Daphne Jennings

[Petitions, May 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition with another 125 names to add to petitions already presented to this House regarding grandparents rights and the rights of grandchildren. It is the wish of these petitioners that we address their problem and vote in nature with it.

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow my hon. colleague. I agree with what he had to say.

It is helpful to have this type of motion presented every now and then for a reality check to see if anything has changed in Parliament.

I will speak today about parliamentary reform. When we first arrived here in the cold of the winter 1993-94, I took on the responsibility of chairing the group in my party particularly interested in parliamentary reform. Except for the members for Lethbridge and Beaver River, we were all pretty new at this and we felt that with a little change here and there and a slight move parliamentary rules could probably be changed quite easily.

We became quick learners, realizing rules and traditions grown up over many years were not so easily changed. I admit in some instance we became aware of the need for these rules and why they should be left alone.

If life is a great learning experience, parliamentary life is at least doubly so. Two things happened very early in this Parliament that led me to believe real change was possible. The first was the introduction and subsequent adoption of the government motion which directed the procedure and House affairs committee to study a whole range of matters dealing with reform.

The motion referred to freer voting, sending bills to committee prior to second reading, allowing committees to draft bills, referendums, recall and other methods by which backbenchers or private members could become more involved in the policy influencing process.

The second matter that gave me hope was the adoption of my private members' Motion No. 89. During the third hour of debate it was amended by the government to read:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should continue to increasingly permit members of the House of Commons to fully represent constituents' views on the government's legislative program and spending plans by adopting the position that the defeat of any government measure, including a spending measure, shall not automatically mean the defeat of the government unless followed by the adoption of a formal motion.

Notice it does not specify Private Members' Business. It was adopted unanimously. This was the setting for real change, a committee ably chaired by the member for Kingston and the Islands and a motion advanced by an opposition MP from the Reform Party calling for freer voting adopted unanimously by the House of Commons. This was the hope. Let us look at the reality.

To be fair to the members on the government side, we have seen some change, and one measure I proposed as a private members' bill was the beneficiary of this changed attitude. Bill C-232, a bill to give grandparents right of access to grandchildren, passed through the House a week ago and was sent to the justice committee for study.

The bill had been kicking around Parliament in one form or another for more than 10 years and never came this far. I have a changed attitude towards Private Members' Business to thank for at least getting the bill through second reading and off to committee. Private Members' Business does seem to be one avenue where the government is attempting to make changes.

In my discussions with members opposite regarding whether they would support the bill, I was continuously assured free votes were allowed on private members' bills. It would seem from the number of private members' bills now in committee this is true.

However, this is only the first very tentative step along the way to true freer voting in Parliament. It is almost the government saying when it really does not matter all that much, backbenchers are free to vote as they please. I believe it is time we moved this beyond the first step and started to apply freer voting to government bills as well.

We have had with Bill C-68 first hand experience with punishment being handed out to those on the government side who dared to vote against the party line.

It was the opinion of those involved in the writing of the McGrath report in 1985 and those who sat on the House management committee in 1993 that dissent should be allowed to be expressed without fear of retaliation by the leadership of the political party concerned. Both groups believed the expression of dissent would make the House a healthier place.

I have to endorse that. It would be a healthier place. It would be a place where members who felt very strongly about an issue would not have to vote the party line and could do so without fear of retribution.

What happened? We need only to look at the voting patterns in other Parliaments similar to ours to realize the confidence convention has been relaxed and the sun still rises in the east every day and governments have not crumbled.

Some members in the House on the government side today worked on the McGrath report. What happened? The reality of the day seems to be while in opposition they protest loudly but when the people of Canada give the opposition a mandate to do everything it promised to do, suddenly it is no longer the champion of democracy.

As my fellow Reform member for Calgary North reminded us all earlier, democracy has to be looked after. It has to be protected. Sadly in the House we do not have rule by the people, we have rule by the party. She was quite right.

It appears party discipline is as strong as ever. When constituents clearly tell their MP how they feel on an issue that MP is not allowed to vote to represent a democracy. Rather, he or she is punished if they have the intestinal fortitude to rise in the House and truly represent their constituents, just for keeping their promises to their constituents.

Something is wrong. We have 295 MPs but we do not have democracy. It is a sign of strength to allow dissent to be expressed. It is not a sign of weakness or of weak leadership.

Professor Philip Morton, an academic in Great Britain who has devoted a great deal of study to this issue of freer voting or cross-party voting, has concluded this phenomenon, as he calls it, has led to a growing awareness of what can be achieved by such action by backbenchers. The lack of retribution or punishment of members who vote against the party line in Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand has produced a change in attitude on the part of many MPs as they now felt their views mattered and they were really participating in the policy process.

The process had been expanded beyond the cabinet table. I say to those like Professor Robert Jackson of Carleton University who oppose freer voting on the grounds they would lead to chaos, nonsense. We are not advocating free votes on every piece of legislation. We are simply advocating limited expressions of dissent from the party line be allowed to take place without fear of repercussions from the party leadership.

What happened in the House recently on Bill C-68 showed us very clearly on the government side-and let us be honest and truthful about this-it is not a fact yet. It is something I hope will come in the House but at this time it is not a fact that members of the government can vote according to the wishes of their constituents without severe repercussions. That is a sad state of affairs.

All this bickering back and forth, all these smart, snide remarks will not change the facts or the truth. Let us stop with the silliness and start dealing with the truth. It is a fact that happened in the House.

I spent many years teaching and I tried to tell students one thing. When one debates one does not make smart cracks or snide remarks to people; one deals with facts. When students debated in competition in British Columbia, which is the only experience I have to go on, judges and their peers sat in the back row. If a student were to ever make a point without fact there was a stroke right across the card. That student was never able to win in points on debate. I am really sorry because I thought when we reached this level we would see people really using wisdom and experience.

I have seen some excellent debaters in the House. I am always so sorry when I see this cheap shot being taken. I hope we can start remembering to treat each other more with respect in the House and debate as the House is worthy.

We would like to see the intent of Motion No. 89 adopted unanimously by the House to be applied to government bills. I also congratulate those on the other side who voted against the party line on Bill C-68, but definitely not because they went against the party line. They allowed the wishes of their constituents to be expressed in Parliament at great personal risk to their political futures. They are to be congratulated, not condemned. They should remember they can always find an ideological home right here. I think we still have some spare seats.

Moving on to other aspects of reform, committees, two in particular, have been allowed to draft bills. One bill deals with electoral boundaries and the other with lobbying.

We on this side are concerned that at least with regard to the lobbying bill it was ultimately drafted to corresponded with instructions from either the Prime Minister's office or the privy council office. However, it seems we have made a start in this area, albeit tentative, and we should do much more with regard to committees drafting legislation. No one knows better than I how much time the drafting of legislation takes and then securing support for the legislation, but we owe it to our constituents to take this time.

Will legislation be coming forward to allow for referendums to be of help on moral issues such as physician assisted suicide? What about the recall of members of Parliament who are not doing their jobs? What about legislation to provide for citizens initiatives?

I hope I am not wrong, but I believe to effect these changes we will have to change places with the political party opposite.

[Petitions, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the last petition requests that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms to include the phrase sexual orientation.

[Petitions, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the fourth petition requests that Parliament protect the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.

[Petitions, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition requests that Parliament protect the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada by not allowing assisted suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

[Petitions, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this morning I have a few petitions to present from constituents around British Columbia.

The first petition requests that Parliament revise the prohibited weapons order to exclude item (t), namely the Swiss target rifle. Some are used for competition and the petitioners would like to see them excluded.

The second petition is on behalf of British Columbians. They request that Parliament reject Bill C-68 on firearms.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 9th, 1995]

I am sure they do. I am hearing from the opposite side that they do. What do they discuss? Surely Canadians in the Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario and the rest of Canada are not happy with the MP pension plan. I find it very hard to believe that only Reform constituents are concerned about this terrible injustice. How did this pension plan get so far out of control?

Bill C-85 suggests some changes to the existing MP pension plan, but are they really constructive changes? The purpose of Bill C-85 regarding contribution and benefit rates decreases the accrual rate from 5 per cent to 4 per cent. I understand the recommendation was 2 per cent. This is still double the rate of most private pension plans. It also lowers the rate at which individual members contribute to the plan from 11 per cent to 9 per cent. If Reform MPs opt out, as they plan to do, how will this plan be supported?

Bill C-85 proposes a very generous age for retirement, 55 years of age. I started a new career at 55. I am sure that with the hardships in today's society many other Canadians are having to look for new routes to follow as well. I believe 60 or 65 would be more appropriate to discuss as a future MP retirement age with a pension.

Bill C-85 eliminates double dipping, although we see benefits will continue to grow under generous inflation indexing provisions. I am concerned about the opting in clause, which requires that MPs who wish to be included in the plan indicate this within 60 days of the bill receiving royal assent, but further that those MPs can never get back into the plan.

Reformers are committed to reform, and reform means to change things that need to be changed. If Reformers stick with determination and commitment to work to change the way government legislation reads at this time and if they should be successful in finally bringing about a decent pension plan that is comparable to the private sector plans, then why would Reformers or anyone else disgusted with the present government abuse of taxpayers' dollars who had previously opted out of this plan not be entitled to receive a more decent pension plan?

I am not against pension plans. It is my firm belief that everyone who works is entitled to a decent pension plan, one that in this case should reflect that government is living within its means. Members of Parliament should receive pensions that are comparable to those that ordinary Canadians receive in the private sector and that meet all requirements for registration under the Income Tax Act. This bill clearly does not accomplish this. Reform has called for the government to bring their pensions down to private sector levels. Clearly they have failed to do this.

Reformers are average people, with families and mortgages. They would love to belong to a reasonable pension plan. These so-called reductions to the Liberals' pension plan barely make a dent in the cost to taxpayers. According to Treasury Board officials, most of the savings we will see are actually due to actuarial factors, not the government's changes.

Taxpayers are still paying over three and a half times as much as the individual members are for their pensions, with $3.50 from the government for every $1 for the Liberal contributor. The taxpayer's contribution is still too much. The only thing I like about the Liberals' pension scheme is that all MPs have a chance to opt out; in other words, to make a statement. They can tell the government to leave this money where it belongs: in the taxpayers' pockets. That is what all of the Reform MPs are doing.

Members in the House are in a very privileged position. As I have said before, not only do we make laws and budgets that affect all Canadians, we also set our own remuneration, our own salaries, our own pensions and our own perks. This is a responsibility not many people have, and one that must be protected from abuse. Herein lies the problem.

Perhaps the most disturbing part of all this is the government's attempt to hide just how generous their plan really is. They tell us in the public accounts how much each member spends maintaining their office or travelling and how much their salary is, but they will not tell us the cost of their pension. This information must be made readily available now and in the future. How else can the public judge the fairness of this scheme?

In an effort to skirt the issue of MPs' pensions in the next election, new MPs elected to the 36th Parliament will not be allowed to opt out. The Liberals do not seem to realize that until substantive reforms are made to this plan, likely by a Reform government, it will continue to be an election issue. The government professes to have brought down a tough budget. I do not think it was tough enough, certainly not in this area.

We cannot keep spending money we do not have. The interest payments are killing our jobs and our economy. Watching the government cut the benefits other Canadians get and raise taxes on necessities like gasoline and utilities, so far it appears the only thing the budget has been tough on are taxpayers' wallets. It is time to admit we cannot afford to pay millions of dollars in retirement benefits to politicians

I remind all members how privileged a position we hold. It is a position of trust. Not only do we make decisions that affect all Canadians, we also establish our own remuneration. Not many people have this power and responsibility. We must guard against its abuse.

The best protection against abuse would be the introduction of citizen based powers like initiative, referendum and recall. In the absence of these measures it is a pretty clear indication this power is being misused when 52 members feel they must opt out of the government's pension plan on principle.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on Bill C-85 because when I ran for election in the 1993 campaign the MPs' pension plan was a major concern to my constituents in Mission-Coquitlam.

As a Canadian I was angry about the lucrative plan, which is an insult to the Canadian taxpayer. I promised when campaigning that I would do everything I could to try to change the MP pension plan. Today I hope there is someone in government who is listening, someone who cares.

I know many Liberals are concerned about the plan. I am sure there are others in the House besides Reformers who find the existing plan repulsive and have difficulty accepting the plan as it is.

I hope the government will take a long, hard look at the bill and reconsider its approach to rush the bill through Parliament, recognizing that the better process would be to allow more study on the bill and a lengthy debate.

Perhaps one major concern here is that members of Parliament make the decisions regarding their own remuneration. It is way past the time when MPs should set their own wages. The public has no input. By sending 52 Reform MPs to Ottawa, our constituents, many in the west, were saying among other things that they were sick of the obscene pension plan and wanted it changed.

Sometimes when politicians come to Ottawa they forget the very people they are supposed to represent, the Canadian taxpayers. I really wonder how many of the Liberal members of Parliament visit regularly with their constituents.

[Old Age Security Act, May 8th, 1995]

I am on Motion No. 3 right now, Madam Speaker.

In answer to the Bloc proposal, I must conclude that we should address accountability and efficiency at the same time. Reformers prefer that one tribunal should operate within the existing moneys allotted to the Canadian pension plan tribunal. I would hope the government would address the wisdom of such a move.

Under clause 46 of the bill, the government wishes to credit into the Canada pension plan account extra money from the consolidated revenue fund to help administer the Canadian Pension Plan Act. Again I stress that Reformers would like to see this new tribunal function with the existing funding it currently employs.

If Canadians are having to make do with less and work harder for less there is no reason why a government tribunal should not find ways to do the same. These are hard times we are into today. While we would like to be optimistic, it is incumbent on us to reinforce in the Canadian electorate that we do care and are sincere in addressing cutbacks. Since it is the public's money being administered here there must be some accountability in the process.

[Old Age Security Act, May 8th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, our concerns with this bill as it now stands with its proposed amendments relate to a closer examination of the bill which reveals some aspects of it are contrary to the public interest because they involve a reduction in bureaucratic accountability. Our proposed amendment is an attempt to correct the most flagrant of these violations of the public interest.

I will first speak on the proposed Bloc amendments. Grouping three motions deals with a combination of two review tribunals into one. At the present time there are two review tribunals, one under the old age security and one under the Canada pension plan. Bill C-54 proposes to combine the two. The Bloc motion is against the idea.

As Reformers we are against waste caused by duplicity and extra waste of time which will result in extra costs as well. As usual, when extra labour is involved taxpayers will find themselves involved in paying more taxes. I fear in this case it will be a waste of overall tax dollars. Hence, Reform is opposed to the Bloc motion to retain the two tribunals but is in favour of creating one panel from two. This suggests a more accountable spending of our tax dollars. Hence, less government is better government as I see it.

I will digress a bit and give an example. Government is expensive. Costs rise and we have more bureaucracy. It follows that if we try to eliminate unnecessary numbers even in the Chamber we do not have to increase the numbers of MPs to have good government. If we try to decrease the numbers we are looking at a government which will be just as effective, maybe even more.

Let us look at some of the statistics. According to my figures the United States has about 270 million people and about 435 representatives. We have 27 million people and 295 representatives.

I was recently in the United States talking to some American citizens, asking whether they feel they had adequate representation. They told me they felt adequately represented. I am coming back to less government which we are addressing today.

If the new electoral boundaries act becomes law we will have even more representatives in the House. I am aware that my province of British Columbia stands to benefit from the increase in numbers. However, when we look at the costs of roughly $500,000 per member for office budget, travel costs, telephone, salary, et cetera, it is an enormous cost to the taxpayer. If we can make do without that, I think we should.

If there is less government interference in Canadian lives it is more than possible Canadians will be happier. I have often heard expressed in my riding that people would like less interference by government in their lives. Consequently it follows that less government is better government. It will enable us to cut the fat.

I will use an example to help express my feelings. In March 1991 the report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate made recommendations. In the report to the Senate and the House of Commons on matters of joint interest these recommendations include in general terms where savings could be found in five areas.

It suggested a greater collaboration between the two Houses on a wide range of matters; for instance, the Senate buses and the busses we use. We could have one system. Others included contracting out of various services, review and reduction of service levels, increased transparency of House expenditures and efficiency improvements.

Again, what am I talking about? We are returning to cost efficiency. We are returning to saving taxpayers money. I have to oppose the Bloc amendment and agree with the government one at this time, that we do condense and go to one overall body.

I make this comparison mainly to point out that wherever possible in government matters it is our responsibility as legislators to show accountability through cutting out duplication, no matter where it occurs. Taxpayers would feel we are making an effort to watch the spending of tax dollars while at the same time maintaining efficiency and responsibility.