Daphne Jennings

[Rights Of Grandparents, December 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I must disagree, although I thank the parliamentary secretary for his answer.

I would really like an answer from the Prime Minister. Does he realize that a child's right of access to his or her family has been recognized in the convention of the child of the United Nations in 1989 and accepted by Canada in 1991? Legislation similar to this is in place now in Great Britain, the United States and Quebec.

What will the Prime Minister tell Canadian grandchildren who face yet another Christmas without their grandparents?

[Rights Of Grandparents, December 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

In light of the fact that the justice committee did not ratify Bill C-232 on December 7 and thereby did not support grandparents' right to ask the court for continuous access to their grandchildren, would the Prime Minister explain what he intends to do to support and strengthen families in Canada?

[Supply, December 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly aware that Bill C-107 was passed. I did not get a chance to speak on it and I very much wanted to. With 52 MPs on the Reform side, many of us do not get to speak on the issues we would like to speak on. Since it impacts directly on this I certainly wanted an opportunity to do so.

No one represents the people. I must insist that all the names the hon. member mentioned were appointed, as she said, but who is representing the people of British Columbia? Nobody is.

Aboriginal people have been in distress for too long. Those who know their Canadian history will realize that not just the aboriginal people were in distress in the history of the country. They should know about the Acadians who were torn asunder, who lost family members, who lost their lands, who were sent all over the world and had nothing. Nobody paid them anything. No one re-established them. Nobody did anything. They were good, worthwhile people.

We also had the Loyalists who were driven out of the United States to Canada. They had nothing. They had to leave. What did we do when the Loyalists came to Canada? We did not give them anything to set up. They had to do it on their own. Today they are better off having done that. It makes their lives a lot easier. Too bad we did not do that with the native people.

What about Japanese Canadians? We just took and took. With these examples I am trying to say to the hon. member that we have made mistakes. We admit we have made mistakes, but is it not time to start on an equal basis for everyone? I strongly suggest we should.

Regarding my householders, I keep track and I have been running at a 2 per cent to 6 per cent return. I have about 58,000 in my riding. We do not have them all in at this time because it only went out and we are waiting. We have had over 1,500 returned, so it is 91 per cent of the 1,500. That is the best I can tell the member right now.

[Supply, December 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will keep an eye on the clock and I hope you will help me out because I am not sure how this will go.

I rise today to speak in opposition to Bill C-107, an act to establish the British Columbia Treaty Commission and to speak in favour of our motion to urge the government to not enter into any binding trilateral aboriginal treaty or land claim agreements in B.C. in the last years of the current provincial government's mandate.

In fact, this bill does not establish the treaty commission, it continues it and legalizes it. It is just what we need, another legally entrenched layer of bureaucracy. It is another group of appointees with their own staff to be paid for by the people of Canada. I

oppose the establishment of this treaty commission in British Columbia because it is simply not necessary.

In British Columbia we have no treaties. We have a reserve system. The legal entrenchment of this commission prejudges the outcome of the land claims negotiations which are presently taking place in British Columbia.

I can tell you that the people of British Columbia are very concerned about this treaty negotiation process. Just a few days ago I hosted in my riding of Mission-Coquitlam an information evening on aboriginal issues which was attended by over 200 people. They are very concerned that fishing rights and lumbering rights will be bargained away as part of the settlement process. They also believe they should be a part of any settlement process.

Mel Smith, the well known, well respected author of Our Home or Native Land? attended the meeting. He stated that British Columbia has already done its duty to its native people by setting up more than 1,600 reserves. He argues that by doing this British Columbia has discharged any duty it owed to the aboriginal people. As well, the government could compensate the native people with a one time cash payment for loss of hunting, trapping and gathering rights over the lands.

It is our intention to ensure that Canada's native people become completely self-reliant. We would like to preside over the dismantling of the department of Indian affairs, thus allowing aboriginal people to become self-sufficient. This should be the goal for all of us in this House. Yet what do we hear? A lot of name calling from the other side. To become self-sufficient, the aboriginal people do not need a treaty commission.

It is our belief that we should get rid of the Indian Act, giving aboriginals the same right to property ownership as other citizens. Aboriginals should be subject to the same constitutional, federal and provincial laws as the rest of Canadians. They should be allowed to establish municipal style governments and benefit from the same programs as the rest of Canadians.

There is no need for this bill, but there is a need to address aboriginal issues in a timely fashion. I would like to remind members that we are not suggesting we do away with any type of negotiation. Having said this, I wish to draw the attention of the House to certain shortcomings in the bill.

The interpretation section contains a definition of First Nations. They are described as aboriginal people within their traditional territory in British Columbia. The definition begs the question of entitlement to a land base. It can be argued that by the use of the definition the aboriginal people are shown to have a prima facie case of a land claims settlement.

Again, clause 5 does the same thing. It states that the purpose of the commission is to facilitate in British Columbia the negotiation of treaties. In other words, establish this commission and we are bound to have the traditions negotiated, whether there is an entitlement or not. The process has been established.

Clause 5 obligates the commission to allocate funds to allow First Nations to participate in the process. This will be expensive. But in addition to it being expensive, it is also exclusionary.

Funding is not provided for third parties, only the aboriginal people. What about those who oppose the giveaway of British Columbia lands? I guess they will have to finance these interventions themselves. I hope they are able to. It is my understanding that in the borrowing of funds to negotiate there will be an 80:20 split. In that case, 80 per cent will be repayable; 20 per cent will be contributed by whom, the federal government, the provincial government, what part for each one?

Clause 7 of the bill establishes how the commission is to be appointed. The federal government and the B.C. government each get to appoint commissions. I do not see anyone who will simply represent the people of Canada. Are they not important? Are the members opposite saying they do not count? These appointments, all appointments to the Commission, should be subject to the approval of this House.

Clause 18 allows the commission to make necessary bylaws. We are giving the commission power to establish its own rules of procedure. At the very least, these bylaws should be tabled in this House.

Clause 22, the clause which perhaps bothers me more than any other, states that the parties can amend the agreement at any time. This is the British Columbia Treaty Commission agreement which underlies this act. It is beyond me how the bill can allow amendments to the agreement without references to Parliament.

In my last householder I asked the following question: "Do you believe that all Canadians should have equal rights and responsibilities with no special status based on racial or ethnic origin?" Ninety-one per cent answered yes. However, in addition to answering many wrote comments, some of which I should like to share. I have so many comments that I cannot share them all, but I will share some of them.

I have not done anything to the comments. I have not changed their wording. I have not corrected grammar. I have not done anything to them. These are some of the things the residents of my riding in British Columbia are saying: "Anyone born in Canada should have the same rights and be governed by the same laws. This is not true now".

"We all have our own ethnic upbringings but we do not expect to be treated differently from others. I believe that everyone regardless of race should work and pay for their property".

"Governments should put a stop to all the Indian roadblocks. I do not feel the Indian population should have special rights, especially Indians who are abusing their position and rights". There might be something there with regard to fishing rights. There has been tremendous abuse of fishing rights in British Columbia.

"We are all Canadians. We should have the same rights and laws. Practices such as giving natives the right to fish any time for their food as well as to sell those fish is making racial problems". They are. That is a truth. I do not want to sit in the House and be condemned and called names by members opposite for saying the truth. I am getting very tired of it.

"Natives should not get tax free anything. They should work like everyone else. We are suggesting that native people be given a fair chance to stand on their own two feet. Wouldn't you suggest that is the right thing to do?"

Regarding self-government, the Indian Act discriminates against aboriginal people by setting them apart from other Canadians. That is what Reform believes. I do not see how any member in the House could disagree with that. Most native people want the same rights, freedoms, responsibilities and protections of other Canadians. The Indian Act stifles its subjects from having a democratic voice in their own affairs and from having accountability in their own officials.

The inherent right to self-government is an interesting phrase. What does it mean? When Reform MPs rightly ask what is meant by self-government, the previous speaker from Peterborough attacks Reformers for wanting to know the answer. Can we imagine anyone going into negotiations without knowing what all parties mean by the terminology that is being discussed? It is absolutely ridiculous. Instead of the member for Peterborough admitting the common sense of Reform in asking this question, he attacks Reform MPs for asking it.

I have been watching government members in the House for some time now. I wonder what constantly drives them to put down other elected members of Parliament. Is it because they have no answers? They started this terrible debt that is climbing up and up and up. We are trying to deal with it today and they do not have the answers. Are they trying to take the pressure off themselves? Is it because to attack means one does not have to deal with the issues?

The member for Madawaska-Victoria called us meanspirited. She said: "What about democratic rights? Reformers are always on about democratic rights". Yes, we are. We are discussing the democratic rights of all British Columbians and of all other Canadians. The treaty process does not involve a few people. It involves all Canadians. It is time we started to be honest.

The department of Indian affairs has not worked. Can anyone say it has worked? This process which has been encouraged by this government and by past Liberal governments has created a group of Canadians who are dependent on the Canadian government.

Past Canadian governments have created an institutionalized welfare state for native people. This is not kindness. This is cruelty. I wonder how many times we have to say that. It is not the Reformers who are being cruel. The Reformers are saying we should stop all this now, help people, deal with the issues, deal with reality and stop calling names because that does not get anybody anywhere. The House is far above that sort of presentation. It really distresses me every time I hear it.

I spent many years teaching students. I always taught them that in debate, if they do not have something to say, if they cannot back it up or say it in a proper manner, they should not bother saying it at all.

I watch repeatedly in the House people tearing at each other. I would rather see facts. I would rather hear arguments that are presented properly. I really am discouraged by it.

This morning the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development directed most of his remarks to the right of Reform MPs to raise this issue in the House. Have I missed something here? Are we not all elected equally? How dare anybody question the right of Reform MPs to raise this issue in the House? That is absolutely disgusting.

He proceeded to describe Reformers as aboriginal bashers because we were making him uncomfortable; that is all I can suggest. I guess it is the old story: the best defence is an offence. I have often heard the word racist. It disgusts me too. If members take the time to look it up in the dictionary they will see that it means giving special priorities to a certain group. Reformers repeatedly say that we must all be equal. If we are all equal that is not racist. Some members should start telling the truth in the House. The House is far above the petty squabbling I witness day after day.

Native people soundly defeated the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. What does that say to members of the House? It was not suitable to them. Distinct society, as presented, was not suitable to them.

[Quebec, December 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem agreeing that Quebec and Quebecers are or constitute a distinct society. My problem is with entrenching it in the Constitution. That for me and for many Canadians creates a problem. Why should Parliament resurrect an idea that Canadians voted down in the Meech and Charlottetown accords?

I believe in the equality of all Canadians, that each province, each region and the aboriginal peoples are all distinctive in their own way. But the question of what it means to be distinct has no concrete answer at this time.

Some say it does not mean anything but simply recognizes an historical fact. Some say it means the courts when they are looking at Quebec's laws will interpret them in light of the distinctiveness of Quebec. Therefore it is an interpretative part of the Constitution.

This would be something no other province would have. If we believe in equality, then we do not believe in special powers.

Please, let us not go through this again. Let us get on with rebuilding Confederation with new ideas. Let us look at what the Reform Party has to propose for the future of our country.

[Young Offenders Act, November 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, if we do not deal seriously with these young offenders, we are not helping these young offenders. It is a horrific crime. Canadians are sick about this happening in their communities. When we ignore the crimes of children, we ignore their victims. We ignore those children who are committing the crimes and we ignore helping them.

Is the minister in favour of changing the ages in the Young Offenders Act to make young offenders responsible for their criminal actions?

[Young Offenders Act, November 20th, 1995]

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

In my riding the police are investigating a report of sexual assault against an eight-year old girl by two boys under twelve. Because of their ages the Young Offenders Act does not cover these crimes, nor do Bills C-41 and C-37.

On this morning's news, probably because of National Child's Day a priest in Ottawa spoke of his concern about the younger and younger ages of Canada's young offenders.

What does the minister intend to do about it, to hold children and their parents responsible for their children's criminal actions?

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, November 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the government's Bill C-96, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources Development.

The bill basically does little more than transfer legal powers from the former Ministry of Employment and Immigration to the new department. In summary, the enactment establishes the Department of Human Resources Development with a presiding minister to be appointed by commission under the Great Seal of Canada, with the powers, duties and functions as therein set out, and a deputy minister to be appointed by the governor in council with provision for employees. It also provides that a minister of labour may be appointed and that a deputy minister of labour may be designated. That is it.

With all the huffing and puffing the minister of human resources did regarding his intentions for social reform, Bill C-96, all 44 pages, does very little but change the name of the department and continue as usual.

I will comment on a few clauses I take issue with before I address the need for social reform especially for our seniors. I fear clause 6 means the government will continue to interfere in the provincial areas of social programs, in other words entrench the status quo that causes overlap and duplication.

Clauses 20 and 21 enable the minister to enter into negotiation with any group including the provinces and municipalities. The provinces are waiting for less interference in social programs. Reform would support real decentralization with the provision of power going directly to the provinces to administer at their discretion.

Then there is the matter of government accountability. If there is no annual report from the department how will Canadians have full knowledge regarding its administration and cost to the taxpayers? We are also kept in the dark about staffing in the new human resources department. Will it increase or decrease?

Canadians have waited a year for the discussion paper to come out. It seems we are still waiting. Once again the government, in this case the Minister of Human Resources Development, has failed Canadians. There is no meaningful social reform in the bill, no decentralization as the provinces have been asking for.

As Reform's deputy critic for human resources I must look at seniors' concerns. I must tell the House that seniors are so concerned about the future of their pensions that Canada's usual seniors groups have joined to create a coalition of seniors for social equity. The coalition consists of five major national seniors groups concerned in a large part about the future of income security programs for the elderly. It is hoped that by giving seniors a strong voice the coalition which claims to represent 500,000 seniors across Canada will ensure that government considers the wishes of seniors. The paper was written a year ago. I must consider the remarks of one senior spokesperson who stated:

When our coalition was formed, we set ourselves some rigid criteria. We decided that we, as seniors' organizations, have to face the hard facts. We have to recognize that the deficit and growing government debt are real. We have to recognize that the elderly population is growing faster than the population as a whole and that government expenditures on the elderly are increasing.

We recognize that seniors, like others in society, may have to pay higher levels of taxation and receive lower levels of government services. The seniors of today have always paid their fair share to society and will continue to be willing to do so. What they object to is being singled out to pay more than their fair share. Seniors recognize that, with due consideration and consultation, some changes may be necessary to the income security system for older Canadians.

They stated their major concern as follows:

When change is necessary, people who can adjust must be given enough time to plan and adjust, and those who cannot must have benefits continued.

People have to know what to expect when they retire so they can prepare their financial affairs well in advance.

It is interesting to note that others in society, especially the financial experts, say the same thing. Most Canadians recognize that due to the country's changing demographic profile Canada's pension system is facing a cash flow crisis.

The Canadian birth rate soared after World War II, producing a baby boom generation that will start to retire around the year 2010. The number of pensioners per working Canadian will more than double by the year 2031.

This would not be a problem if Canada's government administered pensions were funded, that is if each person's contributions to the CPP were placed in an individual account and invested. Instead the CPP is funded on a pay as we go basis. For example, the funds collected from today's workers are paid out immediately to today's pensioners. Thus every time the ratio of retirees to workers increases the per capita cost of the system to workers increases in lock step.

Canadian politicians have shown little creativity in addressing the pension funding crisis and seem to believe that the rise in pension demands can be dealt with only by cutting benefits to pensioners or by raising taxes for working Canadians. If the first of these two options is chosen, pension benefits will have to be cut by over 50 per cent by the year 2031 to keep payroll deductions for CPP at their current levels.

If the second option is chosen, taxes on working Canadians will be driven to unprecedented heights. To maintain CPP benefits at their present levels payroll deductions will have to be increased from the current level of 5.4 per cent to 10.28 per cent by the year 2011 and eventually over 14 per cent. That source is from the Canada pension plan 15th statutory actuarial report of February 1995.

Health and Welfare Canada in "Charting Canada's Future", 1989, stated:

The term "demographic aging" refers to an increase in the relative weight of the elderly in the total population. The aging of the Canadian population has come about largely because of declining fertility rates and, to a lot lesser degree, because of an increase in average life span.

By the time the post-second world war baby boomers retire roughly one in every five Canadians will be 65 years of age or more, compared to approximately one in ten today. What is more, while senior citizens will form an increasingly large proportion of the population the percentage of young people will decline.

It is wonderful news that our seniors are living longer and healthier lives. However with this fact comes the realization that our social programs must change.

Unfortunately, although the Minister of Human Resources Development promised change to our social system two years ago, we are still waiting. Why is he still compiling evidence when our government's experts have had papers written on the subject for years now? Is he hoping that through more and more consultation he can stall any meaningful change until after the next election?

I wonder when politicians will realize that Canadian voters only expect their politicians to do their best while spending the Canadian taxpayers' dollars wisely. If the government starts to show that responsibility and accountability are major considerations in any social reforms program the government initiates, the Canadian public will be supportive. If politicians do their job there is nothing to fear from voters. When politicians do not do their jobs, force unwanted legislation on Canadian voters, appoint friends and party faithful to high positions, keep Canadian citizens dependent rather than helping them to be independent and productive, Canadians lose faith in their politicians.

Our human resources minister said it in his article "Breaking Down Barriers" in The Hill Times of August 31, 1995:

By changing nothing, we are condemning people to the same old rut, the same old cycle of dependency which has been holding people back for years. And what is worse by ignoring fiscal imperative, it won't be long before the international financial community is going to come in and dictate those changes for us.

If he thinks this way, why is he doing nothing? The Liberal government promised that by the fall of 1994 it would implement comprehensive reform of Canada's social programs. Instead, in October 1994 the Minister of Human Resources Development issued a paper "Social Security in Canada". To date no meaningful legislative changes have been introduced. The minister has also promised that a comprehensive paper on aging including pensions will be issued by the end of 1995.

The Reform Party has a proposal for seniors to look at. It is responsible social reform, taking a look at reforming the Canada pension plan to secure retirement years for all Canadians.

We recognize and listen to all the experts, including the chief actuary for Canada who states that CPP will be exhausted by 2015. He predicts that CPP will be gone in 20 years. What is to become of the millions of Canadians at that time who are currently contributing to the unsustainable black hole? What happens to the next generation with no hope of receiving its benefits?

The groundwork for the Reform Party's revision of Canada's social policies was outline in the taxpayers' budget of February 1995, a blueprint for achieving both fiscal and social security for Canadians in the 21st century.

I wish there was time to go over Reform's four-point plan which addresses the seriousness of the upcoming pension crisis in Canada. Basically it deals with protection of seniors' benefits, recognition bonds, super RRSPs and survivors' benefits.

[Small Business Loans Act, October 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak on this bill but there are some things that have concerned me for some time about small business and this is an opportunity to say a few things.

Bill C-99 gives access to capital for small businesses in Canada. My concern is basically if it is really looking at small business, the value of small business to our country and just what small business needs. That is where my concern stems from, where the banks have refused to take a risk. I contend that the banks should have taken a risk in the past. We do have the Federal Business Development Bank which was in the past supposed to be the bank of last resort. Often this has not been the case and somebody else has had to come up with the funds.

If we are talking about other programs for small business, like community futures, it really does depend, as the member for Kamloops said, on the expertise of those that run those programs. I have had some experience with it and I have found that perhaps that is one of the reasons why some of the losses are a little greater than they should be.

Of course there is risk involved. There is a risk involved for anybody going into a small business and we expect some losses. However, we do not expect the amount of loss to be higher than normal businesses would have going through the banks.

There have been some successful businesses through the community futures. Some good ones are still running right now in my community. However, the difficulty with the community futures program is that some of the businesses that are successful could have been funded by the Federal Business Development Bank which is the bank of last resort. It should have been funded there, not with the taxpayers' dollars in another program.

What I am trying to say is that community futures has to be accountable. There is no bottom line. We have a Privacy Act and we cannot access that information. That is not acceptable to the Canadian taxpayers. I found the rate of losses higher and, being unaccountable, therefore unacceptable to me as an MP responsible for taxpayers' dollars.

I felt that the people going into the community futures program were protected so that perhaps the incentive to succeed may not be as great if one knows one does not have to worry if one has a loss.

In small business there is always a challenge and a risk. Those people who go into a small business are usually entrepreneurs who have some wonderful talents and expertise. We usually see good results. Unfortunately, often in community futures we do not see this because the accountability is not there. Wherever we do not have accountability we have a future problem of breakdown.

The purpose of the Federal Business Development Bank is that it is a bank of last resort. It is supposed to be the money lender of last resort.

The member for Kamloops said it very well. He said that small businesses just want the government to get out of their way. Being in small business myself I can say that this is exactly true. We need a healthy marketplace if we are in business. We need to have fewer burdens on us.

The tax structure is far too heavy today to encourage anyone to go into small business. The first couple of years are difficult. In the past if businesses had troubles the Federal Business Development Bank was not always there to back them up but often put them into receivership at a time when all they needed was some support to get through. I would suggest the Federal Business Development Bank has not always done its job in the past.

Small businesses want less government interference. They need some incentive. We are talking about younger people coming into the marketplace. I have often mentioned this in my community and I have talked to small businesses in my community about this. There is a program in Europe where small businesses apprentice a younger person coming out of a college, a technical school or whatever. If our small businesses apprenticed a young person for a year, they would be providing a training program built into the most natural area possible. It would be built into the marketplace, the economy, into a natural spot in the economy, in a working spot in the economy.

I honestly feel when speaking to small businesses this is an avenue we could travel. Considering small business supplies about 80 per cent of jobs, I feel this is an ideal opportunity for our young people that are unemployed with nowhere to go to get the training they need if they do not have it.

Why is the small business person going to do this? There would obviously have to be some incentive. Perhaps a tax break in some area would help as small business is overtaxed already. They have the fewest tax breaks. Big business seems to qualify for them where small business does not. I would really like to see the government take a look at some serious ideas for helping small business in this area.

The banks have not always lived up to their responsibilities. They are there to encourage small business and they are there to do it in a realistic way.

[Small Business Loans Act, October 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the member for Kamloops that I found his speech very interesting. I share his enthusiasm for small business and realize the importance of it. I am concerned about one particular item, community futures. I would like to have his expertise on this.

Taxpayers' money is being used by community futures. Granted, some of the businesses that apply do very well and have some excellent results. However a high rate of those businesses do not succeed and, at least in the ones I happened to scrutinize, there does not appear to be any accountability for losses. This is the taxpayers' money and I am sure taxpayers feel they should know how it is being spent. The Privacy Act seems to get in the way when we inquire about accountability.

I wonder what the member for Kamloops feels regarding losses in the community futures program and does he feel there should be some accountability?