Daphne Jennings

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question although I am surprised he heard anything I did say. I was having difficulty.

I must tell the hon. member the UI program should be exactly what it was designed for when it was first brought in. It is for temporary job loss. It should be sustained by the employees and the employers and only those people. I strongly think there should be no artificial fund. The size of government should be cut down.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I will be splitting my time. I should have mentioned it beforehand. Thank you for trying to bring a bit of order back to the House.

The government has raised corporate taxes and imposed a tax on bank profits. Who does the government think will pay for these taxes? Maybe it does not know. I can tell everyone these taxes will be paid by the little guy, the consumer. Anyone who believes they will not be passed on to the consumer should immediately sign up for a reality check. There is only one taxpayer: the ordinary taxpayer like you and me.

It is my belief that the tax increases we have seen in the budget are an admission of failure by the government, failure to cut spending sufficiently. Above all, why would the government assume people are willing to go on through a tax increase, paying more for more government? Was the government not listening to the people of Canada? It cannot ignore the people for too much longer.

I am concerned about the long range effect of this budget. While the deficit reduction contained in it amounts to a first tentative step in the right direction, this reduction will be quickly eliminated if interest rates rise or the dollar does not remain strong. If we enter another economic downturn, all calculations will be off considerably.

I am concerned the government will not follow through on its plans to reduce personnel. No matter how governments try, and many have, to reduce the size of the public service, the bureaucrats seem always to prove more resolute in keeping their jobs than politicians are in getting rid of them.

Departments disappear or are amalgamated, but is there a reduction in staff? Not usually. If it does occur, it is usually because the public servant found another public service job in another department. There is no real reduction. We will be watching the government closely to see that it meets its reduction target.

What would the Reform Party have done in these circumstances? Unlike prior opposition parties, people actually do know what we would have done. We set it out quite clearly in the taxpayers budget. The taxpayers budget sets out exactly what we would have cut as far as programs are concerned.

By not following the Reform Party's plan, over $50 billion will be paid to service the national debt in 1996-97. The government's target of having the deficit lower than 3 per cent of the GDP is just nonsense. Either we have a deficit, or we do not. Either we believe it should be eliminated, or we do not.

We believe every effort should be made in the next three years to eliminate the deficit. Once the deficit is eliminated it allows us room to move, room to explore programs that would open up new doors for business and industry. More money would be put back into the economy.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the government's overall fiscal plan.

The budget which deals with raising money and how it is spent and the borrowing powers which make up for the shortfall in revenue go together to make up the government's fiscal plan for the coming financial year. At least that is how an economist might explain it.

In reality, there is no plan to reduce the deficit to zero allowing us to address the country's mounting debt. The budget falls short of pointing out the means by which Canada is to get to ground zero: zero deficit.

As well, the borrowing bill, which has been and is the subject of debate in this Chamber, is usually explained as necessary to make up for the shortfall in revenues, revenues being less than expenditures. In reality the money borrowed has nothing to do with the shortfall in revenues. It is the failure of the government to cut its expenditures which necessitates a borrowing bill of this size.

This is a failure that will haunt us for years to come, for if ever there was a time when the people of Canada were ready to see tough decisions made and leadership shown, it was on February 27. However, the government, afraid that its standing in the polls might suffer, took the tried and true Liberal way out. It put off tough decisions for another day. If it puts these decisions off for more than three years, they will not be this government's decisions to make.

The budget can be compared to a bad science fiction novel or movie. It is lost in time; it is lost in space.

It is lost in time because it comes a year too late and proposes some tough measures, but even they are to start only next year and are phased in over a number of years. If they had begun this year and not been phased in they would have substantially reduced the deficit. This is a major complaint.

It is lost in the broad space or expanse of Canada because it does not meet head on the problems of our economy. It seems to be a classic case of misunderstanding the mood of the people of Canada with this budget.

The space in history, the history of making tough decisions was there for the finance minister and his merry band of followers from the finance department to enter but they declined. They chose instead to nibble around the edges of the problem rather than meet it with courage and a plan for the future.

This is not the type of budget we in the Reform Party would have brought down. This is not the type of fiscal planning the Reform Party could have entered into. It is for these fundamental reasons that I cannot support this budget or any of the bills that flow from it.

What then does the budget do? It raises taxes. The finance minister made grand gestures of self-congratulation for not raising personal income tax. Yes, he is right. He did not.

Instead, he imposed a tax increase for gasoline, a commodity consumed by Canadians rich or poor. As well, changes were made to RRSP rules so that those who receive severance packages when they leave their employment will only be able to contribute $2,000 to an RRSP instead of the current $8,000, harming their future plans for retirement.

The timing is off here as it is with the rest of the budget. Canadians are now entering an era when they are concerned that private pension plans or even the Canada pension plan will not meet their retirement needs.

The rate at which the $40 billion Canada pension plan is deteriorating surprises even those who researched and wrote the 15th statutory actuarial report which was recently tabled in the

House of Commons. The last such report was written and tabled five years ago. Between then and now the report author found that two of the primary reasons for the deterioration have been a doubling of the number of disability claims and a lowering of contributions because of job losses during the recent recession.

As a leading financial adviser and retirement specialist from Vancouver stated recently: "I now look at CPP in the same way that I view UI. We all pay it but many of us will never collect it".

Will the Canada pension plan still exist for baby boomers as they begin to retire 15 or 20 years from now? The chances of CPP as we know it today surviving that long are very slim. I suggest there are none. This reality caught our attention last month when the Liberal government actuarial report concluded that if CPP contributions are not increased and benefits continue as now legislated, the plan which today supposedly contains just over $40 billion will be gone by the year 2015.

This is not only a boomer issue. The future of CPP will have a greater impact on the generation Xers who are destined to struggle in the wake of the baby boomers for at least half their job seeking and working lives.

At present five Canadian workers support each retired CPP collecting pensioner, with middle age boomers making up the majority of today's workers. However, by the time boomers start to collect CPP there will only be two to three workers to support each pensioner. Will the generation Xers, who are having it tougher economically than their boomer parents, be willing or able to pay a lot more in CPP contributions to support their parents' public pensions?

If the government had seriously addressed this year's budget and made the necessary cuts, then Canada could be on the road to recovery and the future for our future senior Canadians would not look so bleak.

Canadians were looking for a tougher budget. If over the last 25 years governments had been responsible, if thousands of dollars had not been given away in unnecessary grants which have already been talked about in this House, if new programs such as multiculturalism had not been devised to initiate help to groups of people who have always been strong enough in their feelings and respect and pride in their distinctive culture to establish and fund their own commemorative centres and festivals, if the past governments had managed the taxpayers' hard earned dollars, their tax dollars instead of mismanaging them, and if the present government would seriously look at cutting programs which drain our resources and seriously cripple the government's ability to maintain necessary seniors programs, the government would not be so desperate to raise more revenue on the backs of those very Canadians who trusted the past Liberal and Conservative governments to spend those tax dollars wisely.

Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to think I am in front of one of the chatty classes I have had over the past 30 years.

The government had an opportunity to put in force measures which, although tough, would actually help the taxpayer and not increase taxes, or revenue in the form of more taxes. However, that is not the case.

What does the government do to collect a little more revenue? It changes the RRSP rules, another hidden tax. If we think that is bad, how about this? Lessen the payouts for unemployment insurance but not the premiums because the government wants to build up a surplus. Unemployment insurance is a payroll tax and by not reducing premiums, another hidden tax is involved. However, this tax-

[Question Period, March 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House when I asked my question, a Liberal member referred to me with the insulting word "scum". Although this member apologized at the end of the proceedings, the damage had been done and I did not have the opportunity to reply.

I wonder if members of this House realize it is how we treat one another which disgusts our viewing audience at home. This childish display of verbal attacks on members of this House during question period is an attempt to intimidate those very members for whom the question period is designed. This display shows a lack of respect for this House, a contempt for this House-

[Supply, March 23rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I do not usually speak on the subject of defence but I thought it was important for me to take part in this debate.

I grew up in a home where during my early years my father was away at war. He fought in four wars; World War I, the Palestinian uprising, the Irish rebellion and World War II.

It was a great honour and pleasure to grow up in a family that believed in peace and knew how necessary it was to fight so others could enjoy peace in the world. My father was extremely proud of his military career. However, I have often heard it said that those who are involved in and see the terrible tragedies of war rarely want to talk about it. Such a man was my father. He had seen too much suffering.

After World War II when my father returned to us in 1945 he became a member of the Canadian Legion, an organization which has worked very hard and established a place for ex-service men and women to meet and remember those who did not return, their fallen comrades.

Later in the 1970s when my father passed away in a military hospital in British Columbia, once again the Canadian Legion came to serve our family. The Legion members provided Legion ex-servicemen as pall bearers out of respect for my father's position and rank while he served in the armed forces.

I was younger then and did not become involved with the Legion and its activities at that time. However, since I have been elected as an MP I was asked to become an honorary member of the Legion out of respect for my father. I have come to see first hand the wonderful programs and initiatives given by Legion members to my community for everyone in the community to enjoy.

Last year I spoke at the opening of a beautiful band shell in the centre of the lovely town of Maple Ridge. Legion members enlisted the help of the community to construct this band shell. Those who supported the enterprise paid for it.

Legion members also run the annual Remembrance Day ceremonies as well as the Canada Remembers program. We planted thousands of tulips in the riding last fall. I am looking forward to May this year when we acknowledge the freedom of Holland on May 6 with all those wonderful tulips in bloom in my community.

Last weekend once again I attended legion ceremonies being held to honour two very special young cadets from Maple Ridge. Cadet flight Sergeant Lesley Reitel received congratulations for the top music award in Canada for her performance in a military band. Flight Sergeant Andraena Tilgner received the award of excellence for an all round outstanding performance as a cadet. She was one of 12 recipients in all of Canada. Both were students at Maple Ridge high school.

This recognition given to young people across Canada is yet another service given by our legionaries, our ex-servicemen and ex-service women, present and past members of the military who encourage our young people in the highest schools of achievement and work ethics.

Fortunately these legionaries did not have a government disgrace their battalions, dismissing them as though they never were. These ex-service personnel have a pride in their war service to their country. It is a pride that develops because you are giving to your country. You are defending a way of life we all hold dear. You are following in the footsteps of brave men and brave women who have gone before you, many who have given their lives.

In World War I and World War II we had a large regular force and a large vibrant reserve force. What has happened since that time? Why the necessity for the debate today? Why have we put ourselves in the position where Canada's military with its proud traditions of courage and intervention on all fronts has to be defended and lifted up, not by the government, not by the recognized opposition party, but by the third party, the newest party in the Chamber, the Reform Party?

Let us look to the history since 1945. Slowly but surely the world changed. We had the cold war when were were dependent on the United States for our protection should there be a nuclear war. Fortunately that never came to pass. During the cold war period it became evident that Canada could not defend its land mass on its own without help from the United States.

Having come to this conclusion there were only three other uses for our military: serve with the new peacekeeping ventures organized under the auspices of the United Nations, give support to the civil power within our borders and be ready to support our NATO allies.

This could then lead to the decision to start to cut military budgets. This was especially true during the Trudeau era. The military budgets began to be cut as money was needed to keep the deficit as low as possible. Government funds were being used for extra social programs.

During the Conservative years the budget of the Canadian forces was cut so severely that it became evident that our military policy was actually being set by the Department of Finance. However during this period our military maintained its commitment to world peace. We sent peacekeepers whenever, wherever asked. When a real war was imminent and finally broke out in the Persian gulf our ships were there right behind the United States navy.

All this is to the credit of Canada's armed forces. It really did manage to do more with less. However in 1993 after the general election it looked like things would change for the Department

of National Defence. The government mounted two studies, both carried out by special joint committees: one on defence and one on foreign policy. We in the Reform Party participated in both. Why wouldn't we? What an opportunity. After years of being ignored members of Parliament were actually being asked for their input on defence and foreign policy.

The committees met, held hearings and reported. In the case of the defence committee we supported the majority view. One of the main conditions we set forth for the report was that the defence budget would not be cut any more than it was in the 1994 budget. Having drawn this line in the sand we compromised even further. We decided to go along with the cuts in spending which would total $1 billion over three years. This was our last line in the sand. We even incorporated defence cuts into our taxpayers budget.

Why do we believe the cuts should go no further than outlined by the special joint committee on defence policy? Quite simply we believe Canada should have a combat capable multi-purpose armed forces.

With a budget lower than that recommended by the Senate joint committee we will have to start cutting capabilities. We will not be able to continue to meet our international commitments. We will have to start saying no when the nations of the world come calling for help. We will have to start picking and choosing when new peacekeeping and peace building requests come from the United Nations. In the event of another gulf war we could join in but only if the war lasted for a considerable period of time; it will take us a while to get ready.

Let us look within the country to see the effects of the cuts. It is difficult to explain the anger and alienation felt in certain parts of the west over the treatment by government which has its heart and soul in central Canada. The government has taught the west another lesson with the last two budgets. It is a lesson westerners learned well during the Trudeau years. The lesson is simply that Liberals do not understand the west. They play old style politics with us. "If you didn't return any Liberals to Ottawa we will get even with you", say the Liberals. "In this case we will close your bases". Witness Calgary, Chilliwack, Cold Lake, Jericho Beach and added to last year's closures especially Royal Roads. The government has decimated the military in the west.

Land forces for western Canada will now be located in Edmonton. That will certainly teach all westerners a lesson: vote Liberal or a Liberal government will hurt them severely.

The closure of the bases will mean hardships for many living in the communities, but in the cases of Chilliwack and Calgary it makes little economic sense. It will cost millions and millions of dollars to move the two bases to Edmonton. In my opinion money will not be saved.

The problems between the government and the military go much deeper than budget cuts. They go to the very core of the problems with the Prime Minister's government. The government does not understand the military. I am referring to the disgraceful treatment of Canada's airborne regiment at the hands of the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence.

No one condones the killing of the Somali youth. No one condones the hazing rituals shown so graphically on our television sets. However, why punish the entire Canadian military by disbanding the regiment? The young men and women who thought their futures were with the regiment have had their dreams dashed, have been uprooted and moved away all because the government was too weak kneed to deal appropriately with superior officers, those in the senior ranks who because of their very position are supposed to pay the price if something goes wrong in the trenches. It is not supposed to be the other way around. Then we have the spectacle of the Minister of National Defence stating daily as soon as the courts martial are over that he will establish an independent inquiry.

The minister disbanded the regiment and is to hold an inquiry into what? It does not exist any more. It is interesting to speculate on what would happen if the inquiry results in the finding that a few highly placed officers were to blame but the regiment was fundamentally sound. Will the minister breathe life into the airborne, bring it back? If not, why not?

The government does not understand the military. We in the Reform Party understand and we will fight hard to ensure there are no more cuts.

I am proud to be a Canadian and I am proud of the country's military heritage. I would have thought the Prime Minister, with his years of experience, could have fought hard to keep our military a multi-purpose combat capable force.

[Access To Information, March 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to take part in this very important debate on Motion No. 304. This is a motion which I believe everyone in the House should support. What better way to show Canadians that we got the message the people sent a little more than a year ago?

If we can ever say that when Canadians go to the polls they speak with one voice, it was in the results of the 1993 election. The electorate wanted fundamental changes to the way politics are conducted in this country. Canadians took great pains to ensure that a message was sent throughout the political world.

If politicians ever thought they were above the people or in some cases above the law, that election proved to be a great leveller. Now that we are here, it is important we do not breach the trust which was placed in us.

Parliament is subject to the charter of rights and freedoms. How can Parliament and the crown agencies establishes and is a shareholder in not be subject to the Access to Information Act? A committee in the last Parliament studying the Access to Information Act likened it to the charter as one of the fundamental tenets of our society. Therefore it seems to me that if we are bound by one we should be bound by the other.

I know the Access to Information Act is used by opposition MPs and the press to dig up as much dirt as they can in order to embarrass the government during question period. The concern on the government side must be that if the access net is cast even further, that it will simply involve more work being put into question period presentations. The potential for embarrassment will simply be enlarged. That could happen.

Is the answer not simply to ensure there is no potential for embarrassing matters to be brought to light under the access procedure by assuring that crown corporations are run in a sound and efficient manner? The answer is not to limit the application of the Access to Information Act but to ensure MPs and crown corporations act in a responsible manner with taxpayers'dollars.

We are here to exercise a trust. That trust has been placed in us by the people of Canada. We are to be good stewards of the taxpayers' dollars. The money collected by Revenue Canada is not our money to do with as we please; it belongs to the people of Canada. If we keep this in mind every time we do something on this hill or in our constituency offices, then we have nothing to fear from the Access to Information Act. We have everything to gain.

Suppose that tomorrow we all became subject to the act, then weeks go by without any stories in the press about mismanagement of public moneys or about trips being taken which could not be justified. Think about how that would raise the opinion of the electorate in this group it elected in 1993.

Surely the same reasoning applies to crown corporations. With them not subject to the act, there is a perception that something is going on behind closed doors. All of us have been here long enough now to have participated in in camera meetings of committees. The perception is that once the doors are closed and the sound recording is turned off, real and momentous decisions are made which affect the life of this country.

Those of us who have participated in those in camera meetings know that nothing is further from the truth. However, the perception is that we should open up the process; open up the process for both parliamentarians and crown corporations. Between us and the crown corporations billions of dollars of taxpayers' money are spent, presumably for the good of the country. If this is the case, then the public has a right to know. If it is not the case, then surely letting the public know becomes a first step along the road to cleaning up waste and mismanagement.

The rule of law is the foundation upon which our system of government is built. It was established hundreds of years ago in Great Britain during the reign of the Stuart kings that no one, not even the crown, is above the law. This is the cornerstone of the rule of law. We are all equal under the law and no one is above the law. We are equal in that the law applies to every one of us in the same way. Be we rich or poor, white or black, it applies equally.

Again, no one is above the law. No matter how high you have scaled the corporate ladder, no matter which political office you occupy either federally or municipally, when you look up, the law of the country is still above you.

If these beliefs are true, and we all know they are, then how can we work here knowing that a law which is designed to open certain parts of government to public scrutiny does not apply to us and to the crown corporations? I do not believe we can justify this situation. We must act to ensure that laws such as the Access to Information Act apply equally to all, including politicians.

This will send an important message back to the electorate. It will show that we have learned from the mistakes of the past. We have learned to listen to the people of Canada and act upon what we have heard.

We have a message and the message is loud and clear: We are to be frugal stewards with taxpayers' money. We are not to receive anything more in the way of benefits than the ordinary taxpayer. And we are not ever to assume that we are above the law.

Parliament must act and let the sun shine in. It must act in a positive way to tell Canadians it has nothing to hide. We have been good in this Parliament in this regard. We have opened up to scrutiny the meetings of the Board of Internal Economy which would have been unthinkable in years gone by. It is important that we send out the message that we are open to scrutiny ourselves. If we have nothing to hide then why put up barriers? If there is something to hide then we and the crown corporations are not acting in the best interest of the taxpayers. This deserves to be exposed.

I urge all members from all parties to support the motion. The end result will be a strong message sent to the government to amend the Access to Information Act. It will then be up to the government to show that it still stands behind the promise of openness it made in the last election.

I seem to remember the Liberals promised openness and fair play in that red book they keep talking about. They promised openness and fair play to the Canadian people. Passage today of motion 304 will help to do this.

We on this side of the House will be waiting and watching. The people of Canada will be waiting and watching. If the government does not act on this matter we can rest assured the people of Canada will act at the next election and elect a group that will let the sun shine in on Parliament and its workings.

[The Senate, March 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the Prime Minister that the Charlottetown accord was a package deal with many flaws.

I also remind the Prime Minister that with provincial elections from time to time, in this case New Brunswick, the cost factor would be low and democracy is worth it.

Does the Prime Minister still find it revolting to offer the people of Canada a democratic vote on their choice of senator?

[The Senate, March 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, following yesterday's announcement of two more patronage appointments to the Senate, has the Prime Minister completely abandoned any thought of having elections to the Senate? Has he forgotten his red book promises of openness and fair play on how we choose our political representatives?

[Petitioners, March 20th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the other is a petition of a few hundred names asking Parliament to reduce government spending instead of increasing taxes and implement a taxpayer protection act to limit federal spending.

[Petitioners, March 20th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. One is a petition of 25 names from B.C. asking Parliament to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to protect individuals from discrimination.