Judy Sgro

[Employment Assistance, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, 2003 marks the 10th anniversary of the self-employment assistance program in Toronto, a unique program that provides opportunities for unemployed Canadians.

Through Social and Enterprise Development Innovations, a national organization based in Toronto that manages the SEA program on behalf HRDC Canada, unemployed Canadians are given support and guidance to set up their own businesses and become self-sufficient.

Since it was established 10 years ago, over 5,000 clients in Toronto have started companies that generate over $130 million per year.

There is no doubt that small business is vital to the health of Canada's economy. The self-employment assistance program serves over 10,000 clients annually across the country. I congratulate HRDC and the Social and Enterprise Development Innovations.

[Government Contracts, February 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, there is an ongoing investigation. We are looking into all elements of this. It is important. We want transparency and accountability in our government. We intend to pursue that, at the same time respecting the legal and HR obligations that we owe as a government.

[Government Contracts, February 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. This specific review relates to the administration of the sponsorship program. There are other measures being taken, including a review by the Auditor General of over 700 files, as well as reviews ongoing by the RCMP on a broader scope.

I am confident that we will all get to the bottom of this at the completion of the reviews.

[Criminal Code, February 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate on Bill C-20, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the protection of children and other vulnerable persons, and the Canada Evidence Act.

As hon. members know, Bill C-20 proposes a number of criminal law reforms that seek to better protect children against sexual exploitation, abuse and neglect, to facilitate testimony by child victims and witnesses and other vulnerable victims and witnesses in criminal justice proceedings, and to create a new offence of voyeurism.

While I believe that all of these proposed reforms are important, I will restrict my comments to Bill C-20's response to concerns relating to the age of consent to sexual activity.

Bill C-20's objective on this issue is clearly articulated in the first paragraph of the preamble, which reads:

WHEREAS the Parliament of Canada has grave concerns regarding the vulnerability of children to all forms of exploitation, including child pornography, sexual exploitation, abuse and neglect;

Simply stated, the focus of the response to concerns about the age of consent to sexual activity is on the exploitive conduct of the wrongdoer and not on whether the young person or victim consented to that conduct. In my view, this is both the right focus and the right response.

As the founder of Canada's first John school program and the streetlight program, it was pointed out to us that these were areas which very much needed enforcement.

More specifically, Bill C-20 proposes to create a new category of prohibited sexual exploitation of a young person who is over the age of consent; that is, who is 14 years of age or older and under 18 years of age. Under the proposed reform, courts would be directed to consider whether the relationship in question was exploitive by looking to the nature and circumstances of the relationship, including any difference in age and the degree of control or influence exerted over the young person, be that person male or female.

I am well aware that there continues to be calls to raise the age of consent for sexual activity. Why is this? As I understand it, these calls appear to be motivated by a number of reasons, including our desire to protect our young people.

One reason sometimes cited is that 14 or 15 year olds are too young and immature to fully appreciate the consequences of their decisions to engage in sexual activity. While many of us might agree with that, it is still true that a 14 or 15 year old does not typically possess the maturity of an 18 year old. We as a society nonetheless consider them mature enough to be treated as an adult under the new Youth Criminal Justice Act for the commission of serious violent offences. We must find a balance between both of these issues.

Another reason appears to be related to differing understandings of what is meant by sexual activity. Canadian prohibitions against sexual activity do not differentiate between sexual activity that consists of kissing and sexual activity that involves sexual intercourse. I do not believe that Canadians think that a 14 or 15 year old girl is not mature enough to freely make a decision about whether or not to kiss her 17 year old boyfriend. Nor do I believe that Canadians want to criminalize a 17 year old for kissing his 14 year old girlfriend. Whether we as adults like it or not, the reality is that adolescents do engage in sexual activity. We on this side of the House, whether we like it or not, have to be responsible legislators.

Another reason sometimes cited in support of raising the age of consent is that raising the age of consent to 16 or 18 will prevent others from forcing young persons into the sex trade. To this I note that it is already an offence under the Criminal Code to force anyone under the age of 18 years into prostitution and that this offence carries a mandatory minimum penalty of five years of imprisonment.

Whatever the reason for advocating an increase in the age of consent, the common thread appears to be the prevention of sexual exploitation of young people, which is exactly what Bill C-20 proposes to do.

Unlike proposals to raise the age of consent to 16 years of age, Bill C-20 proposes to extend protection, not only to 14 and 15 year olds but also to 16 and 17 year olds.

Bill C-20 contains many welcomed reforms to the criminal law to protect our most vulnerable members of society. I hope that all hon. members will support Bill C-20 to better protect Canadian children against exploitation in all forms. I am sure all members in the House will put their support behind the bill in order to ensure that we are protecting our children.

[Petitions, February 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present to the House a petition on behalf of my constituents. The petition is signed by approximately 800 people.

The petitioners recognize that freedom of speech and religious freedom are guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Therefore they call on Parliament to oppose Bill C-250.

[Black History Month, February 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, February is Black History Month. I am pleased to rise today to pay tribute to the remarkable achievements of black Canadians.

Black Canadians have a long history in Canada. Through generations, both black women and men have enriched our culture and our society.

In Ontario our rich tapestry includes many extraordinary individuals, such as Mary Ann Shadd, the first black woman in North America to edit and public a weekly newspaper; Lincoln Alexander, the first black cabinet minister and first black lieutenant general; and our own Jean Augustine, the first black Canadian woman to be appointed to the federal cabinet. We celebrate their contributions to Canada's cultural, social and political development.

I also want to acknowledge Rick Gosling, the former chair of the race relations committee and the great work that he continues to do.

[Antonia Stirpe, January 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mrs. Antonia Stirpe, a longtime resident of York West who recently passed away.

As a young woman, Antonia came to Canada from Italy. She was married to Emilio for 67 years. Together they raised four children, Elisa, Franco, Maria and Bruno. She lived to take pleasure in her 12 wonderful grandchildren and her 18 great grandchildren.

Antonia was a proud Canadian. Like so many immigrants, she loved her adopted country and raised her children with the same sense of loyalty, humility and pride.

A modest and hardworking woman, Antonia was beloved by all who met her. She was a lively member of the Italian community and always took part in the activities organized by the Italian-Canadian groups and her family.

Sadly, Antonia was stricken with Alzheimer's for the past 15 years.

She will be missed by her family, her friends and by all those who knew her. Please join me in conveying our deepest regrets.

[Employment Insurance Act, January 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this issue today. I thank the hon. member for Sackville--Musquodoboit Valley--Eastern Shore for raising such an important issue as compassionate care. It is something many of us on both sides of the House are very interested in. I am pleased that members in the opposition party share the same values as our government and support the same issues that concern us.

The very idea that is raised in this bill was broached in the September 2002 Speech from the Throne. In it the government clearly stated its intentions to modify existing programs to ensure that Canadians are able to provide compassionate care for a gravely ill or dying child, parent or spouse without putting their income or jobs at risk.

While we applaud the member's open-hearted desire to extend benefits to cover care not only for immediately family but also for aunts and uncles, brothers, sisters, step relations and inlaws, we as the government must be fiscally responsible. We have to ask the question, has the hon. member tallied the potential costs of implementing the amendments proposed in Bill C-206? It is one thing to have one's heart on an issue but at the same time as one's heart is on an issue, one has to look at what the costs will be to the government and to taxpayers.

These costs would involve not only direct payments to caregivers but also the loss of the labour market of workers. In addition, employers would face added costs in seeking, hiring and training new employees.

Besides Bill C-206's wide scope of both duration of benefits and definition of eligibility, we also have to question the need for a person to quit or to be laid off in order to be eligible for benefits. Is this the way to go? I think it needs more work and more discussion.

Canadians want to work and they do not want to be faced with either of these decisions. It goes directly against the government's continuous efforts to support labour force attachment. In fact, the principle of encouraging Canadians to find and keep work was at the heart of the 1996 reform of the Employment Insurance Act. The working world is perilous enough without encouraging workers to leave it in the hope that when they are able to return, there will be a job waiting for them.

The government is compassionate. We recognize the stress caused by balancing home and work demands. We are constantly seeking ways to lighten this burden.

It was for this reason that we extended maternity and parental benefits from six months to a full year. The temporary support employment insurance provides insures against the risk of losing one's job completely as a result of a family situation.

As the Speech from the Throne indicated in September, we intend to put the same effort into finding solutions for persons caring for a gravely ill close relative as we put into finding appropriate solutions for workers caring for their new children.

It does mean that we must look at the broad spectrum of government programs. It means that we have to look at all of the issues facing Canadians, including family, work and health. It means recognizing that people's lives are not neatly compartmentalized and that the same person is a worker, a parent and very often a caregiver.

We know that nearly three-quarters of the population of Canada who provide care to frail seniors are also employed and that the proportion of employees caring for both elders and children has almost doubled in the last decade. Caregiving is an issue that confronts a large segment of the population. It is also an issue that crosses the boundaries of work, family and health.

Commissioner Romanow in his recent report stated that home care quite simply could not exist in Canada without the support of social networks and informal caregivers. He noted that as much as 85% to 90% of home care is provided by family and friends.

When workers are faced with this degree of home care responsibilities, conflicts between work and care are bound to rise. Both the Kirby and the Romanow reports have raised the issue of income support and job protection for family caregivers.

I ask members to please note that these reports have linked both of those issues. They have not suggested, as Bill C-206 does, that choices should be made between work and caregiving. The government is examining just how to support people caught in this work/care dilemma.

We believe that an appropriate solution would be to design a measure that directly supports family caregivers. This measure would also permit Canadians to take a temporary absence from work to care for gravely ill immediate family members without fear of sudden income loss or job loss.

We welcome this opportunity to debate and explore solutions to the problems faced by employed caregivers. Bill C-206 gives us all the opportunity to enter into this debate and to look for the solutions needed to move it forward. We strongly believe that the federal government has an opportunity to lead by example in providing temporary income support and job security to working caregivers.

We are, of course, very conscious of the costs of such programs. The challenge parliamentarians have is to turn good intentions into good results for Canadians facing family health crises. The government's objective is to design a cost effective initiative that is responsive, flexible and practical.

In regard to the member who introduced Bill C-206, I think it speaks well of just what a caring individual he is. He has put the work into this private member's bill to put it on the floor and to move this debate along. Hopefully in the near future we will be able to have a program that meets the needs of Canadians and recognizes the challenges that many people are facing today.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we can look at our innovation agenda and the work we are doing on moving forward to ensure that we have the skills necessary in our country to prepare for the future. We can talk about the quality of the workforce, and many U.S. based companies currently in Canada often tell us that the workforce here is excellent, that it has the skills they need. When we are talking about the differences between U.S. and Canada, we have to take into account health care costs. When they measure it up, it is better for them to be doing business here with the kind of health care program we have rather than trying to pay for it in the U.S., where it is a huge cost to have health care.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I might reiterate that throughout our report and all the work we do when we talk of urban issues, we constantly respect jurisdictional issues and our Constitution. We try to work together with the provinces and cities as partners to deliver the services that we need.

With regard to his question on the Romanow report, we would all like to see as much money as possible go into health but I go back to the issue of having to balance our priorities. If we were to relate that to our own house, we know how much money we have coming in during a year and we know our expenditures. What we have to figure out is how to balance them off.

We do not have a big war chest full of dollars that we can pump into one area or the other. We have to be responsible in how we recognize our priorities, how we allocate the funding and how we work these issues out together.