Paul Szabo

[Rotary International, March 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian unity has been enhanced by the unselfish contributions of many organizations that have worked so hard to make Canada a better place.

One such organization is Rotary International. I was first introduced to Rotary 12 years ago by Mr. Allan Shulman and over the years I have been most impressed by its community leadership role.

In recognition of Rotarians, I would like to share with the House the Rotary International four-way test to guide what we say, think and do:

First, is it the truth?

Second, is it fair to all concerned?

Third, will it build goodwill and better friendship?

Fourth, will it be beneficial to all concerned?

Rotarians reflect the true spirit of Canadians and it is because of that spirit that Canada will always remain strong and united.

[Supply, March 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, after several hours of debate many hon. members have raised the issue of women in the context of violence. I feel compelled to comment on the incompleteness of the thought. Having spent five years on the board of the shelter for battered women in my riding, I can say that violence against women is really only one part of it. Really the aspect is abuse. I want to share this with members.

Abuse against women includes violence but it also includes non-violent abuses, the economic abuses in which the financial purse strings are controlled by one spouse to the detriment of the other, taking away that financial independence. The second aspect of it is psychological abuse. There exists that authority and that power as a result of the position of the man in the household, an abusive man. A woman does not have the dignity

and respect she has earned by being a partner within that marriage.

I want this to lead into a point that I raised earlier in the day because I feel so strongly about it. It has to do with one of the most honourable professions that anyone could aspire to that is available only to women, a mother; flowing from which is the ability to be the manager of the family home and providing that care.

There is a tremendous inequity in our society today. In this House throughout the day people have talked about women leaving the house and going to work. Who in this House honestly believes that being a spouse in the home is not a job, is not work, is not an honourable profession to be recognized and to be compensated?

That is one of the reasons I presently have a private member's bill in the works. I would like to see one day Canadians recognizing the value of a spouse in the home, managing the home and providing parental care and being compensated. That private member's bill will propose amendments to the tax act which would allow one spouse to pay or to transfer income to a spouse working in the home and taking care of the family home and the children.

I think we have to open up to the fundamentals within our society and realize that there is a very important role for women to play in certain aspects and that being in the home is a job to be respected.

Possibly the member has some comments.

[Supply, March 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the comments. They were most interesting. In my experience I have heard what can best be described as blatant discrimination in terms of appointees with regard to the old boys networks such as the legal profession and the appointment of judges.

Would the member please comment on the realities of our society? When I go into a bank the majority of tellers are women. When I go into a corporation and look at the secretaries, the majority are women. When I go into a supermarket and look at who the clerks are, the majority are women. I suppose the examples go on and on, classical stereotype positions that seem to be prevalent in our society.

I wonder if the member feels that equity for women in our society is something to be legislated or mandated on the basis of a quota system or whether it should take into account primarily the ability to do the job. Perhaps the member would comment on that.

[Supply, March 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's comments. I thought I would suggest one initiative that Canadians might consider to see the member's reaction.

Very typically when we have two spouses working and there are dependent children which require day care the net income to the second spouse entering the workplace after day care costs is very nominal.

Given that the value of the net pay to that second spouse does not generally reflect the value of the work provided in the workplace, I wonder if the member would consider the merits of an arrangement whereby a working spouse could either transfer income or pay a salary to a spouse in the home who is managing the family home and caring for dependent children. In that way there would be earned income in the hands of that second spouse, allowing them to have economic independence and the ability to purchase RRSPs, et cetera. Also it would free up a job, free up a day care spot and maybe recognize for the first time in our Canadian society the value of a spouse in the home.

I wonder if the member might comment on the general merits of recognizing the value of the woman in the home.

[Day Care, February 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the economic reality in Canada today is such that in many cases both spouses of a family must work.

However, when a spouse decides to enter the workforce where day care service is necessary, the net earnings of that spouse are materially depleted due to the cost of day care. In fact, the net income generated is often not reflective of the value of the work done. As such, many working spouses would not require much incentive to leave their jobs to work in the home.

Today we need to address the acute shortage of affordable day care. We need to make it easier for a parent to personally care for young children. We need to create job opportunities. We need to provide opportunities for all Canadians to accumulate retirement income. We need to promote economic independence for all and we need to recognize the economic value of a spouse working in a home.

Accordingly, I will be introducing a private member's bill which will permit a working spouse to pay a salary to the other spouse for managing the family home and caring for dependent children. This would allow that spouse to pay into CPP and buy RRSPs. We need to recognize the value of the woman in the home.

[Violence And Abuse, February 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on many occasions in this House, hon. members from all sides have expressed unanimous concern about the growing and senseless violence and abuse within our society.

Spousal abuse, child abuse and racism have been raised frequently because we know that law and order and safety within our communities are very important to all Canadians.

As such, members of this House have a duty to reflect their support for these social concerns whenever possible. Verbal support is important but tangible actions must compliment the words to demonstrate our sincere commitment.

Accordingly, I call on all members of this House, and indeed all elected representatives across Canada, to utilize their skills and resources to develop and to champion specific initiatives to promote our shared value which is, and I emphasize, there is no excuse for abuse.

[The Budget, February 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. The point about sovereignty has been raised.

On a financial issue in that regard, the member concluded that as a result of the inconsistencies therefore the answer must be that a sovereign Quebec will be the solution.

I wonder if the member would care to advise the House how much of the $500 billion national debt Quebec is prepared to assume and how it intends to finance that and survive as a separate country.

[Excise Act, February 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise on this matter because again we continue to stray away from the fundamental thrust of the government's proposal and that is to break the back of smuggling now, not to deal with it after it has happened.

That is one of the reasons why the government introduced the excise tax reduction, the export tax addition and the surtax on manufacturers. It was to ensure that the combination of those actions would eliminate the profit incentive to the smugglers and break the back of smuggling.

The member has missed the point entirely and so has the entire Reform Party. I am absolutely astounded that after four or five hours' debate it continues to have such a narrow view of the world.

[Excise Act, February 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to comment on an issue that has been coming hour by hour from the Reform Party throughout this debate and it has to be stopped.

The argument being made is that the reduction of the excise tax on tobacco is a singular event and has no consequence on anything else the government did. The whole point of the initiatives brought in by the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Revenue and Minister of Health was to break the back of smuggling.

To break the back of smuggling they had to eliminate the profit motive. The combination of the reduction of excise tax, the export tax that was levied and the surtax on manufacturing collectively represent the elimination of the profit in smuggling.

If we eliminate the excise tax and apply the tax totally to export taxes, if we allow export taxes and that surtax to deal with it totally, all we are doing is shifting the burden from exports to the U.S coming back into Canada and forcing the creation of underground manufacturing facilities in Canada.

Members really have to open up their minds to understand that there is a comprehensive approach to one of the most serious problems that the government has had to face in its first three or four months of operation.

[Excise Act, February 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question in the estimates provided by ministry officials that in the near term there would be a net cost. However I have to applaud the minister and the Prime Minister for not anticipating some other benefits. One of the problems governments have had is anticipating revenues or benefits.

As a clear example to the extent government introduces tough measures to deal with tobacco smuggling, that same framework and mechanism would also apply and create some benefits with regard to alcohol, drugs, arms smuggling, et cetera. None of these have been discounted or included in terms of the benefits that will accrue to the country as a result of these initiatives.

I wish I could be more specific as to the economics of the plan. Suffice it to say in the short term there may be an argument as to net cost. Clearly however government officials, business, industry and all Canadians believe the program is the right one for the long term.