Audrey McLaughlin

[Mps' Pensions, February 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.

The government is proposing massive cuts to public services, to social services and to health services. These cuts seem to have gone through the Liberal caucus relatively quickly. However, when it comes to something such as MPs' pensions the government seems to be unable to get its act together as indeed the previous government could not get its act together.

I want to ask the Minister of the Treasury Board why inaction on this issue has been allowed to take on a symbolism which I think is both unrealistic and far beyond the reality. To put an end to this will the minister bring in legislation on MPs' pensions before the budget?

[Young Offenders Act, February 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the amendments before us today raise a larger issue and that is the need, which is ongoing, to study the Young Offenders Act as a whole and not to bring in piecemeal methods.

I heartily disagree with my Reform colleagues who would simply lock up every young person in the hope that they would not commit a crime. At the same time they would cut the social programs and the kind of facilities available to young people.

We have a disturbing trend in this country of a very anti-youth movement. The government has not addressed youth unemployment. Why is it not doing that? It has not addressed the need of young people to have better services for treatment and for work in the communities. Instead it is contemplating cutting some of those very services.

Of course we have to deal with those young people who are committing crimes. We have to deal with the communities and the parents who are dealing with those young people. However we will not do it by the government's policy of an anti-youth campaign which this legislation is.

[Social Programs Funding, February 7th, 1995]

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

Last year the government undertook the social security review, and based on a document put out by the Minister of Human Resources Development, Canadians from across the country gave their time and energy to comment on those proposals.

It now seems all of that was in vain because the government is now clearly contemplating something that was not in those proposals at all; that is, a transfer to the provinces and territories of block funding for social programs, health and post-secondary education.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister directly, is it his government's intention to adapt the Reform Party's policy of abandoning national programs in health care, social programs and in post-secondary education?

[National Unity, February 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this year will be a crucial one in the history of Canada, presenting us with formidable challenges, not just in the economic and social areas but about the very unity of our country.

Certain things have set Canada apart. The principles of equity and fairness have translated into programs that reflect our values as Canadians. Equalization payments to those provinces and territories that are less privileged established the principles of regional fairness.

Being a Canadian and the right of citizenship is not based on where you live and whether you are rich or poor. Yet instead of maintaining these principles, the federal government is clearly contemplating destroying the very fabric that binds us together as a nation by turning over health and social programs to provinces and territories without national direction and standards.

I challenge the Prime Minister to show all Canadians that the federal government will stand in the national interest, not simply promote regional disparities.

[Social Program Review, December 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on October 17 of this year I asked the Minister of Finance to come clean with Canadians about what the government's intentions were in terms of reducing funding for social programs in this country.

Since that time there has been much speculation. One report indicates a potential cut of $7 billion contemplated by the government in our social programs envelope. Others, for example the Standing Committee on Finance which has just released a report, project that over the next two years there will be something like a $3.4 billion cut in social programs.

This discussion that is going on certainly does not take into account the reality of what social programs have contributed to this country. Certainly as a New Democrat I am not against changes to social programs, but clearly Canadians are beginning to realize that the social security review has been merely an attempt to cut expenditures rather than to really and truly change our programs.

If the intent was to change programs, to make them better, to make them more efficient, I think we would have seen a very different process. I think the government has to be clear with Canadians what the intent is around the reduction of revenues in the social program area.

I would remind the government that in 1991 Statistics Canada was very clear that only 6 per cent of our debt could be attributed to social programs. I would suggest to the government that we need equal debate, indeed more debate, on that 94 per cent of the cost of our debt and deficit.

One of the major costs of that is how we finance our programs, not simply what we do within the purview of those programs. Since October 17 when I first posed the question to the minister I continued to raise questions about the financing of the debt. For example, only yesterday I posed the question to the Minister of Finance suggesting that he should have a public inquiry into the role of the Bank of Canada in setting interest rates, because of course the amount of our foreign debt is certainly affecting the

interest rate policy, and to look seriously at how monetary policy in this country is formed and the role of the Bank of Canada in that.

The minister did not respond to that particular request. I would suggest again that the minister instead of just simply looking at cuts to expenditures should also look at why they are necessary. Part of the reason for that is the monetary policy that was pursued by the previous Mulroney government and has been continued if not with even more zeal by the current Liberal government.

There are several things that the minister should be looking at in this area. The minister might recall that before 1967 the Bank Act legislated a ceiling on interest rates that allowed for some control. Prior to 1991 the act ensured that the Bank of Canada had some control over interest on the national debt.

I would like to ask the question why it is that the government will not be clear about the reduction in expenditures it wants to make to the social programs envelope? In addition, why will the government not look at the way and the role of the Bank of Canada, which has become I might add not the bank for Canadians but the bank for chartered banks, and how the government by looking at that could return the controls of its monetary policy to the people of Canada and not simply to the chartered banks.

I would be very interested, Mr. Speaker, in again posing those two questions.

[Tributes, December 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I too would like to wish Mr. Robitaille, Mr. Fréchette and Mr. Renaud a very happy retirement and also thank them very much for their service to this House and to generations of parliamentarians and to young people throughout the years.

I want to wish them a happy retirement.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, there are many other employees in the House of Commons who are going to retire.

I would like to also thank all of those other employees of Parliament who are taking retirement on January 1 and to thank them as well for their service to this Parliament.

[Petitions, December 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I have a number of signatures from petitioners in the Yukon.

They note that Canada's mining industry is the mainstay of employment in over 150 communities across Canada. They therefore call on the Parliament of Canada to take action that will grow employment in this sector, promote exploration, rebuild Canada's mineral reserves, sustain mining communities and keep mining in Canada. In addition they request that the Canadian Industry Mineral Federation which has proposed a 10-point plan be supported by the Government of Canada.

[Interest Rates, December 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It is with regard to the very unwelcome Christmas present that Canadians got with an increase in interest rates.

Increasing interest rates have affected, as the minister himself said today, charges on the debt and deficit. They influence consumer confidence, farmers and small business. The government has been telling Canadians what they must cut back on. Would the minister consider a public review of monetary policy in the country and a review of the mandate of the Bank of Canada?

Would the minister commit to undertaking such a public review before the budget of that mandate of the Bank of Canada and the interest rate policy?

[Petitions, December 12th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present today thousands of signatures of Canadians from Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. These petitioners note that tobacco products are clearly linked to many forms of cancer, heart disease, and other serious diseases, that the use of tobacco products is directly responsible for some 38,000 premature deaths of Canadians annually and that tobacco can therefore rightly be termed a hazardous product.

Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to remove the exemption for tobacco under the Hazardous Products Act.

[Post-Secondary Education, December 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development who has introduced proposals to change funding to post-secondary education. He recently said, and I quote: "These wild allegations about closing universities and huge increases in tuition are simply scare mongering". However, in a submission to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development,

the Association of Universities and Colleges predicted that tuition fees would double under these proposals.

I ask the minister to come clean with Canadians. Will he in his proposals and in his view increase tuition fees or not?