be presented vigorously. As a good Liberal I am sure he would agree that it is necessary to have a functioning democracy in which every part of society has the ability to participate in helping to shape public policy not just during an election but throughout.
Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96 March 2nd, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the debate and have come to one conclusion, that Liberals are the only Tories left in Canada.
This budget represents a profound change in Canada's basic structures and a total break with the principles that built this country. At issue here is much more than just a simple budget. This is about the kind of country we want to leave to our children. It is about the very essence of our national identity. The Liberal government has just set the parameters of policies that will take us into the 21st century, not as a strong and united Canada but as a fragmented Canada.
The Liberals maintain that we have no choice and that there is only one way to reduce the deficit. The New Democratic Party agrees that debts and deficits are unacceptable and that we cannot continue to live on credit, but we absolutely disagree that this is the way to do it. The Liberals are wrong. There is an alternative.
There are two ways to reduce the deficit: one way is to make decisions collectively, and the other way is to turn the regions, social groups and interest groups in this country into rivals, all competing for the same dollar.
The budget is not straight from the heart. The budget is straight through the heart of the future of the country that I believe the majority of Canadians thought they were going to get when they voted for the government.
The minister has said that this is a tough budget. However, it is much more than that. It fundamentally breaks the social consensus that has been built up over a number of years, often through vigorous debate, to build a country based on bilingualism, multiculturalism and a sense of community that by working together we will accomplish more for each individual.
Many parts of the budget will not be felt by Canadians for one or two years down the road. There is no question that the government has turned its back on much of the Liberal tradition. In a year or two Canadians will be asking what it means to be a Canadian. We should all be concerned about whether we will be citizens of a country or simply citizens of one region or another?
As I mentioned earlier, there is no disagreement about the need to address the debt and deficit. We do not see any serious attempt to deal with the inequities in the tax system. There is some work around the fringes, but there could be much more fundamental work done in the budget.
On the day after the budget individuals earning $100,000 with a nice subsidized box at the SkyDome and who eat in expensive restaurants were happy because their lives were not touched at all. However there was great cause for concern by senior citizens, single mothers and young people.
A country is more than a bond market or more than just how the economy functions, although that is obviously important. It is about how the economy functions for the people. I want to address very briefly in the time I have several ways in which I feel the budget has made us a lesser nation.
How ironic it is that just two weeks ago we celebrated the 30th anniversary of the Canadian flag. The question people might be asking two years from now is: What kind of Canada will that flag fly over?
Several aspects of the budget have fundamentally changed the social consensus I spoke of earlier. One is the issue of globalization. Globalization is not just economic. It is about Canada's role as an international citizen. It is about the common security between other countries and ours. In many ways the budget largely turns its back on the poor of the world.
A very important part of any country is freedom. I ask my friends on the other side whether they can truly say that the budget has given more freedom to Canadians. Certainly a mother living in poverty has no freedom. An elderly person who cannot get adequate health care has no freedom. A young person who cannot attend college, university or technical school has no freedom. The budget limits freedoms and the potential of citizenship for many groups. Also the budget limits the freedom of such fundamentals as collective bargaining by breaking collective bargaining with the public servants.
The budget does not mention poverty, job creation or youth. It is important to point out that unemployment is not free. It costs the country approximately $42 billion a year in direct payouts. If the government would have set a target to reduce unemployment by 1 per cent, $5.16 billion would have been added to the tax
revenue and social spending would have been reduced by $1.24 billion. There is another way.
Turning to other areas, the government has completely abandoned child care and universality. Independence for the elderly as a principle has also been abandoned, as the previous member spoke about.
Community and regional fairness is another hallmark of what it is to be a country. The flag is not just fabric. It is what we weave together. It is how we make sure that a Canadian standard of service will be available in Newfoundland, Yukon or central Canada. There is no question that as the government has proposed block funding this is gone.
Sustainability of the environment is a very important area. Cutbacks to the environment are quite severe in the budget. I think they should be of concern to every Canadian. If we look at countries internationally, for example east bloc countries that ignored the environment to build their economies, we see that they are paying a dreadful price.
Similarly part of the social consensus of Canada has been that we are a country that respects human rights, the dignity of individuals and gender equality. It takes much more than words to achieve that.
In the abandoning of national standards and in the abandoning of a national vision the Liberal government is abandoning us to a balkanized and regionalized country, which will not stand us in good stead in international markets, as we discussed earlier.
Aspects that until now were considered essential to our society are no longer important. Children will not enjoy what we considered to be fundamental principles: they will have no national medicare, they will have no national railway linking communities across the country. Healthy and vigorous rural communities will be a thing of the past. They will not know what it is like to have good public services and a government for all Canadians.
In summary, the budget has failed the country. It is beginning to dismantle much of what was done to make the country first in the assessment of the United Nations or one of the best places in the world to live.
Health March 2nd, 1995
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. As the minister knows, as cash transfers to provinces go down the tax point shares go up.
Yesterday the Prime Minister, speaking straight from the heart, said: "When you transfer tax points you lose all leverage after that because you don't collect the money. The day that you don't have any more cash, you can't use the leverage". That suggests to me that it is straight through the heart of the health care system.
I want to ask a question of the minister whose major responsibility to the Canadian citizen is to protect the national health care system. Clearly she has not been successful. Will she do the right thing and resign?
Petitions March 2nd, 1995
Madam Speaker, I am presenting a petition today on behalf of 62 petitioners from the Yukon.
They call for the deletion of section 718.2 in Bill C-41. The petitioners feel this section gives undue attention and unequal treatment on the basis of sexual orientation.
I would also add respectfully, that I personally do not agree with this petition. In fact, the Yukon Human Rights Code gives more rights to people.
Health Care March 1st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has finally admitted with his budget that his government has no intention of maintaining national standards in our health care system. Today the Prime Minister was quoted as saying: "Social programs such as medicare will revert to meeting more basic needs as they did when they were started half a century ago".
Fifty years ago someone in my family suffered from a major illness. We were fortunate as a family that it only took us 10 years to pay off the bill. Fifty years ago others lost their farms and businesses for reasons of health and health expenses. Because of that they also lost hope for the future.
It is clear now that this government is intent on doing away with national standards with the national health care system. In fact rather than building Canada, the Prime Minister has con-
firmed today the government has set us on a course to dismantle this country.
The Budget February 28th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The minister has stated that a cornerstone for his budget is regional fairness. Yet today if you are a farmer, a fisher, a small business person in a rural community or a miner, this has not just been a tough budget, it has been devastating.
Will the minister agree that it is small town and rural Canada that have been held hostage by Wall Street in this budget?