House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 1993, with 60% of the vote.
Taxation February 16th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. By issuing a press release on January 7 urging Canadian taxpayers and companies to encourage compatible transfer pricing methods, the government recognizes there is a problem.
Will the minister commit to developing legislation for transfer pricing to ensure these corporations pay their fair share of taxes?
Taxation February 16th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
As the minister knows, international companies with subsidiaries in Canada establish prices for transferring goods and services between them. This is known as transfer pricing. Although the finance department is attempting to clarify the rules for establishing these prices there is still the question of tax fairness as profits can be internally adjusted.
This government says it is concerned about increasing its revenues. In order to create more equity in the tax system would the minister commit to investigating tax losses from transfer pricing and report to the House his plan to access that lost revenue?
Michelle Morton February 15th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to recognize an outstanding Canadian athlete, one who lives in my riding of Calgary Southeast. Michelle Morton is a speed skater competing in Lillehammer this week as part of our Canadian Olympic team.
Michelle embodies the spirit of what we are all about as Canadians. Great hopes coupled with hard work have achieved results which for her were not completely expected. Michelle has recurring attacks of asthma and it is her focus and determination that now place her as a powerful member on the Canadian roster.
Her persistence as a competent athlete at both the provincial and national levels demonstrates that obstacles can be overcome in the pursuit of a dream and we are proud of that achievement.
On behalf of all of the residents of Calgary Southeast I send our encouragement, admiration and affection.
Go get them, Michelle.
Bosnia-Hercegovina February 10th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence. This past week we read yet again of our troops being humiliated and threatened with violence and forced to surrender their weapons.
Given what we have just heard today of Canadian soldiers being disarmed by the belligerents, how can the minister now guarantee their safety?
Bosnia-Hercegovina February 10th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
As the world watches, the tension in Bosnia increases and the senseless horrors continue unabated. Now the threat of air strikes poses a very real danger to our troops. In light of this new threat, Canada has been seeking guarantees from NATO that will safeguard Canadian troops currently deployed in the former Yugoslavia. I would ask what are those guarantees?
Social Security System February 3rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member's comments.
The hon. member expressed his views. He explained for me exactly why we are here in this House to debate. The member for Vancouver Centre questioned why we were here to debate. She said: "What we are doing really is not having consultations together". She indicated that we were pre-empting the decision. I would have to say that the hon. member who just spoke did exactly that.
I have to go back to the member's text. I do not know if he actually had this written down or if he was ad libbing. He did say that we want to help them over the short term and then we are not quite sure where they are going to go from there. He was speaking about the unemployed.
"What will this eventually mean", the hon. member asked. I would like the hon. member to clarify exactly what was meant by that statement. Having used the example of an annual guaranteed income was of some interest to me. I would like some clarification on that point.
Social Security System February 3rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I was delighted by the comments of the hon. member.
What I am about to say is not a challenge to the member in the least. She made a statement about lumping social policy and economics together. Indeed they are an interdependent coupling.
My concern is the rhetorical piece that is the red book for me does not have the economic elements within it that satisfy what we must do for Canadians to get them back to work.
My daughter is 22 years old and does not have a job, although she has a university education. She says: "Mom, please do not come back home and say you can do nothing". It is the rhetoric that is my concern. If we are going to co-operate it is incumbent upon us to look at economic policies and marry that with social policy. That is how I hope we can co-operate in this House.
In my view the debate has helped to push us along that path.
Social Security System February 3rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question will be very brief.
I appreciate the member's comments regarding seniors but he and all of his colleagues have been directing their comments toward asking for continued federal and provincial support for programs. They have been asking the federal government to continue to fund the different and varied social programs within their provinces. They have also been talking about federal and provincial co-operation.
Given all that, how is the member going to meet his mandate for separation when he has expectations such as he has just expressed for co-operation between the federal and provincial governments?
Social Security System February 3rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I do congratulate the hon. member for her address. She brought a lot of passion and eloquence to her delivery today.
I am just a little bit confused in my own mind and would like some clarification with respect to the statements from the member for Burin-St. George's. He said that we have had a basic system that has served us well. If that is the case, why then did the hon. member who just spoke say that the economy has to undergo major restructuring?
I would like the hon. member to somehow bring together those two statements so that when it comes to a question of integration and getting a system working again that this does indeed happen. The two members have created some confusion for me. Could the hon. member please clarify those statements?
Speech From The Throne January 28th, 1994
Madam Speaker, when I rose to first speak in the House earlier this week I acknowledged your appointment to the Chair and extended good wishes to all of my colleagues here. Given the very serious nature of that peacekeeping debate, my focus was on a world far away. I commented from my heart on a rupturing world order. My thoughts today however spring from the heart of my political experience, and that is my riding of Calgary Southeast.
Calgary Southeast is a large urban riding made up of 20 small communities complemented by a setting of parks and rivers under a brilliant blue prairie sky, which I really miss today. Calgary Southeast is unique because it is a riding of difference. Its different business needs cover everything from large manufacturing and transportation operations to small mom and pop cornerstores. Its economic profile is different because it is home to some of the wealthier residents of Calgary as well as some of its most impoverished. However, the concerns of my constituents are neither defined nor confined by these differences, because they freely cross the income brackets.
The throne speech only briefly commented upon a plan for social reform to be completed within two years. This has great relevance for those differences I mentioned earlier within the riding. One could say it is a halting step for change when leaps and bounds are needed.
It would seem by the time the government gets around to implementing any changes the 1990s will be more than half over. Leadership is required but not to take us back to the standards of the 1980s, because our current economic situation just will not allow that. Our social security net can no longer continue to be championed by proponents of the status quo. Quite frankly, it fails the legitimate needs of Canadians as we move into the 21st century.
The challenge I bring here today is to re-think universality and what it means. I use the word challenge because I do not
have to impress on anyone the fragility of our social programs as we face a staggering federal deficit and debt.
There is a continuing and increasing sense of panic in our business communities and among the constituents I represent. It is rather like the panic you would feel if you suddenly found yourself unable to pay for this wonderful dinner you had just eaten at a city restaurant, after having been encouraged and invited to take whatever you wanted from the menu. Just imagine that the dinner is over, the last coffees have been poured and the waiter brings the bill. You have no cash. So you give the waiter your credit card, but he comes back saying that it is over your credit limit. You try to write a cheque but the waiter will not accept it.
So how do we explain this crisis in terms of a country? More important, how do we explain this crisis in terms of people?
I was elected on a platform that offers hope to all the people of Canada. But I can tell you one thing: No one is prepared for rhetoric any longer, nor for promises that cannot be kept. To realize that I only have to go back to my election campaign. I met so many voters on the doorsteps who were fed up, disappointed, either out of work or worried about job loss, or who were just plain mad.
I know from these neighbourhood experiences that politics and politicians had better move toward major social change and do it fast. There has been much talk, profuse public professions of social concern for those who are less able to care for themselves: the sick, the old, the unemployed and the poor.
This leads me to believe that the legitimate role of government is to do for people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all or do as well for themselves individually or through non-government organizations.
With our mounting debt, the provision of government funds for various groups and organizations is no longer an option. As this reality becomes accepted, organizations are lowering their dependency on the public purse and indeed are taking pride in being able to sustain themselves as associations providing valuable community service without the need for taxpayers' dollars.
I can give an example. One couple in my riding has dedicated themselves to just such an idea. About a year ago, they co-founded a centre for recovering drug and alcohol abusers. This centre differs from other programs in that it provides a haven for these people for a three month period while they find themselves moving back into the mainstream of society. The need for a centre of this type is very great and there is now a large waiting list in Calgary for the services that this centre offers.
There is no immediate possibility for expansion as operations are dependent solely on the fund-raising abilities of this group and after they have taken care of their operations there really is not very much money left over at all. However, my constituents are proud that they are making a positive difference and that they are doing it independently of government funding.
I also believe that Canadians have a personal and collective responsibility to care and provide for the basic needs of people who are unable to care and provide for themselves. We can no longer afford, either morally or financially, to provide all things to all people.
This notion of universality has bred entitlement over assistance for those who really need help to care for themselves. As an idea, universality has a major economic impact because it continues to feed the national debt, now a half trillion dollars. It is time for a new definition that does not include social programs being run by bureaucrats.
Canadian society is founded on the principles of fundamental justice. Therefore a new approach is to consider rational and compassionate care for the poor, the sick, the aged and the young, ensuring that 100 per cent of those who need help will receive it 100 per cent of the time.
I remember door-knocking during the election campaign and being asked over and over again about the Reform's plan to include old age security reductions as it moved to balance the budget. It was a hard thing for people to understand, but I explained that our plan called for a reduction and gradual elimination of those old age security payments to homes whose family income exceeded the national average income of $54,000.
Many people in my riding could never have imagined having money like that. If they did they said they would gladly forgo some it to assist those less able to care for themselves. However, entitlement has blurred the lines of real need and we find ourselves with an idea that is out of date and financially unworkable.
I believe in the common sense of my constituents. Nowhere is this better exemplified than by a group of seniors living in a Calgary Southeast provincially subsidized housing complex. They came to know me pretty well during the campaign because I would often stop by there and have coffee with them. They represent one of those groups who I see will need continued help and support through targeted social spending.
The last time I had coffee with them was just before the election. I was asked: "Will you come back and have coffee with us, Jan, after you're elected?" They had pretty positive sense there. "We want you to speak for us, to remember us, and to stop by once in a while so that we can see that you have not changed and that you are still the same". They expect no less than what I
consistently offered, the truth and a commitment to try which is what I offer here again today.
My experience with the people in my riding tells me that compassion must play a large role in the delivery mechanisms that support social services to Canadians in need.
In closing, I would like to say that our compassion, coupled with rational decision-making, will make the difference. It is simply a matter of acting on our vision. When you dream great dreams as big as this country the good happens and this is what captures the heart.