Audrey McLaughlin

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member and his comments on the importance of rail and the decreased utilization of rail in this country.

I think we should put this into perspective. Following the changes to the rail system, to VIA Rail, we cannot on the one hand chastise people for not using rail when in fact the service and the funding to that service have been radically decreased and the quality of the service not upgraded. Certainly the proposals that have been around for quite some time on a high-speed train in the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor clearly would serve a very important transportation service both for passengers and produce.

I was recently in Japan. While I realize there is a much larger population there, their high speed trains are utilized fully because it is a good service.

Certainly the whole question of transportation is a major one. One of the debates during the Canada-U.S. and NAFTA free trade agreements was the impact on transportation, a further north-south investment into transportation routes of all kinds as opposed to the east-west links which had provided to the regions of this country, our farming communities and communities in the maritimes and Newfoundland, a substantial part of the development of this country.

I appreciate the member's comments specific to VIA Rail as it is now, but would it not make more sense from the environmental and utilization of best technology points of view to look seriously at a high speed-train in large quarters with large population?

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's comments on the main estimates.

I would like to ask her a question about the cuts in the budget, and especially in the social programs envelope. As the hon. member said, the budget contains a number of cuts, especially in unemployment insurance, and in fact more than 50 per cent of the cuts in the budget affect social programs.

Does the hon. member agree with these cuts in social programs, especially when they attack the unemployed instead of attacking unemployment?

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, there are two different kinds of infrastructure. One is the physical infrastructure of roads and sewerage systems and so on which are very important to the development of Canada. There is another kind of infrastructure program and that is our social infrastructure.

I would like to ask the member about that aspect of infrastructure because his government said in its election promises that when growth in the economy reached 3 per cent it would institute a national child care program.

This would provide I am sure quality child care for many children who are without it in Canada. It would also provide a number of jobs for people working in that sector. Can the member comment on that given that growth in the economy is now projected to be over 3 per cent in this year.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's comments. I would like to ask a question related to the infrastructure program.

Canadians will remember that recently the United Nations had a study which said that Canada was number one in the world to live. However, if you looked more closely at that study, when the status of women in Canada was factored in Canada dropped to ninth place of the most favourable to live in the world. The same study also cited that women's net income is 51.5 per cent of that of men in Canada which is one of the reasons that we scored so low in terms of the status of women in Canada.

The infrastructure program was certainly in our jobs plan. The New Democratic Party supported having an infrastructure program. We think it is very important.

It is true however that the majority of jobs in that infrastructure plan will provide jobs for men. I think this is good. I am not suggesting that we should not be doing that but I would like to ask the member if in his government's plans, in his own looking into the infrastructure program or other employment programs, he would both support and perhaps give some examples of how the Liberal government has directly decided to address the very serious issue of poverty among women and increasing unem-

ployment among women which is reducing the standard of living for women in Canada.

[National Forum On Health, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

The Minister of Health has not been able and/or has refused to release the terms of reference for the national health forum. The Prime Minister will be chair of that forum.

Also, if the current cost-sharing between federal, provincial and territorial governments continues there will be no federal funding for health care by the year 2015 and some provinces will not receive federal funding in the life of this Parliament.

Given the above, can the Deputy Prime Minister guarantee on behalf of the government that there will be a rebalancing of cash transfers to provinces and territories to ensure that the principles of the Canada Health Act can be maintained and enforced?

[Human Rights, June 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Deputy Prime Minister that we all hope there will not be human rights violations in the world.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister's government have a specific plan at multilateral trade talks to raise human rights issues beyond simply hoping that it will change and to express positive views about that?

In the past, I remind the Deputy Prime Minister, Canada has taken action on boycotts or embargoes. Does her government have a specific plan on the issue?

[Human Rights, June 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

Today we are all very much aware of the role that Canada has played in fostering democracy in the world and the price that Canada has paid.

Yesterday, June 5, was the fifth anniversary of the massacre in Tiananmen Square in Beijing. According to Amnesty International there continues to be very serious human rights violations in China. There were over 1,400 executions last year.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister's government have a specific plan to pursue the human rights abuses with China on either a national or a multilateral level?

[Goods And Services Tax, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of revenue. After the election, the minister said that he would abolish the GST within a year, but now we have learned that he will be bringing in changes, not to abolish but rather to hide the GST.

In the meantime, his department has released a flyer that we have read today. It says: "Don't miss out. Take advantage of the $100,000 capital gains exemption".

The minister has refused to close some of the tax loopholes. Why has he not agreed to eliminate tax loopholes such as the capital gains exemption and the family trusts, instead of going after the poor and the underprivileged? Maybe because he wants to increase the GST instead of abolishing it.

[Tax Fairness, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, during the election the Liberal Party promised to find ways to achieve tax fairness. That was then. This is now.

I have here a flyer from Revenue Canada. There is a fire sale on tax loopholes. Get them while you still can. To quote from the flyer: "Don't miss out. Take advantage of the $100,000 capital gains exemption".

This government's version of tax fairness is breaks for the rich, do not touch the private family trusts. Their version of abolish is hide and seek when it comes to the GST.

I call on the minister to explain to Canadians why he continues to protect the wealthy when even the food in the mouths of ordinary Canadians is not beyond his grasp.

[Seniors-Reduction Of Age Credit, May 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on May 25 I asked the Minister of Human Resources Development to take the $1 million, indeed over a million dollars, that his department plans to spend on promoting and advertisements in relation to the social policy review and redirect it to those young Canadians who are living in poverty, those young families that are clearly in need now.

The minister's response did not address the real issue and that is what will this government do to help those most in need?

There is a crisis in our country, a crisis of poverty that is undermining the fabric of our society and, alas, that is increasing. Those Canadians most in need of assistance from this government are young people, young families and women.

On May 25, the same day that I posed this question to the minister, a report entitled The Outsiders was released. It was very disturbing. It indicated that the rising divorce rate has led to further complications among young families as one in four metro Toronto families is headed by a single parent. The report also notes that single parent families have the lowest levels of social assistance. Even among those single parents who work poverty rates are twice as high as those of two parent families with a single earner. I want to ask what the government will do to help these single parent families.

Recently a report from the United Nations development program gives Canada high marks for education. It says that Canada is the number one place to live, and we are all proud of that. However, when human development by the United Nations is measured separately for males and females Canada drops from first spot to ninth spot largely because of the wide income disparity. The report indicates that the adjusted real income rate for Canadian women is 51.5 per cent of that for men.

I want to ask this government will it leave people behind? There is the over $1 million proposed to be spent on advertising; more recently, $55 million to be spent on advertising dedicated to help Canadians to stop smoking. While we would like to see Canadians stop smoking the proof is very fragile in terms of what that advertising budget will do.

This government was elected on the faith that it would create jobs for Canadians. It has created jobs for Canadians, in particular those Canadians who are in the advertising industry.

The infrastructure program is a good program but is largely directed to jobs for men.

I want to ask the member responding for the minister what this government is prepared to do besides advertising, creating jobs for advertisers. What is it prepared to do for those young families living in poverty, the single women who are raising families, a large majority living in poverty? Why not act? Why just advertise?