Jan Brown

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

As you can hear, Mr. Speaker, the babble is rising on the other side because they know this strikes a very uncomfortable chord with them.

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

Going further, this actually goes to the core of leadership in government and demonstrates to Canadians that before politicians ask them to make any more financial sacrifices that we should lead by example. When I hear the empty rhetoric from the other side that we are reforming the MP pensions, indeed we are not. The Liberals have made only marginal improvements to the MP pension plan. They have merely paid lip service to Canadians' demands for a pension plan that is in line with those in the private sector.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak today to a particularly compelling issue, which is the MP pension reform.

So many of my colleagues on this side of the House have spoken with thoughtfulness and compassion for Canadians who, like us, are struggling to make ends meet.

During the 1993 campaign this issue came up over and over again on the doorsteps of those hard working taxpayers in my constituency. They were very frustrated with the fact that MPs could come into such a wonderful job as this and were greatly compensated for their work here after only having spent a short six years in the job. At that time I realized the importance of the issue and I made a pledge to my constituents that I would never ever participate in any kind of an MP pension plan while I was a member of Parliament or afterward.

I would like to read to the House for the record the promise I made to my constituents. It was signed by me on June 15, 1993 and witnessed by members of the riding who were at the town hall. This is what I said:

I, the undersigned, Jan Brown, Reform Party candidate for Calgary Southeast, strongly oppose the current extravagant pension plan of members of Parliament. It is time our leaders demonstrated some leadership. I therefore totally oppose former members of Parliament receiving excessive pensions, when Canadians are being asked to tighten their belt. I will, moreover, vote against any bill maintaining or increasing members' pensions. I therefore state that I, personally, will not participate in the current extravagant pension plan of members of Parliament.

I went on to say:

I support the policy of the Reform Party to significantly reduce the pension plan for MPs to bring them into line with pensions offered in the private sector and I will work vigorously toward achieving that objective. However, I hereby declare that I will personally choose not to participate in any taxpayer funded MP pension plan. As your elected MP, I, like many of you, will plan for my future financial needs independently and free of taxpayer support.

As I said, I signed that on June 15, 1993. Now more than ever, my sense of that declaration has gathered importance in my life and certainly to those members of Calgary Southeast who I represent.

There seems to have been a great deception in the Liberal red book when it came to pension reform. I say that because the public was given a perception that the Liberals were most intent about pension reform. However, the red book did not say anything concrete about the reform of pensions.

The Liberals just said that the pension regime of members of Parliament had been the focus of considerable controversy and it remains so. The red book went on to state: "It is now the subject of an independent review, which Liberals support". This constant focus on reviews, consultations and discussions continues over and over as a mantra of the Liberals.

The red book further states: "Whatever the results of an independent review, a Liberal government will reform the pension plan of members of Parliament to end double dipping. MPs should not be able to leave office and receive a pension from the federal government if they accept a new full time

paying job from the federal government". The Liberals went on and on with issues that have not been addressed at all in the bill.

In fact, this is what has happened with the new Liberal proposals. The lower benefit accrual rate has gone from 5 per cent to 4 per cent per year, twice the rate allowed in the private sector under the Income Tax Act. Once again, there was the perception in the red book that there was change whereas in actual fact there has been no real change, just a perception.

Benefits will increase with inflation, unlike 80 per cent of private plans. MPs are to collect 75 per cent of the annual salary after 19 years in office. The average Canadian has to work 35 years to collect 70 per cent of an annual salary.

The Liberals have also allowed a one time opportunity for MPs to opt out of the new plan, but MPs elected in the next election will be forced to take part in the plan. That sounds like some kind of arbitrary punishment for those of us who brought forward the whole issue of reform of our pensions.

Former MPs or senators appointed after retirement stop receiving their pensions while serving, but the benefits continue to grow.

It sounds like I have struck a chord over there. The babble starts once again when we strike a nerve over there that there is something which is not quite fair here.

[Arts And Culture, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, continuing on this topic of wasteful spending, the minister toured Norway at the taxpayers' expense. He took political staff to lunch in Los Angeles. Now he is going to the movies in France. He is going to help 16 culturecrats spend $350,000 at the Cannes festival. What an expensive night at the movies.

We understand this is the last year for Telefilm to have a booth at Cannes. Given our times of fiscal restraint, when Telefilm is laying off staff, how can the minister justify this last kick at the Cannes?

[Arts And Culture, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage does not understand our fiscal situation or he does not care. Instead, he is siphoning funds out of his programs into his ministerial slush fund, the cultural initiatives program. He has funded the Bronfman Foundation, Harbourfront, projects in ridings of his cabinet colleagues and who knows what else. The minister is using departmental funds to keep his Liberal friends happy.

Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage stop abusing his funding powers and cancel the wasteful cultural initiatives program?

[Petitions, May 10th, 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.

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

[Breast Cancer, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to rise to speak to this motion today.

In its simplicity, this motion on breast cancer funding can be looked upon as an opportunity to address a topic of specific interest and importance to women and of general interest and importance to everyone. I agree with my hon. colleague from Yukon that we need to address breast cancer as a new national priority.

In the address I will give looking at the whole issue of breast cancer, I bring to the forefront of the debate the extent and fit of government involvement. This is not simply a question of breast cancer funding but of government research funding as a whole. Who should regulate it, why and how?

Breast cancer is a disease that afflicts one out of nine Canadian women, placing Canada as the country with the second highest rate of breast cancer in the world. These statistics were already cited today but I am going to reiterate them. There are approximately 17,000 new cases diagnosed each year and over 5,000 deaths. Breast cancer is the second most frequently occurring form of cancer next only to lung cancer. These figures emphasize the scope and significance of this disease.

Although breast cancer is considered a women's disease it afflicts all Canadians in one form or another. We all have mothers, sisters, wives, girlfriends, if not ourselves who are very possibly at risk and one in nine will be diagnosed in her lifetime.

I have witnessed the physical and emotional devastation of breast cancer. As a teenager I watched a beloved aunt die slowly and painfully over a six-year period. Her cancer began in her breast and it was unstoppable.

Where does government belong in the battle against breast cancer? What would be the most effective use of scarce government resources targeted to breast cancer funding? I refer to the idea of creative productivity. Government does and should have a role in the fight against breast cancer. Let us not move too quickly to ask big brother to jump in to spend dwindling resources without thinking this through.

Government funded and operated initiatives have not always been the most efficient despite good intentions. We are all too familiar with the economic and bureaucratic nightmare of exploding costs that some government run programs can create. We need just to look at the current state of our health care system and its high degree of inefficiency.

Funding to breast cancer research has seen a surge over the past three years partly from government but more significantly from corporate funders and private individuals and programs. In 1990 less than $500,000 was committed to breast cancer research. Since 1992 the federal government has committed $20 million toward breast cancer research over five years. The Canadian Cancer Society has put up another $10 million. Corporate donors are expected to provide another $15 million.

In areas of medical research where what we are looking for are cures and preventative measures, government does indeed have a very important role to play. It already has a hand in regulation of scientific research but even here it is not the core funder. The private sector has been a much more impressive financial contributor to research into breast cancer. Certainly government's tardy involvement in breast cancer studies is further proof as to why we might want to look for a more collaborative effort between both public and private initiatives.

In 1986, unable to persuade the Canadian Cancer Society to change its policy on targeting funding, a group of Toronto women established the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation. Since its inception it has collected well in excess of $1 million for research and education.

In 1990 the Canadian Cancer Society agreed to start accepting funds earmarked for specific cancer sites. All involved agree that it is largely due to survivor groups that the initiative came together.

Strength and courage are demonstrated by breast cancer survivors who, after being told that they have a disease that is almost surely disfiguring and far too often fatal, have had the initiative to organize themselves into impressive fundraising and information gathering organizations.

Pressured by women's organizations and survivor groups, the funding has grown to an estimated $15 million annually, up from $5 million in 1989. This funding is being put into research for not only cures but also causes.

Research into BRCA1 which is a gene believed to cause 2 to 4 per cent of breast cancers and studies examining the development of a vaccine to stop some kind of breast cancers in their attacks by activating the immune system are just two examples of current efforts to combat this deadly disease.

As of 1994 more than half of the financial resources of breast cancer research have come from non-government agencies and organizations. According to people I have spoken to within these organizations, they are not looking to government for financial support. Their argument is that financial support from government is all too often attached to government meddling. It is also perceived as unpredictable, particularly in light of current proposed cuts.

We must continue to encourage and invite collaboration between public and private groups. We would also be wise to continue to promote the independence demonstrated by many support groups.

I believe the hon. member's motion may have missed an important step and presumes that more government involvement is necessarily better. Would funding not be put to better use if it remained in areas of prevention and cure development? Then organizations which are already set up to provide support, information and education, such as breast cancer survivor groups and the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation, are prepared to fulfil their supportive roles.

The reality of Canada's debt makes us cautious about inviting government to spend more money we do not really have. Therefore we encourage more creative means of funding in some of these areas.

The government is already allocating funds toward cancer research. Should we not leave it to those who know where that money is best spent to decide where to put it, rather than having government make that decision for them? Who better to make funding allocation decisions than those who have spent the better part of their lives studying and examining the disease? That is not to say they should be given a free hand, but once the money has been earmarked, then it is up to the scientists and researchers to do with it what is most needed.

As it stands, decisions on who should get what funding is tenuous at best when we see that it is often not necessarily the most needy who are getting a fair share of government funding. When some diseases responsible for taking less than one-tenth the lives taken from breast cancer are getting almost eight times the funding, the source of this decision must be questioned, that source being the federal government.

In 1993 the national forum on breast cancer referred to a holistic approach to the treatment and care of breast cancer, one that explicitly acknowledges both the non-medical and medical experiences for women and their families. It concluded that breast cancer has a profound physical and emotional effect on not only women with the disease, but very directly on their community of family and friends.

Let us not give exclusive invitations to government into our homes and personal lives. Government does have a role to perform in addressing breast cancer, but not at the expense of community based networks of support.

What we have advocated has been the need for Canadians to take charge of their lives and to some degree exclude government from the expectation of care. Family and community support must be encouraged, but this will not be done by making government responsible for providing those support groups. Women and families suffering from breast cancer and any debilitating disease need supports to give them strength together to survive and in a sense conquer these diseases, if not physically at least spiritually.

The national forum on breast cancer has also recommended a collaborative effort among government and corporate and private sectors. Acknowledging that government has neither the resources nor the ability to be the sole responsible actor in breast cancer initiatives empowers survivors and their families to beat this deadly foe.

[Code Of Conduct, May 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the hon. member, I do not believe he heard me very well if he did not think I had anything very positive to add to the debate. I was trying to establish a basis on which ethical criteria are established.

There are four things I believe that go through the mind of an individual when they are looking at an issue of an ethical nature. When people come to a make a decision on a problem they know what people say they should do to resolve the issue. They know there are people who do things as they say they will. Actually when it comes right down to it, the actions of people sometimes are not really what they said they would do. Oftentimes people would like to take an action but do not or cannot for whatever reason. Those were the elements which I tried to bring to the speech.

As far as the issue of the Senate, I have stated already the Senate is a house of patronage. It is a house that deals quite specifically with lobbyists in a different way from the House of Commons. Senators are not elected officials and therefore I believe should stand on their own merit and develop their own code of conduct. They are all big boys and girls over there and they should be able to take due consideration with respect to their own activities without our telling them what they should do.

[Code Of Conduct, May 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to receive the document, but to date the actions of the government show it also has not read the document.

[Code Of Conduct, May 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I believe I qualified that in the first sentences of my presentation when I expressed that senators are appointed officials. They are not elected and as a result should develop their own code of conduct.

We ran on the platform that we wanted to see incredible change to the Senate. We believe in a Senate that is equal, effective but elected. It is on the position of being elected that the senators as appointed officials need to develop their own guidelines because they involve their activities in a different way with lobbyists compared with parliamentarians. At least one would hope with the result of these new guidelines that will happen.

That is a question almost irrelevant when we are looking at comparisons between parliamentarians who are elected by the people of Canada and senatorial positions, most of which are patronage appointments with very strong links to the government of the day.