Margaret Bridgman

[Petitions, October 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I rise to table a petition from residents of my constituency of Surrey North. The petition signed by 141 residents asks that the Parliament of Canada not repeal or amend section 241 of the Criminal Code in any way and to uphold the Supreme Court of Canada's decision of September 30, 1993 to disallow assisted suicide and/or euthanasia.

[Young Offenders Act, October 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in 1992 in my riding of Surrey North a 16-year old boy named Jesse Cadman was murdered by Isaac Deas who at the time was a juvenile and on a court imposed curfew.

Since that tragedy Jesse's father Chuck has become very active in trying to change the Young Offender's Act. I have received over 1,000 letters from my riding expressing support for Chuck and his group CRY, or Crime, Responsibility and Youth.

Chuck's latest initiative is a lawsuit against the father of Isaac Deas and the crown for failing to enforce the court imposed curfew. Had that curfew been enforced, Jesse would be alive today.

I support Chuck Cadman in assigning responsibility to parents who seemingly have not made reasonable effort to exercise parental control. I support his effort to hold the crown accountable to those who are under its supervision in the community. I ask the Minister of Justice to make himself accountable to the Canadian public and heed the concerns of citizens like Chuck Cadman.

[Tobacco Taxes, October 20th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, in two minutes I will have to pick something out of my 10 minute speech. I want to thank my colleague from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca for bringing this topic back to the House for debate.

I want to reiterate what one of my colleagues said previously in relation to the fact that the main issue to address is that we are dancing to someone else's tune. This is the Government of Canada. We make the laws here and because we have some difficulty in enforcing those laws it seems the best way to resolve that issue is to change the laws instead of going out and enforcing the issue.

I would also like to comment on the cost. We all know that if you cannot afford to participate or you cannot afford to buy something, then you do not. That is what the majority of people do. However, what we have done here is we have actually enabled more people to buy and consume cigarettes. It does not matter whether they are young, old or middle aged, the consumption of cigarettes will indeed go up.

We may not feel that effect today from the point of view of how it relates or translates into other services, but we certainly will reap its benefits shall we say from the point of view of taxing our health care services in the future. Here we are debating our social programs and their survival because of our debt and we are implementing an opportunity for people to go out and abuse their health which we will have to address at some time in the future.

[Social Security Programs, October 20th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to address Bill C-54, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act, the Canada pension plan, Children's Special Allowance Act, and the Unemployment Insurance Act. While the acts which the bill amends represent a significant portion of the federal component of Canada's income support system, the amendments are classified as minor administrative changes. Bill C-54 seeks to improve administrative efficiency.

The Reform Party is supportive of efforts by the government to streamline the delivery of services to the public. Any streamlining is more than welcome. What Reform members would ultimately like to see is an immediate overhaul of the programs to ensure long term financial sustainability for Canada's entire social security system.

The massive debt that has accumulated and the interest payments needed to service that debt taken out of every year's budget have been increasing yearly. The portion of the federal budget pie that goes toward social programs has been shrinking as a direct consequence of the federal debt and the accompanying interest payments. That is why the Reform Party constantly states that the debt is the nation's number one problem and is the greatest threat to our social programs.

Our position has been misinterpreted, misconstrued and misrepresented. We have been portrayed by government and those on the left as ogres with axes in our hands, ready and willing to swing those axes any time we get near social spending. This characterization is grossly unfair.

What Reformers have realized and realized over a year ago is that if we continue on the road of excess debt and borrowing our social programs will by necessity have less and less of the federal pie every year. The longer we ignore the debt problem, the worse the situation becomes for our social program.

The Minister of Finance, in his two-day presentation to the finance committee, presented a good analysis of the way in which the debt affects our economy, our standard of living, our social programs, and it was all for the worst. The minister outlined how the debt begins a vicious circle. I would like to quote from page 3 of the presentation the minister made on Tuesday, "Creating a Healthy Fiscal Climate":

Interest on the debt is doing more than shackling our finances. It is putting a damper on growth and jobs. Lenders looking at our debt demand a premium. That means higher interest rates. Higher interest rates dampen consumer spending and business investment, hurting potential growth and jobs. That in turn reduces the revenue government receives and increases our spending on social programs, increasing the pressure on our deficit. Those higher interest rates in and of themselves also add to our debt charge as we borrow to pay for the higher interest. Those higher levels of debt then put more pressure on interest rates to rise. And the vicious circle goes on and on and on.

I commend the minister for attempting to lay aside partisan politics in his analysis of the effects of the debt. He can expect constructive support and guidance from the Reform Party for viable efforts to control the deficit. He can also expect calls from this party that his own target of 3 per cent of the GDP, a deficit of approximately $25 billion in two years, is simply unacceptable. It is also unacceptable by his own analysis of the negative effects on the debt. For the sake of long term financial sustainability of our social programs the government should set a goal of zero deficit by the end of this Parliament.

The Liberals ran and by many accounts won the election on the issue of job creation. Their main proposal was the $6 billion infrastructure program intended to simulate job growth in the entire economy. The Liberals saw the program as the key to restoring hope and dignity to those on government assistance.

Reformers on the other hand have consistently put forward the view that the best stimulant for job creation and decreased government dependence is a serious attack on the deficit and the debt. By reducing our deficit we will be setting in motion positive effects that will create jobs which will in turn provide less demand on some of our social programs.

I want to quote the Minister of Finance once more on this subject:

Facing up to the debt challenge is the keystone of a responsible economic policy. If we fail at that, we will fail at everything else. It is not a question of focusing on jobs or the debt. It is question of focusing on both. The debt stands in the way of the growth we seek; in a very real way, it limits our economy's ability to create jobs. The fact is that we will not get the quality of growth we need to generate jobs we want until we gain control of the debt, until we have broken the back of the deficit.

I must applaud the government on the progress it has made in its thinking on this subject. In the first few months of Parliament the Reform Party's views on the debt and cutting of spending were characterized as letting people starve. Now our views are being repeated and strongly emphasized in the process by the Minister of Finance.

My point in talking about the debt is trying to explain its effect on social spending, the so-called vicious circle I referred to earlier. For just as there is a vicious circle for high debt and excess borrowing, there is also a good or a positive circle if we reduce the debt.

The lower the deficit and the debt, the lower the interest rates. Lower interest rates mean more consumer spending, business investments and increasing growth in jobs. That in turn increases employment and decreases reliance on social assistance giving people the opportunity and the dignity to work. The decreasing reliance on social assistance means less pressure on social programs and less pressure on government revenues.

Cutting the deficit is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end. That end is stronger growth, increased employment, decreased dependence on government and perhaps, dare I say it, lower taxes. However reaching these goals requires cutting spending and any real cuts in spending will include cuts in our social programs.

We in the House should be honest and recognize that the present social security reform discussion the minister of human resources has started is not only about reform but is also about saving money. Unfortunately after a year in the House it is only a discussion paper. It would be more preferable to be an action plan.

The most basic, most effective way the government could save money in this area without hurting the most unfortunate in our society is to target our social programs toward those in the most need. Applying the concept of universality to every social program we have simply undermines the long term financial sustainability of our social programs.

Another basic principle that should be applied to social programs is that they should be meant to be temporary measures to help those who are down, not permanent measures to create an unhealthy dependence on government.

In conclusion, the best course of action the government could take to ensure the survival of our social safety net is to upgrade its deficit reduction targets and to design social programs to target those most in need.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to participate in any debate in the House. Today I join in the debate on Bill C-53 concerning the creation of the Department of Canadian Heritage.

Before getting into the text of my talk today I refer to a comment that was made earlier in the debate about the saving of $7.3 million in relationship to the bill. At a departmental briefing it was indicated there is no streamlining involved with the bill; there is no cost saving and there are no layoffs. I am left a bit mystified as to where the saving of $7.3 million will come from.

A number of speakers have preceded me in the discussion and have addressed a number of the components singled out by the government as comprising the mandate of the department.

When reviewing the items in the bill one wonders what criterion was used for the selection of these items for the department. For example, according to Bill C-53, it includes such things as multiculturalism, national parks, historic sites and canals. It moves on to the field of amateur sports and the advancement of equality and status of the English and French languages. Then it goes into the field of broadcasting and so on.

When the present government was restructuring the ministry at the beginning of this session it would seem that items which were left over along with a few others that were pulled from other departments have been lumped together to create the Department of Canadian Heritage.

This questioning of the practicality of placing diverse and unrelated items in the same department leads to a more fundamental question as to what is Canadian heritage. Webster's dictionary defines heritage as something that we inherit at birth; in other words it is like a legacy. It is something or anything that is derived from the past or from tradition. By definition, then, heritage of an individual or group or a country is what we actually inherit at birth, that which was created and moulded by the actions of those who preceded us, just as what we do now in our lifetime will become the heritage or the mould of the lifestyle for those who come after us. For example, briefly, those in the present inherit a base from the past to build on for those in the future. That would be what heritage is.

A basic source contributing to our heritage is the consensus of our society to recognize specific events and/or issues as being valuable to retain for our future development and to create and maintain these things through tangible symbols as a constant reminder for those who follow us in the future. When events of the past no longer directly influence how we govern our lifestyles today, they tend to move from the concept of heritage into what we call our history.

Following this definition, I question the purpose of the Department of Canadian Heritage. I feel that the citizens of the country do not need a Department of Canadian Heritage at all. We in the House must realize that everything we do in terms of the laws we pass, the issues we discuss, will become part of the legacy we leave to those who follow us, which will be their heritage.

Instead of there being a specific Department of Canadian Heritage, all departments or ministries should be responsible through the legislation they propose for the development and maintenance of everything we do, of the heritage for those who are to follow, not just a single department.

The government's role is simply to provide a legislative framework for all persons living in Canada and to provide an overall framework within which individuals and groups of

individuals and Canadians generally can define their own existence. As long as they operate or define it within the parameters of Canadian legal jurisdiction it will become or carry on as heritage.

For example, persons who come to Canada have the opportunity to maintain their heritage, such as language or dress, as long as that heritage or the components of that heritage do not come into conflict with established Canadian laws, the equality of men and women, for example.

People should not come to Canada to recreate the country they left. That begs the question of why they left in the first place. People who immigrate to Canada do so because we have a country that is very attractive to people all over the world. Our response to those who come should not be to reproduce the country they left behind but to do our best to maintain Canada so that it will be as attractive to other people as it was to them.

On this subject I quote from an October 5 article in the Globe and Mail written by Sonja Sinclair, a freelance writer and self-described Canadian by adoption rather than birth:

"At the risk of being politically incorrect, I believe that those of us who left our original homelands whether by choice or necessity have no business complaining that the country that offers us a refuge happens to be different than the one we left behind. This does not mean that we should not criticize things that we believe to be wrong or better still try to improve those that seem to be imperfect. Neither does it mean that we should forget where we came from or if we choose keep alive our native language and our culture. What we should not do is expect the government or our fellow citizens to do it for us and foot the bill".

Canada's history is filled with cultural groups that immigrated to this country and maintained their own heritage. For example, the persons of Ukrainian descent who immigrated to western Canada this century did not have a department of heritage to show them or to help them maintain their traditions. They did that on their own and their community in Canada is much stronger for it.

Anyone who has been to a wedding in Vegreville can attest to the enduring strength of the Ukrainian culture in Canada. It is government arrogance to believe that people with different cultures will maintain their cultures only as long as they are able to receive money from federal governments to help them remember their own heritage.

Therefore, what it is to be Canadian, that is our heritage, is defined by the actions of the people and groups of people within the parameters of legislation as determined by the governments of this country.

The meaning of Canadian should be defined from the bottom up and not the top down. The process for defining our nation should go from individuals to groups of individuals, to community, to province, to region, to nation. This is the only way our struggle for identity will be resolved.

We do not need a Department of Canadian Heritage. Government's role is to provide good legislation and parameters for the present and future growth of our country. With this our heritage will be looked after by the citizens themselves.

[Petitions, October 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition, also signed by 40 residents, requests that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

[Petitions, October 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise to table two petitions from residents in my constituency of Surrey North.

The first petition, signed by 40 residents, asks that the Parliament of Canada prohibit and continue to prohibit assisted suicide and to support the Criminal Code provisions prohibiting such activities which exist at the present time.

[Supply, September 29th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would like the hon. member to clarify a couple of points in relation to the actual function of CSIS. I thank him for the overview.

It is my understanding from his presentation that CSIS was actually born from the RCMP out of a need to counteract Russian spying at that time. Since the cold war has ended and the Berlin wall has dropped the need which originally called for the start up of CSIS is gone.

When the cold war existed 80 per cent of CSIS activity was in counterintelligence which falls under the national security point of the two points outlined. Considering there is now no cold war tends to imply that the public safety component of CSIS should probably go back to the RCMP. It seems to be an early warning system and once it is identified is referred to the appropriate

sources to carry out in any event. Under national security I believe the counterintelligence involvement is now 56 per cent. I am wondering if the role of CSIS is becoming unnecessary. Maybe we should be looking at some other component.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994, June 3rd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, in reference to the hon. member's statement on the capping of MPs, I cannot quite seem to follow how that is actually going to carve the boundaries out in stone or stabilize the electoral boundaries.

Where I am coming from in this is that I see three components here as far as mathematics is concerned. There is the number of MPs and the total population of the country. Divide the MPs into that and you come up with a figure on representation. Based on that and the movement across the country plus those persons coming in, I cannot see when you get that figure of representation how that is not going to affect moving the boundaries about as well to accommodate that.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the hon. member for Waterloo.

In relation to the opposition, his statement was that government proposes programs and the opposition opposes programs. As my colleague has pointed out, our role in opposition is not to carte blanche oppose programs. It is to identify possible weaknesses or omissions and to offer constructive criticism and possible alternative solutions.

The final decision still rests with the party in power. Its role is to make those decisions possibly based on other considerations. Our possible options may appear as not being constructive but on the other hand the decision is there for the government to make.

I am extremely pleased the member is as aware of Reform policy as he is of his red book. He reminded me of a lot of Reform policy today in his speech.

The hon. member made reference to the fact that 85 per cent of jobs are provided by small business and he also made reference to high tech coming into small business. I would like to hear his comments in relation to high tech possibly eliminating a number of jobs in small businesses and it is the small businesses that are being hit by taxes and low wages, et cetera.