Deborah Grey

[Pension Reform, February 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians across the country are angry and we witnessed this last night at the huge anti-tax rally in Toronto. They cannot believe the government is considering tax increases.

[Governor General, February 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, of course the Queen set the precedent in 1993 when she offered voluntarily to pay income taxes.

Things are different now from what they were in 1867. With today's harsh economic climate when Canadians are being forced to make do with less from sea to sea, a $95,000 salary tax free plus benefits does seem a little steep.

The government has talked a lot in the last few weeks about making the taxation system fairer. Why not start at the top with the Governor General? Equal means equal.

[Governor General, February 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today the Reform candidate for Ottawa-Vanier said that the soon to be appointed Governor General should be required to pay his fair share of taxes. I and I am sure every other Canadian wholeheartedly agree. Now that the Queen pays income tax, why should her representative in Canada not pay?

My question is for the Prime Minister. Will he send a positive signal to Canadian taxpayers by asking the new Governor General to voluntarily pay income taxes like the rest of us?

[The Economy, February 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to putting our national house in order, leadership should come from the top. We have seen precious little leadership from this government.

After 18 months the gold plated MP pension is still in place. The bureaucracy is still spending wildly on new fax machines, office renovations and computer software. Over 100 loyal Liberals have sallied up to the trough to collect their government patronage positions. The government has the nerve to ask Canadians to pay more money into taxes.

Wait until the budget is one thing. What about these practical steps? When will this government start leading by example? When will the minister reform the MP pensions and put the brakes on out of control government spending?

[The Economy, February 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, aiming at a target of going $25 billion per year in the hole is hardly considered noble.

The Prime Minister says to wait until the budget. That is of little comfort to Canadians. Why should home buyers who have seen their monthly mortgage rates go up over $200 wait until the budget? Canadians want this government to act now. They have wanted it to act for over a year.

The finance minister is not dealing with abstract numbers. He is dealing with the lives of real people, not just balance sheets.

Will the Prime Minister send a clear signal to Canadians and tell them that their tax burden will not be increased by his government in its upcoming budget?

[The Economy, February 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we are glad to be here in the first period.

Canadians are among the highest taxed people in the world. Over 50 per cent of our pay cheques go to the tax man in one form or another. That is more than food, shelter and clothing combined. That would be more than enough but evidently it is not enough for this finance minister. He seems ready to add to our crippling tax load in this month's budget.

Canadians are not going to take it any more. Their message is no tax increases, period. Will the Prime Minister listen to Canadians and immediately rule out any tax increase in this month's budget?

[Petitions, December 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I would like to present a petition signed by several people from Saint Paul, Alberta in the heart of my constituency of Beaver River.

They are saying that grandparents as a consequence of death, separation or divorce of their children are often denied access to their grandchildren. The relationship which exists between grandparents and grandchildren is very natural, fundamental and certainly a special one.

These petitioners are requesting that Parliament amend the Divorce Act to include a provision similar to section 611 in the Quebec civil code which states: "In no case may a father or mother without serious cause place obstacles between the child and grandparents. Failing agreement between the parties, the modalities of the relations are settled by the court".

They are asking that they be allowed to go to court to settle these matters.

Madam Speaker, I wish you a Merry Christmas.

[Access To Information, December 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across might be surprised at how I could keep up to the action.

The justice minister says the present act reflects the state of the art as of the mid-1970s. We are not in the 1990s. Before he gets it together, dear knows, we will be into the next century and into the 2000s, I am not sure how we will say that. However, he says people's expectations of government are different. There is a need for more openness. For heaven's sake, that is absolutely right, the Ottawa Citizen is bang on.

There is a word here that is going to go through my comments over and over again, a motif, and that is the word secrecy. If anything would disgust the Canadian public it is a government that sits in here and does not talk about secrecy but acts secrecy. That is really frustrating for people.

Members of this House are all aware of the need for accurate, complete and timely information. The Access to Information Act which was brought in on July 1, 1983 talked about openness and making sure that people had access to some information if they really needed it, not just for fun. It is time consuming for people to dig up information as well as expensive because you are paying people to dig up that information. The bottom line on that is what is the cost if we do not do it?

If we ignore access to information, if we do not go ahead and process people's requests and have them accessible to the information that they really need, that people are demanding, what is the cost if we do not do it?

I think there are some long term costs there that the hon. member might think about, especially when he is campaigning in the next election.

We take this as a right of the Canadian people. Along with rights that we all have come responsibilities. We as parliamentarians have responsibilities to the Canadian public, after all it is paying our cheques.

Many companies, crown corporations, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, cabinet ministers' expenses, if the public is paying the bills, why should it not have some of this information at its fingertips? It seems ludicrous to me that we would say sorry, there are certain parts of the act that are exempt and so we do not have to tell you.

If anything is going to frustrate people-and on a school board as well, as my hon. friend mentioned earlier-if anything frustrates the parent teacher association it is going to a meeting and demanding that they look at the minutes, because they are paying those bills too. When I was participating with school boards in my teaching career it would be ridiculous for people involved in the school system to say we do not think you should have access to that information.

I taught in a small school in a small town and nothing would run you out of town faster than a parent teacher association or the parent advisory council saying "what do you mean, you are not going to tell us? We are paying your salary and you had better let us know some of this information".

There should be few state secrets at any level.

Speaking of secrecy, in the Times Colonist from November 17, 1994, very fresh, a few weeks ago, the title of an article was ``Weak Government's Lapse into Secrecy''. Freedom of information works great when things are going well for government but it is a different story when the going gets tough. That is for sure.

This person says government information in the electronic age should be preserved as a national resource. Government should help people gain access to it and should be held in easily obtainable form. In other words, people should be able to have access to this with computers and the electronic highway and everything else that we have. There should be absolutely no reason for secrecy.

The Ottawa Citizen on January 22, 1994 said that not only is it so secretive but that once you do crack through on that on access to information, if you are going to get any information out of it, it is slower than molasses in January, when this article was written. This person says that one of the most common complaints about access to information is that it is slow and getting slower. If there is anything we need in this bureaucracy it is not slow and getting slower. That is for sure.

Ten years ago almost 79 per cent of requests were completed in 30 days or less, while 6.3 per cent took more than 60 days. Now only 57.5 per cent are completed in 30 days and 21.4 per cent take longer than 60 days. This looks vaguely familiar, what

I see every day across the way, a government that says it is bringing in legislation on this and that and the next thing.

I have been tallying what was an actual government sponsored, initiated, carried through to fruition bill in this House. It was not something from Kim Campbell that was held over and was going to be updated and change the name of departments and move ahead with this and that. The Tobacco Smuggling Act was something that this government could take credit for because it started it, carried through and finished it, whether it was good or bad is immaterial. Everything else was something left over.

"Public information, political property", from the Globe and Mail , Canada's national newspaper, July 5, 1994, when we were out of the House again. Public information, should it be public property? Of course. Is it? No. It belongs to the government and it keeps its claws and talons right into it. Heaven help anyone who tries to find out anything. From Toronto Star last January 29: ``This law errs on the side of secrecy. When you get into thorny areas, it gets very cumbersome''.

If there are people who are finding this tedious, perhaps they could mention this to the hon. justice minister and he could perhaps get something through here. I would hate to think we were keeping anyone up.

In 1983 the Liberals were the government and I was not here. The Toronto Star says: ``When the act was passed 33 statutes were exempted, cabinet discussions and tax information, for example, under section 24''.

Under the Conservative government in 1986 the Liberals were here too: "In 1986 a parliamentary justice committee said section 24 should be repealed because it was undemocratic". Imagine such a thing in this institution.

Let me finish by reading an article from November 18, just a few weeks ago. This was from the Ottawa Citizen : Canadians don't enjoy an open and accountable federal government''. It could not have been a Liberal that wrote that article surely, because they have told us for months now that they have an open and accountable government:Instead they are saddled with a bureaucratic culture only marginally less secretive than a decade ago'', we know who was in power a decade ago, ``when the principle of access to information held by government was first enshrined in a new federal law''.

I do not want anyone to think we are making light of this, surely. Only some of the faces are a little different over there and you and I looked at them all in the last Parliament, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately it seems many of those faces are the same. The names have changed. If anything shrouds this piece of legislation which has been in place for years now, if anything is going to send us on our Christmas recess and make it look like this place has not changed a bit, it is if this government is not really committed to changing the Access to Information Act.

We welcome real, substantive changes to that. We look forward to 1995 and hope that we have far more substantive legislation in place that we can support.

[Access To Information, December 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks by saying that committee would decide many of those things which the hon. member has just talked about.

I am sure he, as a fine parliamentarian, is also aware that a private member cannot initiate a motion or a private member's bill which is going to cost the government more money. Therefore, I think it would be appropriate for the member to make sure that he gets on the record at some point that he well knows what the purpose, plan and policy of private member's motions and bills is.

I would like to make a few comments about Motion M-304 which my friend from Red Deer brought in. I think it is excellent, quite frankly, because the government has said it was going to do all kinds of things with access to information but here we are well over the one year birthday and precious little has happened again in that vein.

Let me just refresh your memory, Mr. Speaker. I do not know where you were on July 11 but I was in the bush in Beaver River having a wonderful time getting some rest and relaxation. I do not get the Ottawa Citizen out there nor do I get Canada's national newspaper, the Globe and Mail . Nonetheless, let me

look at some of the things that were going on while you and I were away from these hallowed halls on July 11.

The Ottawa Citizen , July 11 stated: ``Justice Minister Allan Rock is promising an overhaul of the federal Access to Information Act so it is more in line with public expectations of openness in government''. We have read about openness in government in the red book and in any number of places. He thinks it is now out of date, very much in need of an overhaul. My friend just suggested that it certainly is in need of an overhaul, but when? When are we going to see any changes in this thing? We have been promised all kinds of legislation. We have had take note debates on just about every subject we could dream of and yet there is no action.

We have been in the House now almost a year in this new session and we have seen precious little come forward in terms of tangible, get your teeth into it kind of legislation.

[Violence Against Women, December 6th, 1994]

That was my question exactly: What does this have to do with it?

Since the Supreme Court ruled on the Daviault case, the drunkenness defence has been used successfully three times in a matter of weeks. If this government were serious about it we could have this passed by the Christmas break and I look forward to working with the government on bringing that in.

We look forward to making sure that justice not be put on hold. Our women, our children and our men expect nothing less from the government, from the secretary of state and from the Minister of Justice. They expect action now.