Deborah Grey

[Canadian Film Development Corporation Act, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am seeking the floor to move Bill S-5 on behalf of the hon. member for Calgary Northeast.

[The Family, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, fairness is integral to Reform Party policy. This principle must apply to the family in Canada. In particular single parent families are hard pressed to make ends meet. According to yesterday's CTV Angus Reid poll only a third receive the support payments ordered by the courts.

To ensure that single parents receive adequate provision for their needs we recommend two courses of action. First, we recommend a study to determine the real cost of raising a child. This study could be used by the courts to more accurately determine the level of support required.

Second, we advocate that stronger action be taken against parents who are delinquent on their support payments. Government ought to provide more effective legal tools to single parents that would help them recover missing support payments anywhere in Canada, not just provincially.

Reformers are sensitive to the needs of single parent families across our nation and call upon the government to respond to their needs fairly and consistently.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, now that my name has been mentioned I feel I should stand up and say something.

I do appreciate the hon. member's comments. I realize what a huge geographic area he has to represent. He is quite right when he states that we did sit together for some months or even years I think at the beginning of the last Parliament, and I did appreciate that.

I want to address a couple of things which he talked about. We in the Reform Party caucus said that we have one or two areas that we want to cut. Let me make it very plain that we would only start with one or two areas. There are dozens and dozens of areas in all of these main estimates that need to be cut; not just that it is a good idea, but it is absolutely necessary. Only then will forestry, mines and all these other things be able to take first place, as they should.

However, if there is no money left in the federal coffers then there is going to be nothing to help out any sort of social programs that the member needs in his area. We know that there are certain things absolutely necessary there.

If we focus on one part of the red book and not on the other part of the red book in which he refers to and the Liberals always refer to the fact that we need to cut spending to make sure that there is money available, we are not just talking about one or two areas that we need to cut but dozens and dozens in order to save those social nets and in order to make sure that programs and policies in his constituency are going to go ahead.

With the debt rate going up at an incredible rate of thousands and thousands of dollars every minute that will do more to harm any social programs or any forestry or mines or infrastructure programs that are going on his riding. Perhaps he could respond to that.

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, several things which the hon. member for Hamilton East alluded to talked about our playing into the hands of the BQ, that we were bashing federalism, that we were engaging in negative rhetoric and that we were on a constitutional treadmill.

Let me make it painfully clear so that every member in this House understands. We are not talking about the Constitution as such. We are talking about federalism and this is what needs to be discussed in this House. Surely there is a difference between wrangling about the Constitution and about federalism. There is not one person in this House, I hope, who would talk about how dreadful Canada is. That is simply not true.

We heard those comments coming across. We believe this country is worth fighting so hard for that we are here out of other careers, not people who have made their living off politics for years and years. We are asking for an open and frank discussion about this, not getting into the tirades that we have heard about. This is not right.

When we talk about such things as our position on bilingualism let me remind the member again because of any one else on the government side she probably has poured over our blue sheet more than anyone else. The member well knows the position of this party on official bilingualism. It is not what she referred to as English only.

Let me give the hon. member a chance to say that there is something positive about a debate on this. Perhaps it is unfortunate that someone else came up with the idea before they did.

I heard the member for Brant talking about how confused she is about the election and how people did not talk about the Constitution. Much has changed. I would like the hon. member to comment on this. We did not talk about it at great lengths because Charlottetown was so new and Meech Lake was so new and painful. However, we discussed this in the election last fall.

May I ask the member to comment on the fact that things are much different now. There were eight BQ in the House last time around and there are now 54.

Quite frankly the Liberals got smoked in Quebec during the election and she knows that. The provincial situation there is much different now than it was last fall as an election is imminent.

May she discuss with us very briefly why there is such an obsession on the other side to defend status quo federalism, as her comrade from Brant talked about earlier. Why is there is such a partisan difficulty with a tirade in this? Why can we not just discuss this so that we are building a new country together and the BQ and others in Quebec would want to come to it?

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, after my great efforts to hear the hon. member's comments, I would respond briefly to him.

When we talk about generosity or balancing funds across the country, let us remember the amount of money which each province puts into Confederation. It has been made very clear to the hon. member through various publications, and I refer specifically to Robert Mansell, an economist from the University of Calgary, that Alberta has been a net contributor to Confederation. Quebec and some of the eastern Atlantic provinces have been economic beneficiaries of national dollars.

Let us step wider and more broadly at this point to look at some of the things which some hon. members may have complaints about.

If we are going to try to balance out every dollar or every cent that we gave or every cup of coffee that somebody bought for us, we have to look at this more widely and ask what is this Confederation that we are talking about.

It is important for all of us to note that this is something like the family of which I spoke in my remarks and which many others in the House have spoken of as well. In a family you cannot balance dollars and cents. Some children require more spending than others. We understand that. We appreciate that.

When talking about this whole situation let us not gripe about money or one thing or another. Let us look at it as a unit, as a family of 10 equal provinces in Confederation. I believe we are stronger. I believe we are more likely to be able to work in the international community as trading partners. As my leader mentioned earlier the BQ and Quebec would be far better off financially as part of a trading unit with Canada, a group of people 28 million strong, in dealing and trading internationally than trying to hunker off by itself as a market of eight million people.

My friend is bright. I know that he understands the whole idea of trading blocs and how we have seen blocs become much larger.

If Quebec tries to go it on its own, it will be a much smaller trading bloc. If the member thinks that his comments affect the financial situation in the country, let him beware. I really do not think going it on its own would be a viable situation. It would be much better for it to accept the invitation of the rest of Canada and say it will be part of this larger trading bloc than what it is attempting to do.

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would like to say how pleased I am for the opportunity to speak in the debate today.

In reference to the hon. member's remarks preceding mine, speaking of the spirit of generosity let us not forget where the bulk of that money from taxpayers is coming from. Much of it comes from western Canadians in a spirit of generosity to the rest of Canada. Let us be absolutely clear about that.

I will mention again how pleased I am to speak in this debate today. I will be addressing the phrase in our motion which talks about further democratizing our institutions and decision making processes. As we spend month after month in this place we are all well aware of the situation we are all in and dear knows we do need to have some democratic reform in our institutions and in our decision making processes here.

It is also very clear that many people outside of this Chamber but outside and inside Quebec as well are demanding some things as they demanded of us in the last election. These are I believe from people inside and outside Quebec. It is every bit as important to them. Inside Quebec and out they are seeking dynamic and constructive change in their political institutions. They are asking for governments that listen to them, consult with them and are accountable to them. Canadians and Quebecers want to improve the quality of representative government in the country.

We know these things well. Madam Speaker, you and I were here in the last Parliament. We know through the national debate surrounding Meech Lake, the Charlottetown accord and more recently through our door knocking at the federal election last fall, through town hall meetings and other communication with our constituents, that there was almost a cry from people saying something needs to be done to democratize the institutions and Parliament itself.

This desire for reform of our political institutions is something that all of us in this 35th Parliament can do something about. Many of my colleagues and I have offered a number of proposals that would lead to democratic reform in the House.

As was mentioned before and was mentioned just a few moments ago by my colleague from Calgary West, we need in the House, regardless of what provinces or areas of the country we are from, more free votes in Parliament. If members are to exert influence over policy making in committees, as we have heard so much about, or in the House they must be able to demonstrate independence of thought.

Again we read articles of some members from the government side who are brave enough to stand in committee and say: "I do not think this is right. Perhaps I will vote against it". They are absolutely taken aside and told they must go along with it. They cannot give other reports. My friends on the other side are well aware of that.

We want to make sure that more free votes are allowed in Parliament. We also need a change in attitude to the confidence convention. As my friends from the government and I sat on the opposition benches in the last Parliament we heard time and time again that every piece of legislation does not need to be treated as a confidence convention. How things change, how things become so different with the stroll of about 12 or 14 feet across the aisle here.

We need a change on the part of government and party leaders that would allow members to vote as their constituents wish without bringing down the government. I certainly have assurance that I can offer on behalf of my party leader that he would be willing to give unanimous consent to the other leaders to provide that.

We also need provisions to recall MPs who have lost or betrayed the trust of their constituents. As members would know I have spoken at great length on this in the House. It seems to rattle some even now. Recall will ensure that members consult with and serve their constituents and not merely serve their party. That if anything is one thing we can do to change the attitude that Canadians have about this place.

Also we believe in holding elections every four years at predetermined dates so there would not just be something that would be helpful or productive for the government. We saw that again in the last election where it was thought that because it had that benefit it was able to call the election at what it thought was the most opportune time. Unfortunately history will show that perhaps it was a mistake.

However, if we had elections at predetermined times every four years it would eliminate all that hassle and trying to think about it and manipulating dates.

Also we are in favour of a binding referendum on national and important constitutional and moral issues or matters that would alter the basic social fabric of the country. We have seen a referendum in the country. Naturally I was pleased with the results of it because I was the only federal political party here that was on the no side on the Charlottetown accord.

There is nothing wrong with that, just because people in the House and the parties which they represented lost the Charlottetown accord. A great deal of good came out of that. People in my constituency, and I am sure in every other one in the country, felt that somehow they had been given real power. They were able to exercise on a ballot their view, that it was binding and that it carried the weight of the day.

Also citizens' initiatives are so important. People can put questions on a referendum ballot which will be dealt with at election time. What a marvellous sense of power. That would free up this place so that people know they have access to the House of Commons and not just somebody who will stand in a public place regularly, as I have heard, and say: "My opinion is important. My constituent's opinion is important but when it comes to the vote I will decide". Nothing could be more arrogant or any further from the truth. If we are going to democratize this place that is something that is absolutely essential.

All Reformers have advocated Senate reform. We are talking about a triple-E Senate, elected by the people, equal provincial representation, thereby making it effective in representing regional interests. There may be people from Quebec and Ontario, the two big provinces, who say they have more senators and so they have absolute power of majority in the Senate. It is important that each province realize it is one of ten equal children in Confederation.

There seems to be no reason in my mind to justify the fact that my province of Alberta has 6 senators and that Quebec and Ontario would have 24. There is something wrong with the mathematics in that. We believe Quebec is important in Confederation. Let us turn the other place around.

I have heard many of my colleagues talk about the fact that we need to abolish the other place. We have seen very recently that the Senate is important, that it is essential. Its decision to reject Bill C-18, the suspending of the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, is a good example of the Senate's sober second look at bad legislation. Bad it was, and we would hear from members of the government side perhaps that it was bad, such interventions were rare, granted, and usually not welcome because of the unelected nature of the Senate.

I proved my point. Because Canada is a federation of equal provinces this reality should be reflected in that other place because it does provide a function. We think that if it were that much more legitimate it would provide a bigger and better function on behalf of poor legislation and as a counterweight to some of the things that come out of the House of Commons.

We believe as Reformers that the adoption of these political and democratic reforms would lead to more active participation in the legislative process by ordinary Canadians. It would improve the quality of debate, enhance legislation coming from Parliament and build an even better democracy than we have in Canada today.

What a marvellous country this is has been mentioned over and over today. We agree. I think everyone in the House agrees that Canada is wonderful. My colleagues to my right are wanting to leave that. Of course my question as a western Canadian as well as a fellow member of this family is: What does Quebec want?

I have a researcher from the University of Michigan, an intern, trying to look at that question for me. What is it Quebec wants in Canada, if it is to remain in Canada?

It is one thing to say that these people are here to represent all of Quebec. That is not true any more than my party is here to represent all of the west or that there are members from the government side representing all Canadians because they form the government. There are people who supported the Bloc and we give respect for that certainly. Earlier we talked about the enormous amount of people in Quebec as well as outside who said Canada is the best place. We need to build on the successes that we have had.

We often forget the long and difficult way that we have come together in Confederation. We seldom remember our great achievements together. What we need to do at the very end of this debate, and I am so glad we have been able to have it, is to ask a question. If we in the House of Commons are willing to get together and democratize these institutions, if we on all sides of the House are willing to get together and say yes, this place is wonderful or yes, we will move to be able to say Canada is a worthwhile place, is Quebec interested in staying? If we all get together and build it I believe they will come. That is the offer we extend to them, to say this country is bigger and better with all of us fighting on behalf of it rather than somebody who wants to leave and thinks, just completely hypothetically, that things would be better.

My time is just about up. We have a minute left until oral statements. I will be answering questions and comments right after that. However, let me assure my friends here that we are trying to build this new Canada. We make the offer to them and to their constituents that if they will work with us, if we build it, we give them the offer to come.

[Justice, June 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that there are factual errors in the handbook or the manual that has come out. I would ask the minister to check that out. Firearms experts in my constituency say there are factual errors in that.

I have a supplementary question for the minister. In terms of setting the fee for this particular course we have heard anywhere from $75 for the course up to $200 and $300. Is the actual amount of the fee for the course mandatory, or is it up to the trainers' jurisdiction or their personal preference?

[Justice, June 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice regarding the FAC or firearms acquisition certificate. I have a question from members of my constituency wondering about training personnel to administer the courses.

Could the minister assure us that he does have personnel in place to teach the courses because the courses are mandatory?

[Health Care, May 26th, 1994]

I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

On Tuesday the Minister of Health said that she was forced to withhold health care funds from B.C. because she had a duty to enforce the Canada Health Act.

Another provision of that act the federal government conveniently ignores is its commitment in that act for funding for 50 per cent of health and health care costs. At present the federal government funds less than 35 per cent of those total costs.

Could the minister explain why she vigorously enforces some portions of the Canada Health Act while conveniently allowing the federal government to ignore its commitment under that act to funding 50 per cent of all health care costs?

[Health Care, May 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

Last week the four western premiers jointly requested that one of the 10 premiers should co-chair the upcoming forum on health care with the Prime Minister.

Health care is a provincial responsibility and the provinces pick up the large bulk of the health care tab. On this basis, does the Minister of Health agree that the premiers deserve better access not only to health care but also to decision making and that one of the premiers should co-chair this important upcoming meeting?