Diane Ablonczy

[Supply, February 14th, 1995]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[Supply, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the intervention by the member while eloquent reminds me of a song from "My Fair Lady" that says "words, words, words, I am so sick of words".

Just talking about equity and compassion and fairness is all very nice, but saying it does not make it so. These words keep rolling off the tongues of members opposite as if they have a corner on knowing of compassion and fairness and equity.

The Liberals have no plan to present the people of this country. In the short time they have been in office they have run up our interest obligation almost $2 billion. Every year forever because of their overspending we will have to pay almost $2 billion more in interest, just for one year. That is $2 billion that has been taken away from the poor people of this country, the people who need help, the services of this country.

Yet they are the ones who talk about giving fairness and equity when they are the ones taking the money and using it for interest because they cannot control their spending. It is also a government that has yet to stand up and give a plan to the people of this country to break the gold plated pension plans that they are getting. Where is the fairness in that?

Where is the fairness from a member talking about fairness, taking a pension that no other Canadian can hope to get? I ask this member to show the kind of fairness that she-

[Supply, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, there were a lot of questions in that intervention. I would be happy to address them.

My hon. colleague says that Canada was not the only one that ran up a debt, that everyone else did too, so why pick on us. I do not know about you, Mr. Speaker, but your mother was probably like mine. She used to say to me: "If all your friends jump off a bridge, does that mean you are going to too?". We are not responsible for other countries. The leadership of our country is responsible for us. It has not done a very responsible job of looking after our interests in the long term.

Members opposite are always pleading for solutions from our party. We have worked hard to provide them with solutions. We will even be providing them with an alternative budget which is something no opposition party has ever done before.

I would suggest to the hon. member that perhaps he and his party need to work a little harder to provide some solutions. They should provide some glimmer of reform solutions to the people of Canada. I might add that solutions in the social policy area were promised loud and long and have never been delivered on.

Members opposite need to realize that if tax points were given to the provinces in order to allow them to have more control over the social programs in their provinces, the tax points grow as the tax base of the province grows. The tax base, the economies of our provinces and our country have been growing.

Once we give provinces tax points, their potential tax base actually expands, many over time. They actually have more hope of funding their programs long term and having a continuing source of revenue than if they were dependent on transfers from the federal government. As we have seen, transfers can be cut or are very uncertain. Provinces that have their own tax base to draw from are much more secure-and my economist colleague is nodding so I think I have this right-than if they are totally dependent on whatever largesse the federal government might decide to give them from time to time.

My colleague mentions fears that if there is not a centralist government, a tightly controlled federation from the centre which has always been the Liberal vision of this country, that somehow things will go to hell in a hand basket. I might point out to him that things are not too far from going to hell in a hand basket with the centralist vision having been very firmly in place for the last 25 years.

Surely we can do no worse than to trust those governments which are closest to us the people. We have the most impact on those and we can influence them more effectively than distant, federal central governments. If we could have more say and more influence over our own local governments, we would be a lot better off than we are today.

[Supply, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, ironically it was the Trudeau Liberal government of which the present Prime Minister was a member and a one-time finance minister that first sold Canadians on the myth that big government could solve most of our problems. What they never made clear was that they would pay for this by heavy taxation and borrowing from future generations.

For more than a quarter of a century Canadians have been encouraged to increasingly rely on government and they have done just that. The disastrous consequences of these Liberal policies are now threatening the well-being of society.

As a co-pilot and former ground support staffer, the failure of the human resources minister to reform social programs to make them target better and cost less is a failure that all Canadians will pay for in the form of higher taxes.

We need to fight the debt and deficit not to hurt people but to help them, to free them from the chains of insecurity, the links of which are made of debt and interest payments. The welfare state is sinking under the weight of its own waste, inefficiency and disabling dependency.

Fundamental reform and renewal of our social security framework are absolutely imperative if we are to have any hope of sustaining our existing high quality of life, providing Canadian youth with opportunities rather than simply an unmanageable financial obligation, and continuing to help the poor and needy among us.

The government intends to continue to borrow billions of dollars every year. Extra interest must then be paid on each year's borrowings. Each extra dollar in interest is a dollar taken out of our economy, a dollar that could have been used to expand a business, take advantage of trade opportunities or hire an unemployed Canadian.

Let us imagine what Canadians could have done with the over $40 billion we had to pay out of our pockets in interest last year alone. Let us imagine the health care it would have paid for or

the poor whose basic needs could have been met. Let us imagine the education and training that $40 billion could have provided or the help to our seniors who live in poverty.

The government should act now before interest drains our social security further and further every year, get a grip on its spending, find more effective ways to deliver the services we require, and let us get on with the job of building a secure society for ourselves and our children.

[Supply, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, 12 years ago a Boeing 767 flying from Montreal to Edmonton nearly crashed over northwestern Ontario. This near tragedy was not a result of a mechanical failure or a powerful prairie thunderstorm. It simply ran out of gas.

In its statement the airline placed the blame for this emergency on human error involved in converting the fuel measurement from imperial to metric amounts. It was only the skill of the pilot that manoeuvred the drifting aircraft to a safe landing. At 30,000 feet refuelling is no longer an option. The fate of the passengers lay in the hands of leadership. Interestingly enough the airline was Air Canada.

Canada as a nation is like that aircraft. Our ship of state is in trouble, not because of some internal mechanical malfunction but because of human error.

The world has changed to a new competitive economy. The rules have changed but our ground crew still does not know how to make the conversion. After two decades of human error air Canada is drifting. Our financial reserves are empty and Canadians, the passengers, are deeply concerned about their future and safety. The only problem is that at this moment the incompetent ground crew is still flying the aeroplane.

Each one of us knows that personal security is vitally important to Canadians. Ours is a compassionate society. We all want to know that our friends, families, neighbours and ourselves will be taken care of during times of need. Yet somehow after 30 years of ballooning government spending on social programs we have been left with less security rather than more. Why is this so?

Let me save the suspense by answering my own question. Canadians feel more insecure now than ever before because government overspending has robbed them of their personal security. The welfare state has failed. Just as communism and socialism crumbled after a 75-year experiment, our own 25-year social digression has come to a painful conclusion.

Canadians are beginning to realize that the welfare state is not working and that it is time to re-evaluate the government's role in providing social security to individuals. The greatest single danger to the personal security of Canadians comes from the

financial unsustainability of social programs currently monopolized by government. They are unsustainable if we have to borrow money to pay for them, which is exactly what successive governments have done for the last 25 years.

Thanks to such irresponsible management the federal debt is now over $530 billion and provincial and municipal governments owe another $190 billion. Instead of providing peace of mind these programs and their associated debt have left Canadians feeling anxious about this, about their and their families' futures.

Why have Canada's debt and deficit left Canadians feeling anxious and insecure about their futures? The reason Canadians feel such concern is that after being deceived for so long, led to believe that government would look after them and take care of them from cradle to grave, they have come to realize they are now relying on a bankrupt state. They have come to realize the interest payments on the debt have become so large and are growing so fast that it is beginning to crowd out the social programs that have protected them for nearly a generation.

The greatest risks to Canada's social fabric are the threats of annual deficits and a rising national debt which over the past 30 years has crowded out many legitimate expenditures of governments.

We have borrowed so much over the last 25 years and accumulated so much debt that all the money we borrow this year will be used to pay interest on our federal debt. When it comes to government there are no free lunches. In fact compound interest make the ultimate cost of what government is borrowing very costly indeed; in fact more costly than if we had paid for them outright, if we had paid our own way to begin with.

Effectively interest payments are crowding out programs. Money that could be used to help Canadians is simply not available to us because we have to pay our interest obligations. Interest payment on the debt is now the single largest expenditure item for many governments, depleting resources for public investments in health, education and infrastructure. As we continue to borrow, our debt increases as does the interest, leaving even less money for essential programs.

Where does all this debt and compound interest leave Canadians? It leaves us paying more taxes while at the same time receiving fewer services. Canada's debt burden is both eating up a substantial portion of current tax dollars and reducing the ability of all levels of government to provide essential social services. Can we understand now why Canadians are concerned?

How did we get into this mess? Whose human error or ignorance while working with ground support has brought us to a place of flying empty at 30,000 feet? Who could the passengers of our drifting air Canada hold responsible for bringing them into such a dangerous predicament?

It just so happens the ground support staff has been promoted to captain and crew. Is that not a comforting thought? The very ones who got us into this mess are now in control. Meanwhile, Captain Chrétien sails serenely on committing ordinary Canadians to a perpetual stream of more interest. Ironically it was the Trudeau Liberal government of which Mr. Chrétien was a member and a one-time finance minister-

[Social Programs, February 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development continues to call attention to a quote attributed to me regarding the thoughtfulness of Reform's dissenting opinion to his committee's report. I make no apology for the content of our report. I wholeheartedly endorse Reform's dissenting opinion.

Our response to the committee's recommendations was hastily written only because we were given two days to craft a response, a little less than the four months the minister's office had to write the report for the committee in the first place.

If the minister would think through his own recommendations and come to grips with reforming Canada's social programs without spending more money, especially borrowed money, Canadians would not be so worried about their personal security. If there were ever a time for leadership it is now.

I say to the minister rather than distorting the position of your critics, you would serve citizens better by crafting a position of your own; not one for your own political purposes, but one that is in the best interest of Canadians.

[Committees Of The House, February 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to comment on the report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development.

[Social Programs, February 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, just last week the minister was quoted as saying that the government would have to deal with its budgetary problems before it would be able to get on with the reforms.

When will the minister show some leadership and start real reform of Canada's social security programs?

[Social Programs, February 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, apparently the human resources development minister has finally come to realize that we have no more money for increased spending on social programs. We are mortgaged and taxed to the max.

Why can the minister not understand that social programs can be reformed without spending more money?

[Employment Equity Act, December 13th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, since this is a very new piece of legislation, for the benefit of those Canadians who watch the proceedings of the House of Commons and I know there are a number, I would like to go over one more time what the legislation is about.

This is Bill C-64. It is an act respecting employment equity. The summary says that the purpose of this bill is to achieve equality in the workplace and to correct conditions of disadvantage experienced by certain groups. The bill applies to the Public Service of Canada, to federally regulated employers, and to such portions of the public sector that employs 100 or more employees.

The bill talks about employer obligations in clauses 5 to 15; records and reports, a rather ominous sound for a lot of employers, in clauses 16 to 20; compliance audit in clauses 21 to 31; assessment of monetary penalties in clauses 31 to 37; and regulations in clauses 38 to 41. It then talks about changes to other acts that will be necessitated by this legislation should it be passed.

This is fairly significant legislation with real impact on a number of employers in our country.

It important to point out that the word equity which is the feature of this legislation simply means fairness. Government members have been playing the violin a great deal this morning about how wonderfully fair this is and how we should all be committed to fairness. I am sure that every single Canadian would applaud fairness in our country. In fact something that Canadians are noted for is a real commitment to fairness.

On behalf of the people of Canada whom we represent and whose affairs we are supposed to be managing we need to analyse whether this legislation delivers on the promise of fairness.

One of the real problems with this legislation is that what it does is unfairly and to a large degree increase the interference of government in the lives of citizens, particularly in the lives of citizens trying to keep businesses going, and trying to deliver jobs for Canadians.

First of all this legislation interferes with employment choices. It suggests that for every sector of employment there has to be proportional representation in four designated groups. It says to employers that they have to hire certain people from certain groups if they are to comply with these government legislated proposals. That is a clear interference in fairness for employers to be able to hire who they think will do the best job for them.

Second, it interferes in the principle of equality before the law. What it essentially says is that you do not have as equal a chance at a job as you would if you belonged to one of four designated groups.

I had a personal experience in my riding with a young man who was trying to be admitted into the RCMP. His applications were denied until in discussions with his family he discovered that he had some aboriginal background. Because of this suddenly he became more qualified to enter the RCMP. In fact today he is a member of the RCMP. It is very interesting how merit, qualifications and choices depend on certain genetic traits rather than merit. That certainly is not consistent with the principle of equality before the law.

Third, the legislation interferes with the administration of business in the country. This legislation and all employers that will be affected by it, which is a vastly expanded group, should look at this very carefully. I am sure they will be. They will now have to produce employment plans to satisfy certain criteria.

There will have to be regular reports to bureaucrats who will be very anxiously combing them to make sure they are correct and fulfil all the obligations. There will be compliance audits on a regular basis of these businesses to make sure employers are doing the correct thing.

There may be some appeals from bureaucratic decisions that come out of these reports and audits. There will be an ever-expanding group of regulations that will have to be complied with. It is no wonder that businesses are fatigued and why job creation is lagging behind the demand for it. With all this paperwork, regulations, proposals and requirements, how can a business get on with business? Some days you wonder.

Also this legislation sets out a great deal more bureaucracy. This is a time when governments do a great deal of their work with borrowed money, by mortgaging our future and here we have yet another bureaucracy set up in the furtherance of fairness.

Nowhere in the legislation are the cost benefits set out. Nowhere in the legislation are Canadians told how this is all going to be paid for. It is their money that is being spent. They have a right to ask, is the money I am being asked to cough up for this proposal justified by the public good that is going to be done. That is an issue that needs to be debated.

Clearly it is going to be an interference in productivity of business. This is another regulatory and governmental burden being added to all the other reports that have to be made by businesses to government. It is another government regulation, another interference into the lives and work of business people.

If we want to provide Canadians with jobs, jobs, jobs how are we going to do it when we have all of these social engineering mechanisms built into our economic sector? Does this make sense and does it really benefit Canadians?

The last thing I would like to talk about is the social consequences of this type of legislation. Unfortunately it says to Canadians what is important in the economic sector is not your qualifications, it is not your merit, it is not your competence, it is not your ability, it is not your drive, it is whether you are a victim. It is what group you belong to. It is whether you can show somehow that you are disadvantaged. Is this what we want people to be thinking about?

I understand that Tommy Douglas was not very tall. I have always felt really good about him because of that for some obvious reasons to people in the House. Sometimes Mr. Douglas was teased about the fact that he was not very tall. He had a good answer to this. He used to say: "Where I come from, we measure people from here up", indicating that it is what is in your mind, what is in your head, your intelligence, ability and competence that is important. It is not your height.

I would suggest to members that what is important to us is what we have in our hearts and our ability and not what colour our skin is, what our gender is or what disability we might have-