Jan Brown

[Petitions, May 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise again to present another petition in this course of action undertaken on behalf of constituents who wish to halt the early release from prison of Robert Paul Thompson.

These petitioners urge the government to enact legislation in order to make our streets safer for law-abiding citizens and the families of victims of convicted murderers.

[Expo 2005, May 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we have yet another example of the Liberals shafting the west and rigging a decision to favour Ottawa.

Last year the Minister of Canadian Heritage decided that Canada would support a bid for Expo 2005. He appointed an independent committee to recommend to him which city, either Calgary or Ottawa, would represent Canada in the bidding process. The process was completed and Calgary was the unanimous choice recommended to the minister.

The minister promised to follow the recommendation of the committee and he has failed to do so. He has tainted the process

by allowing Ottawa to continue lobbying. It appears that the minister is rigging the bid so that Ottawa gets the Expo. It appears that the fix is in.

Calgary has the strongest of the bids. It has the financial backing of the city of Calgary and the province of Alberta. Calgary has a volunteer network which is the best in Canada and which will make the Expo a tremendous success showcasing Canada to the world.

The minister promised to make a hasty decision but has failed to act for more than two months. I urge the minister to immediately follow the recommendation of the committee and give the Expo bid to Calgary.

[Petitions, May 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from citizens concerned about making our streets safer for the citizens of Canada. They are opposed to the current practice of early release of violent offenders prior to serving the full extent of their sentences. They pray that we make our streets safer for law-abiding citizens and families of victims of convicted murderers.

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, May 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, let me continue. The CBC broadcast centre came in $138 million over budget. It was supposed to get revenues from Bramalea and Cadillac Fairview but now both companies are bankrupt. The total lease cost for the building amounts to over $1.7 billion. Now the government is poised to bail out of this $250 million fiasco.

The broadcast centre has been a financial disaster from the get go. Will the minister direct the auditor general to investigate the financing of this broadcast centre boondoggle and table the report in this Parliament?

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, May 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, CBC and Cadillac Fairview have broken a deal over their lease arrangements, perhaps costing the CBC and the Canadian taxpayer up to $250 million. The actual cost remains unknown because both the CBC and the minister's office refuse to make public any of the deals of the arrangement.

My question for the Minister of Canadian Heritage is: If there is nothing to hide, will he commit to making public all of the details of this secretive deal?

[Old Age Security Act, May 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Motion No. 7, the amendment put forward by the Reform Party.

Why is commons sense usually the first victim when we give consideration to change? I have stood in the House on more occasions than I wish to count and have seen that basic common sense becomes a trade-off between positive ideas for change and partisan politics.

Canada has reached a crossroads. Our fiscal situation has prompted a country wide debate on the state of our social security programs. Our safety net is financially unsustainable and many of the programs reflect waste and disturbing inefficiencies which will ultimately hurt the very people these programs were meant to help.

Motion No. 7 is one we believe can make the system more accountable. Accountability is one of the basic planks on which I was elected. I made a promise to constituents that all of my analysis, all of the efforts and work undertaken on their behalf would reflect that commitment to accountability.

There are many occasions in the House when all of us receive letters from constituents who write to us from their heart about expenditures and the danger to the basic structure of our social programs. When I get these letters I know why I am here challenging the government, demanding accountability on behalf of the Canadians we represent and using common sense in the deliberations we debate.

I received a letter from a lady named Irene in February of this year. Irene wants some answers to some very basic questions. She writes from her heart. She asks about accountability: "Dear member of Parliament, I am a senior citizen who is proud to call myself Canadian. However, I have become more and more concerned with the handling of our budget by our government. I have decided to participate in the process by writing this open letter to all members of Parliament regardless of party affiliation to communicate my concern over what I and many of my friends and family see as utter waste regarding unrealistic expectations and greed and total absence of conscience for the spending of public money".

She is doing what I would call her political work, participating in the process. She goes on to say: "I have been elected spokesperson by my group of friends, hence the lengthy list of suggested budgetary cuts. By cutting the following expenses we can perhaps cut less from programs that we have supported with our many years of hard work and money. Although these are but basic and straightforward budget cuts, surely the more unpalatable cuts will be seen less as another blow to the ordinary Canadian if it is perceived that all expenses are open to scrutiny".

What she is asking for is accountability. She goes on to list two pages full of cuts she believes would be appropriate and useful for government to take under consideration. Something in her last point I found quite interesting: "Why not increase the resources of the auditor general to find waste and duplication which they manage to find every year?" I thought that was appropriate to bring into the debate today since we are looking at our estimates: "However, rather than just report it, why not increase the personnel so that follow-up action may be taken? Every year we hear about all the waste and duplication in different government departments. However, once the report is made public, is that all there is? Is there any follow-up and/or guidance for the guilty parties?"

Irene once again is simply seeking accountability.

In Motion No. 7, which is basic common sense, we are trying to bring accountability to that system so that we can say to Irene: "Yes indeed, there is follow up to government waste. There is follow up to issues and problems as they arise within the bureaucracy".

Having said that, I want to go through the point that Motion No. 7 refers to because it is important to have for the record a very common sense motion that reflects the values of the Reform Party.

The motion calls for the minister to make a report to the House on where overpayments in CPP and OAS were made and at what cost to the Canadian taxpayer. That comment is very much reflected in Irene's letter to me. It is basic information about the government's bottom line. The report will then be studied by a parliamentary committee made up of representatives of the people who have entrusted us to make decisions based on the Canadian taxpayers' best interests with compassion and to do that with transparency.

The committee and not the bureaucrats will decide what the minister can or cannot remit next year. It will make recommendations on where and how to reduce the cost to the Canadian people in overpayment. That is just and fair.

If this motion is adopted, it will return accountability to where it belongs, in Parliament and not in the hands of the minister or senior bureaucrats of the department where everything is done behind closed doors. Let not the momentum of mediocrity continue to plague the actions of the House as we move toward change and become openly and completely accountable to the Canadian people.

[Petitions, May 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present another petition in the course of action undertaken on behalf of constituents who wish to halt the early release from prison of Robert Paul Thompson.

The petitioners I represent are concerned about making our streets safer for our citizens. They are opposed to the current practice of early release of violent offenders prior to serving the full extent of their sentences.

The petitioners pray our streets will be made safer for law-abiding citizens and the families of the victims of convicted murderers.

[Petitions, May 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise again to present a petition to the House in this effort to keep Robert Paul Thompson behind bars.

These petitioners are attempting to bring attention to the government to make our streets safer for law-abiding citizens. They are encouraging the government to enact legislation in order to do the following: One, allow reclassification of offenders as dangerous after sentencing; two, allow the indefinite detention of dangerous offenders after warrant expiry; and three, allow violent offenders to be ineligible for parole until the full sentence has been served.

[Canadian Jewish Congress, May 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Jewish Congress is known at home and abroad as the national representative body of the Jewish population of Canada.

Since its inception 76 years ago, the congress has acted on behalf of the Canadian Jewish community on a myriad of issues. It was founded as a result of the great emergency of World War I and since then has provided supportive services in Canada.

The CJC set up an Immigrant Aid Society and has helped to sustain German-Jewish relief funds. This fine group relies predominantly on funding from its members and is a wonderful example of a successful organization that thrives because of the strength of its membership.

This weekend in Montreal over 1,000 delegates will congregate for the 24th national plenary session of the Canadian Jewish Congress. This year's theme is "Beyond History: Building for a Stronger Future".

I urge all members of the House to join me in wishing the Canadian Jewish Congress a most successful congress.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 12th, 1995]

I thank the hon. member on the other side who is asking his people to settle down. It would be very helpful.

Reformers are ordinary people who have families to support and mortgages to pay. They would like nothing better than to participate in a pension plan that is fair, but the Liberal plan is so extravagant that Reformers must opt out on principle. That is where it comes back to leadership.

It is ironic to suggest that reforming the MP pension plan is a sacrifice for members of Parliament. As I said, this is a wonderful job, a job to publicly serve a country where democracy is the cornerstone of our political system. We should not take advantage of that by having to be paid through these obscene pension plans after leaving here.

All we have ever suggested doing is to take our existing, outdated, lavish, unfair and expensive pension plan and correlate it with the private sector provisions for employees. This is no sacrifice. It is doing what every other Canadian out there is doing, which is trying to take care of themselves. It is an expectation from our electorate that we reform this outrageous pension plan.

More than anything else, Canadians resent that they are being asked over and over and over again to tighten their belts, that they must pay higher taxes, that their hard earned paycheques are taxed back to the government. Let us not forget that about eight million Canadians have no pensions at all. Canadians are at a point where they no longer believe their politicians are worthy of their support.

I know I can speak to the constituents of the riding of Calgary Southeast on this issue and get that kind of response. In town hall after town hall on the issues of the day, this one keeps coming up: "When are you going to get rid of that terrible MP pension plan?"

I have mentioned in this House before about the reforms that were happening in my home province of Alberta. In the spring of 1993 Premier Klein announced there would be no pension plan for members of the legislative assembly after the next election. Indeed, Mr. Klein kept that commitment to Albertans. It is no wonder that Mr. Klein's leadership retains one of the very highest levels of support in the history of Alberta.