Diane Ablonczy

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we probably owe you an apology for not communicating directly to you on that point. I am sure that members of the House will be absolutely delighted to know that I can now give them the long answer to the hon. member's question rather than the short answer.

I believe his points were well taken. With respect to Prince Edward Island, now that the causeway is going ahead perhaps the population of that area of the country will increase to justify more representation.

I believe his comment with respect to other countries, particularly our neighbour to the south, is very interesting and very appropriate where a much larger population appears to be well served. In fact, some people think it is still over-served by a much lesser number of representatives than we have here in Canada. I believe that their Congress is not a whole lot bigger than our House of Commons even though they have 10 times the population. That is one argument I have certainly heard advanced by many Canadians against expanding the membership of this Chamber.

I would like to touch on another aspect of this in response to the hon. member's question as to whether we really need more representatives. I think this goes to the root and scope of our representation here in the Canadian Parliament. On this side of the House we have argued rather strenuously and will continue to argue that the scope of our representation in this Chamber is very circumscribed. In other words, we really do not have the freedom we think is necessary to represent the wishes and directives of our constituents as should be available in a representative democracy through things like free votes. Quite often we find in the House members are voting and acting in accordance with strict directives from their party.

If that is going to continue to be the case, I would suggest that indeed there could be fewer of us simply responding to directives from the executive portion of our party. If we are going to truly solicit and actively represent the concerns and wishes and directives of our constituents then we would have much more legitimacy, especially with respect to numbers than we do today.

Last, I would like to point out to the hon. member that although I agree with his contention that we ought not to increase the numbers in this Chamber, and as he rightly points out there are even physical limitations on that today, this bill makes absolutely no commitment to do that. There is nothing in this bill that says we are going to turn this back to committee with a view to ensuring that the number of members in this Chamber does not increase.

That is a real concern. I would say to the hon. member that for that reason I would urge him to support the amendment we have made to give a period of time so that those very specific directions can be built into the bill and then the bill can be brought back. We know where we are going and we know what we want to achieve. It is clearly stated and we can go forward on a much more solid basis that is open to evaluation and debate rather than just throwing the thing wide open again.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add some fresh thoughts on our debate about the proposed suspension of the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.

I wonder if we should consider starting from the premise that this Parliament ought to interfere in due process set up by Parliament only for some clearly stated public policy purpose.

What concerns some of us in the House very much is that the purpose of this interference has not at all been stated. There is absolutely nothing in the bill that says what we are hoping to achieve by suspension of the process that has been in effect now for many months.

The proposed bill is entirely silent on important elements that would provide some direction and also that would allow the citizens we serve to evaluate the merits of the process. Other speakers have stated clearly, and I would agree, that the effects of the present process are somewhat undesirable.

I represent the riding of Calgary North. It is the largest riding in terms of voter population in the province of Alberta, with over 94,000 electors. It is growing very quickly. New communities are being built up rapidly and the boundaries of the riding are expanding.

This commission in its initial proposal which was mailed to the electors in my riding did not just take away a portion of the riding, which is the largest riding in Alberta and growing. Obviously part of it will have to go somewhere else. The commission ripped the thing in half and gave me a chunk of someone else's riding. Not only did this disrupt the sense of community that the riding has enjoyed for a while but it also took away a part of another sense of community that has been built up in another riding.

There would not be any problem with taking away from the largest riding in Alberta, but to do that on one hand and then give me part of another one does not make a whole lot of sense in my view and in the view of many of my constituents. The concern that has been stated on all sides of the House is the tendency of the commission to violate the sense of community that has been built up. I would suggest that this is a valid concern.

If we are going to have our citizens participating in the political process in a meaningful way then the provisions of the act that instruct the commission to respect the community of interest, to look at geographic criteria should have been more closely followed by the commission. I think that is a valid criticism.

The problem is that we have identified the problem but not the solution. What we are doing in this case is taking away an important element that would help us to identify solutions. That would be to proceed with the public hearings which have been scheduled to begin in a couple of weeks across the country for which many of our citizens are preparing.

The hon. member for Kamloops has just stated that in his riding citizens have already been preparing for those hearings. Here we are at the very last second pulling the rug out from under this process and not allowing the citizens of the country to help us move in better directions if we are agreed that we do need different directions.

I believe there is some real virtue in moving on to permit these public views to be heard, to assist parliamentarians who represent the citizens of the country, to look at the process, to adjust it so that the results are more desirable for all of us and to open the process up to that kind of input.

It could be very beneficial for us as parliamentarians to have the views of other citizens in the country who are directly affected by the work of the commission. It would also ensure that any future rules that were proposed were not open to the charge that has been made by other speakers in today's debate that the process has been interfered with in a partisan, unfair or inappropriate manner.

I believe that if we let the public speak on this situation the public would bring up the very same concerns that we in Parliament have, perhaps with an added perspective, definitely with a different credibility. I would urge the government to consider seriously whether this process should go ahead. I recommend that it does.

The process that is set up under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act is represented as being independent of political influence, and so it should be. Some speakers today have registered a concern that in stopping this present process and not putting in a clear process today that could be evaluated, political influence is a definite possibility in the future.

I would suggest that the House, if it wishes to maintain the confidence of the Canadian public, should protect that principle of independence by commissions that are engaged in these types of exercises and that we ought to affirm that principle of independence. Whatever we do in the House or whatever the government does to affect the process must clearly protect the integrity of the process rather than leave it open to even a suspicion that there can be partisan tinkering with it.

Unfortunately no safeguards are proposed in the legislation to address this very legitimate concern. That is one of the reasons, in spite of the disagreement that members of the House have with the commission's initial proposals, we feel that the present action of the government in simply putting a stop to the whole process without safeguards, without any clear direction, is inappropriate and why we do not support the bill that is before us today.

In Calgary hearings by the commission have been scheduled for April 20. We have urged citizens there to make their proposals known. We hope that this kind of participation can still take place. If the government, after today's debate, after hearing some of the concerns and suggestions from other members of the House, will allow those hearings to proceed it will encourage participation of the public in what is happening with redistribution.

There have been many suggestions made today that the people of Canada do not want to pay more members of Parliament. Some people have been so unkind as to suggest that some members of the public feel that the 295 we have today are not entirely worth their pay. I am sure that is not true but it has been suggested by some.

If it is true that the people of Canada do not want to see an increase in the number of members of the House, the number of members representing and governing them, we ought to give them an opportunity to air this concern. That would be another purpose of the public hearings that we feel should not be stopped but should go ahead.

The suggestion has been made in the House but there really has been no opportunity for the members of the public to make this suggestion. Perhaps if they were allowed to speak they would be happy to have more of us doing the fine job that we are doing. However, if they do not feel that way they should be allowed to say so clearly and to the proper body.

I want to emphasize that this exercise of electoral redistribution and the public hearings that accompany it really go to the root of the democratic principle of representation. In a democracy we abide by the principle of one person, one vote. That is a very important principle of democracy. That means that our proportional representation has to be unified across the country.

The redistribution that is necessary because of fluctuations in population is important and the exercise that surrounds this redistribution is important because it touches this very fundamental proposition of one person, one vote, a proportional representation.

I would emphasize that we ought not to interfere with this exercise lightly because of the very fundamental principles that it speaks to. I think the people of Canada would have a right to be concerned if a government used its majority against the wishes of all members of the House, of all representatives of the people, to interfere in a very fundamental democratic exercise without having the opportunity for people to speak themselves.

I would suggest that rather than exercising our power as legislators to pass judgment on the proposals of the commission, although we are certainly entitled to state our concerns and opinions and would be free to do so in the commission hearings, that instead we use our responsibilities as leaders to ensure full and fair public debate and review of the commission's proposals.

I think that would be the service that we should render to the public rather than simply using our own unilateral judgment to put a stop to the exercise of the commission's jurisdiction.

I think that we as legislators also have a responsibility to ensure that the commission respects the provisions of section 15 of the present Electoral Boundaries Redistribution Act which mandates that they look at community and geographic considerations and some of the things that we could argue have been violated in the initial proposals of the commission.

However, I would emphasize that these are initial proposals only, that they are not written in stone. They are, presumably and certainly ostensibly, open to public input and public influence. I would suggest that we allow that process to go ahead.

In summary I believe there are public policy reasons to re-examine the present process. It is clear that there is a lot of unhappiness both in terms of the growing numbers of MPs that have been suggested and in terms of the violation of community and the sense of cohesion that has been built up in many areas through political involvement.

However, I believe that this process should be carefully and thoughtfully considered and rather than just throwing out $5 million worth of work today that we give some clear direction when we do change the process and that the changes be proposed only when they have been properly framed and not just on "we don't like this, we don't know what we like, but we are not going

to go ahead with this", especially without the public being able to speak on this.

With that recommendation I urge members of the House to support our proposed amendment to this bill.

[Calgary North, March 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, several of my Calgary North constituents have raised concerns about a member of the other place and his work on behalf of a developer in Calgary.

Since his appointment this individual has acted for the developer in public hearings and has also very actively lobbied city officials to advance the developer's interests.

Calgary North constituents are particularly outraged that someone they are paying to represent Albertans should use his influence in this manner and by the fact that he is doing so at the expense of his attendance in the other place which is now sitting.

I call on the Prime Minister to ask the government leader in the other place to investigate the ethics involved when a member of that place lobbies-

[The Economy, March 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are saying that steps need to be taken now to quit living on borrowed money. One of the signals many Canadians are telling their elected representatives they want to see is a reform of the gold plated pension plan of members of Parliament.

When will the government respond to public outrage over a plan which gives MPs a pension for life after only six years in office?

[The Economy, March 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Deputy Prime Minister.

Yesterday the Liberal Government of Newfoundland announced that it would balance its budget next year. In a budget distinguished by the absence of any new taxes or job creation programs, Finance Minister Winston Baker stated:

We must not make commitments today that will place an unmanageable financial burden on the taxpayers of tomorrow. We can no longer mortgage our children's future for short term political gain. That was the way of the past.

The economic challenges facing Newfoundland are certainly as serious as those of the federal government. If Newfoundland can commit to a balanced budget, why can the Government of Canada not do the same?

[Supply, March 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the first comment of the hon. member about developing a contingency plan in consultation with all parties, I would emphasize that this is a contingency plan for corrective action, if we read the words in the motion. We do not consider the present plan put forward by the government to be the proper plan for Canada for reasons that I have just expounded on at some length. However the plan we need to put together is a corrective plan.

I would say again that yes, we can spend whatever money is necessary to put a few people back to work. Yes, we can do that and it would be nice for them. What I would appeal to the House to do is look at the long term and look at what is best over all.

[Supply, March 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the doom and gloom parade by the member opposite in his comment would do the Reform Party proud, I would think.

I must say I do not think words like idiotic really add a great deal to the debate. As leaders of this country we have an obligation to discover and consider serious issues in a serious and thoughtful way. I would appeal to the member opposite, through you Mr. Speaker, to do that for the sake of Canadians who are looking to us for leadership.

In the past 20 years, with a great deal of borrowed money from our youth, we have put into place, and the government opposite was responsible for much of this especially in the early days, program after program after program that was supposed to help Canadians, young Canadians, increase employment and do all of the things the government says it is going to do. All it has done is add to the burden placed on our young folks.

I would challenge not only the hon. member who just spoke but all members of the government to think about what is going to happen in 20 years. Are the young people of the country who are going to be our taxpayers, business people and the people responsible for our affairs going to stand and say: Good for you guys, spending this money on a youth corps in 1994? Are they going to say boy, did you ever turn our country around, or are they going to say look where you guys put us, look at the hole we are in, look at the tax burden that is on us, look at the irresponsible way you handled our future? I ask the member to ask himself that question.

[Supply, March 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I believe there are two related fundamental questions which must be considered when considering the motion before the House today. First, can Canadians continue to live on borrowed money? Second, should Canadians continue to live on borrowed money?

We ought to acknowledge that it is very pleasant to live on borrowed money. Certainly Canada has enjoyed that position for over 20 years now and it is even desirable if only immediate benefits are the consideration.

However, I believe that living on borrowed money for our country amounts to short term gain and a lot of long term paying. Addressing the question of whether Canada can continue to live on borrowed money, the answer obviously has to be no, not in the long term.

We are already starting to drain away money that would otherwise have been available to fund our health care education and pension programs by the interest obligation that we have built up on the half trillion dollars plus that we have managed to borrow in the last 20 years.

Our interest obligation is this year $41 billion. We are borrowing only $39.7 billion. Therefore we are not even borrowing enough this year to cover our interest payment. We are going to have to take away tax dollars that could have gone to fund social programs if we had not built up in the last 20 years this interest obligation.

This means also that for 21 years plus our creditors have funded an artificially high standard of living for our country. I would submit that anyone who lives on an artificially high standard of living for very long is going to have to face reality one day. That includes our country.

Unfortunately the government says that it intends to put us even further in the hole over the next three years by borrowing another $100 billion more than we earn. Even if interest rates were so fortunate as to stay at around 5 per cent, on the $100 billion the government is going to borrow we will have to pay each and every year forever $5 billion.

That is a lot of money. The interest today that we are paying amounts to $1,200 per second and that is money that could be helping a lot of Canadians if it were not going down the drain in interest on high living for the last 20 years.

Anyone who has ever run a business or managed a household budget or even the allowance in their piggy bank knows that if one keeps spending more money than is coming in soon one will find oneself in trouble. That is a simple fact of life.

Unfortunately our leaders seem to be the only ones who act as though real life truths need not apply to their decisions. As more and more of our income is spent each year on interest, we are going to have less to spend on health care, education and pensions, let alone on the new programs that governments keep introducing, 18 in this particular budget.

Every dollar that has to go to government in taxes to pay this interest and to pay for government programs is one less dollar that can be invested to build and create business and job producing activity.

This is not a healthy state of affairs. Sir Roger Douglas, a former finance minister of New Zealand, stated: "The only justification for the government taxing people and then spending the money for them is if the government can demonstrate some special skill or knowledge that the average person does not have in how to spend the money". He then said: "I simply do not believe that".

I think a lot of Canadians would agree that governments in the past and present have not demonstrated any special skill in spending our money for us as Canadians.

Saddest and most disturbing, however, are the consequences of governments setting this great country on a course of living on borrowed money. It makes future taxpayers the ones who get stuck with the bill. Sometimes driving down the road one will see a bumper sticker, quite often on a nice motor home, saying: "We are spending our children's inheritance". This is true: in Canada today we are spending our children's inheritance. We are spending their future earnings.

This reprehensible behaviour amounts to taxation without representation. Instead of paying our own way, enfranchised Canadians today through their elected leaders are literally spending money that will have to be paid back with interest obligation by our children and our grandchildren. We have heavily mortgaged their future so that today we can have expensive and comfortable programs.

We are not justified in spending the birthright of future generations of Canadians. I would further submit that we have a duty to protect the interests of those who have no say in the burdens that are being placed upon them. They are the ones who are going to have to live with our mistakes. In 20 short years we are already worse off than if we had not borrowed a nickel.

The money that we bring in today is now not entirely going to fund the help that we want to give disadvantaged people of our society. Some of it is already starting to go to pay interest. As that increases more and more of our income and our tax dollars are going to have to go to interest. We will have fewer and fewer dollars to fund important programs like health care and education and pensions. Pretty soon those programs are going to be squeezed out of existence. They are already being eroded right across the country.

We in the House ought to join together and make the sometimes tough choices needed to secure our children's future. The motion before us today makes four modest proposals to take us in that direction. First, the motion urges us to say no new programs and, second, to put spending caps on the discretion of government. The Reform Party has proposed a very modest spending cap of only 6 per cent. There is barely a household or business in the entire country that has not cut its spending by at least 6 per cent and, I would venture to say, a good deal more than that in the majority of cases. Yet members of the House in both the Official Opposition and the government parties would not even support such a minuscule spending cap by the House. I say that is to our shame.

The third proposal we have put forward is to require progress reports on deficit reduction by those responsible for handling our finances and our fiscal affairs. That is an accountability measure which is only prudent in any company or enterprise.

Last, as leaders, as people who have been entrusted not only with today's affairs but with the well-being of future Canadians, we have to put together a plan for corrective action where we should not be moving further in the direction of living on borrowed money.

For the sake of young and unborn Canadians, I appeal to members of the House today to show the courage and the leadership to support the motion before us.

[Supply, March 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. I believe we think in the same way. I would fight to the death for freedom of opportunity and to have equal respect with anybody in this House, in business, in the professions and in society. That is a fundamental entitlement to any individual.

It is probably not true to say we all have complete freedom to make decisions. There are a lot of limits on the decisions we can make as individuals in this society. We have to recognize that and live with it. Gender or physical characteristics should not limit our freedom to make decisions.

More than any other country Canada has tremendous freedoms and we should be proud of that. As women we have demonstrated we can contribute significantly in all levels of society on a level playing field. Abraham Lincoln said that if you have what it takes, people will take what you have. It is pretty clear in Canadian society we have a tremendous opportunity no matter what our gender is to bear the truth of that out.

We must give people those chances and the results will speak for themselves.

[Supply, March 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, this is a very interesting debate and I congratulate the members of the Official Opposition for raising these issues. They are very important to society and should be properly examined. Sometimes they generate more heat than light, but I believe the quality of the debate today was very good.

I think the principle we are talking about today is important, one of equity and equality. It is something clearly that many members of this House, probably all members of this House, believe in very passionately and very fundamentally. I think it is sometimes in the interpretation of how this can be delivered that we have different ideas and legitimately so.

The Reform Party has proposed an amendment or an addition to the motion before us. Measures to support the desired outcomes that are set forth in this motion will be provided, will be delivered through providing equality of opportunity without resorting to gender discrimination. I believe that is an issue worth thinking about and worth debating.

The Reform Party does advocate equality of all Canadians regardless of gender. It also supports equality of opportunity without demanding equality of outcome. These are difficult concepts sometimes because they might seem mutually exclusive.

As Canadians we need to decide what kinds of personal choices and freedoms will play a role in what decisions and policies we put in place.

Individuals have the right to make choices for themselves. It enhances their dignity. It is sad that many men, women and children in our society who do not have the same freedom of choice live in very disadvantaged conditions. When these disadvantaged conditions are predicated solely on gender, age or ethnic and linguistic background, it is something we ought not to tolerate. Those kinds of distinctions should not determine the choices or opportunities we have.

Sometimes we simply do not make good choices. It has nothing to do with gender or any other kind of background. Our own involvement in life if you will has brought about those results. I sometimes wonder whether those choices should be corrected and compensated by the hard work and money of other people simply because those making the choices might happen to be women or in some other category seen to be disadvantaged.

We should help those people who need it, those who are truly unable to help themselves or have suffered misfortune. That has been a product of civilized society for centuries. However we must be careful in asking for special protection or special consideration based on things like gender. It could amount to an admission of inability to succeed on a level playing field with other members of society, to make good choices, to advance through competence, diligence and hard work, experience, learning and correcting our mistakes.

It is unfair to women to say they somehow cannot compete on that level. It is unfair to say that because of that they must be provided with extra money because someone has decided what they are doing is just as valuable as what a higher paid individual is doing, or someone has decided they must be given a particular level of housing through public contributions. It is untrue that women in this society through their own competence, ability and hard work are unable to provide these things for themselves and their families.

There may be issues that society needs to work on to make sure that women are not unfairly disadvantaged. One example is a woman being left with child care responsibilities when the other parent sails off into the wild blue yonder without carrying

those responsibilities. However, that is far different from setting artificial standards and saying that no matter what you do, no matter what your level of effort, no matter what your level of input, no matter what choices you make, other people are responsible for giving you those things. That is unfair and unwise in our society.

Others have mentioned Agnes Macphail, the first woman ever elected to Parliament. I have been reading some of her speeches. Like many women in this Chamber today, she certainly was no shrinking violet. She summed up her attitude toward the subject of today's debate with these words: "I want for myself what I want for other women, absolute equality". That to me says it all. Equality is not other people suggesting that women cannot make it on their own and therefore they have to be given a lift or a leg up any more than we would do for any other member of society. Yes, we should do that for people but not because they are women or because they are from a particular linguistic or cultural background but simply because we help each other as members of society.

When we look at today's amendment and our support for it, it is very important to establish a decision and a deliberate policy of not making gender discrimination. When we help members of society and when we decide the level of support we give to people, that decision must be based on need and not on other identifiable characteristics.

We ought not to compartmentalize society into different groups and marginalize people based on physical characteristics. We should deal with the issues that affect and hurt us all, that cause us pain and dislocation and that have broad implications for everyone in society. We need to treat them as people issues, as issues that are important to us all.

I urge this House to support the amendment we put forward.