Debates of June 15th, 1995

Questions On The Order Paper

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

With regard to Indians making purchases off reserve at designated remote stores, ( a ) what was the amount of GST exemption for eligible Indians for the fiscal years 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94, and ( b ) what are the designated remote stores off reserve by province?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Remote stores are not required to accumulate or report on the total dollar value of their sales to Indians. There is no requirement in law for reporting this information to Revenue Canada. Moreover, accumulating such information would significantly increase the vendor's reporting requirements.

Off reserve vendors qualifying as remote stores are entitled to waive the delivery requirement on tax relieved sales to Indians. The department does not maintain a comprehensive list of qualifying remote store vendors. The individual vendors are responsible for determining their eligibility as a remote store and are accountable for the GST receivable if they did not meet the requirements. Their eligibility is later verified by a deparmental audit.

Question No. 188-

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

What was the amount of GST credit paid to eligible on reserve status Indians for the fiscal years 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

The information requested is not available as Revenue Canada does not keep statistics on the number of goods and services tax, GST, credit payments issued to status Indians. In addition, the department does not categorize individuals by status or residence and is therefore unable to extrapolate the requested information from its data banks.

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Saint-Léonard, QC]

Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from June 14 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-69, an act to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions and the readjustment of electoral boundaries; and of the amendment.

Electoral Boundaries Readjustmentact, 1995

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Prior to resuming debate, due to the statement by the minister, Government Orders will be extended by 12 minutes.

I would inform the hon. member for North Vancouver that he has 14 minutes left in the debate.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, when my speech was interrupted last night, I was speaking on Bill C-69. At the time when I began my speech I mentioned the continuing growth of the debt and deficit.

I would like to mention that in the 11 hours since I have stopped speaking and have started again, the debt has increased by approximately $50 million. Overnight while we were out of this place the government overspent by $50 million. That gets added on with interest to the debt burden already being carried by our children and our grandchildren.

I also mentioned earlier in my speech last night and I would like to reiterate that the issue of constituency representation is a very important aspect of many of the bills we are considering. Free votes were never an issue in past Parliaments because the three worn out, dictatorial, arrogant old line parties all played the same game of agenda politics.

They never wanted to and still do not want to govern the country according to the wishes of the Canadian voters. They are not interested in conducting business in accordance with the wishes of taxpayers. There was a very good example of that less than 15 minutes ago when the government created a situation where the House has to stay open well after midnight, debating bills and motions that could have been debated adequately many months ago when there was plenty of time to have public input, to do these things properly. Those bills and motions do not have to be rammed through the way it is being done, all jammed into a few days at the end of the session when the public and the media do not get an adequate opportunity to look at things.

If the government had been truly interested in carrying out the wishes of Canadian voters and taxpayers, it would not engage in this type of activity. It would admit that many of its bills are badly flawed and would simply allow them to die or withdraw them.

At the moment, with the exception of the Reform MPs and a few independently minded Liberals, most of the MPs are nothing more than voting machines. All we do is keep busy between votes. Apart from the group I just mentioned, MPs are simply not interested in reflecting their constituents' wishes in the House.

All of the debates, the questions, the committee meetings, the hearings, the witness testimony and the travel junkets are nothing more than make work projects to keep MPs busy between votes, votes for which the outcome is already known because the Prime Minister knows what he wants to happen before the first words of debate are uttered.

As I finished last night, I mentioned that last year the government introduced approximately 60 bills. By the end of the year, approximately 60 bills had been passed. Members could have come here for one day, for one hour last year, stacked the whole 60 bills this high on the Clerk's table, voted once and the outcome would have been pretty much the same.

For all of the debates and discussions that went on, the outcome would have been pretty much the same. That is because the outcome is already known before debate begins. It makes a mockery of attempts by people to properly represent the taxpayers, the constituents of this country.

Instead of having a reasonable approach to the bill before us, members end up debating a bill that resulted from partisan interference in the non-partisan electoral boundaries redistribution process.

When is the bill being debated? Right at the end of the session. Members have to go through the process of speaking right into the small hours of the morning. The government does not particularly care about input or debate any more than it cares for input or debate on any other bill.

The Liberals know it will pass because the Prime Minister has already issued his instruction. It will pass. Yesterday maybe half a dozen Liberal MPs were brave enough to defy the orders of the Prime Minister and to vote against the gun control bill in order to represent their constituents. Congratulations to those members who felt strongly enough to stand up for the principles that were important to them.

We heard that the Prime Minister gave a speech during the Liberal caucus meeting yesterday morning in which he told Liberal MPs that if they vote against a government bill twice, then they are out. If that is true, then I hope the hon. ladies and gentlemen on the government side think very carefully over the next few days about whether they can tolerate such an ultimatum.

Can they maintain their dignity? Can they continue to claim to have ethics? Can they look their families and their constituents in the eye? And can they continue to support their party if they would accept such a dictatorial ultimatum? Are they grown adult Canadians with a sense of morality, or are they prepared to be pawns in a giant political machine?

Clearly, we have a little way to go before free and representative votes are a normal part of the operations of this place, but I truly believe we are on the verge of a revolution in the way Parliament functions. If there are dinosaurs on the other side of the House who refuse to accept the inevitable change, they will soon be sent into retirement by the voters. Then there will be no more Bill C-18s and no more Bill C-69s, because the people of Canada will be represented here instead of the political parties of Canada being represented here.

[Anna Terrana, Liberal, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am disturbed to hear that our hon. colleague is saying that the Prime Minister yesterday threatened the caucus that they would be out of caucus if they did not vote for our legislation. That is not correct, and I would like to say that I oppose it.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry, but that is an item for debate.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, once we get to a point where the representatives in this place are clearly representing their constituents, there will be no more need for Bill C-18s or Bill C-69s, Bill C-41s, because the people of Canada will be represented here rather than the political parties of Canada being represented here. The legislation passed will be meaningful because it will be legislation wanted by the voters and taxpayers who are building the country and supplying the funds we need to run this place. The debates will be real debates. The committee meetings will actually mean something. Questions during question period will actually be answered, and members of Parliament will regain the respect of the people of Canada.

In closing, I would like to mention two things. Our debt has increased by almost a million dollars during the time it took me to give the speech, the total time of the speech. The second point is that the Deputy Prime Minister promised to resign if the GST had not gone within a year of the election. She still has not done it.

[Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais, Liberal, Madawaska—Victoria, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am astonished by our colleague's comments. Perhaps he would care to tell the members of this House how many of the votes taken by Reform Party members since they were first elected to this House have in fact been free votes.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question.

I am astonished that she is astonished. Having had the opportunity to be in this House for some time since the last election, I would have hoped that the hon. member would have noticed that every vote that has been taken in this House by Reform has been a free vote.

We think very carefully about the details of the bills before us. We all consult with our constituents on an ongoing basis. For the most part we have been elected by voters who have similar beliefs and feelings, so it is not uncommon for us to be able to vote the same way on a bill. On routine bills, that is the way it happens. On controversial issues or issues where there are regional differences, it quite clearly can be witnessed that Reform has been able to demonstrate that freedom of voting quite regularly. There is never any punishment. There is never any animosity between the members because that is the understanding. The constitution of the Reform Party requires Reform MPs to reflect the wishes of their constituencies whenever that desire can be clearly demonstrated, and it is compulsory in the case of moral issues.

I do thank the hon. member for permitting me to elaborate on that and to clarify that point.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, with respect to what the member refers to as new style politics and the wishes of his constituents, could he explain the activities of the Reform last evening, when for about three hours during the votes I noticed the members were deliberately standing up and sitting down very slowly? Instead of standing up so that the clerks could do the count very quickly, they were standing up and sitting down very slowly. With respect to this new style of politics, is this a new tactic the Reform Party has developed? Was it requested by their constituents?

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is an interesting question from the member. The member asked why some of the members on the Reform side were getting up rather slowly during the votes on C-41 last night. I would like to mention that I think they were emulating and mimicking the member for Burin-St. George's, who makes a habit of carrying on that activity.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is very interesting that this bill would come back from the Senate. They have already expressed displeasure with the kinds of bills the Liberals put through and are expressing it once again. Maybe this time the government will get the message.

One of the reasons we had this bill in the first place was the fact that many Liberal members did not like the way the boundaries were changed. This did not suit the demographics that they thought were in their best interests, and without any thought to whether it was in the best interests of their constituents or the taxpayers of this country they set about to basically eradicate $8 million worth of work by the boundary commissions.

In my riding and in all the ridings that are pretty well interconnected with mine we went through the public hearing process in British Columbia, as I am sure all the other provinces did as well. The initial boundaries that were set were not liked there. It is not important whether they were liked by the MPs or not; they were not liked by the constituents of those ridings.

The public hearings were held, which is the process that is in place, and they did their job. The boundary commission came out to the various towns where these were advertised and were absolutely deluged with letters, briefs, and with people coming before the commission at the public hearings to testify. The people who were not happy with those first boundaries explained in detail what it was they did not like about them, what they thought the alternatives were, why theirs were better and how things could work with the new plan they had.

The people from the boundary commission who came out on these public hearings accepted this information. They went to subsequent hearings until they had heard from the entire area. They then went back and considered all the information and input that took place. That is the way the process is supposed to work. If there is something wrong, it is up to the people it affects, not the MPs. It is up to the constituents, the voters. It is up to them to tell the people who have the authority to set these boundaries what is wrong with this in the first place. That is the process that took place. The people involved in setting the new boundaries took this information and decided that obviously it was what the people wanted. So they redrew the boundaries and changed the program based on the input of the people of the affected ridings.

What they came out with for my riding and for those interconnected with my riding was not absolute perfection as we would like to see it, but it was something that was much better than originally brought up. It was something that reflected the wishes of the people in the various ridings and it was something we could all live with. Unfortunately, it was not something, even at that point, members of the Liberal government could live with. They decided that they had to have changes. Well from time to time these things do need to be upgraded and changed, but that does not mean you should spend millions and millions of wasted dollars to make those changes. There is a time and a place for everything.

Simple changes to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act can always be brought in, but they should not be brought in at the eleventh hour, scrapping all the work that had been just about completed before this started.

One of the problems with what the government is doing is that the cost of boundary examination and modification runs about $8 million. As I said, most of that work had been completed. There is only the final step left to take place. Yet the government would have us scrap that so we can bring in a change of rules and have this work done all over again.

The public has already had an opportunity to talk about the boundaries and what was proposed. One of two things is going to happen if this bill goes through and they scrap all the work that has gone before and start back at square one: either the government is going to listen to the people, the voters of Canada, and do what they want, which has already been done; or it is going to ignore the voters of Canada, which is often its style, and do whatever it wants in order to get the boundary ridings that best reflects its members' ability to be elected. The latter is unacceptable.

If we are going to change the act there are a lot of things that should be in there. Some of those things have been addressed by the Senate amendments and some have not. One thing we proposed was a cap or even a reduction in the total number of MPs in this House.

We see the kinds of high jinks and antics exhibited by one side evoking a response from the other side and causing further retaliation. Do we need more people to do that? It costs a lot of money to have an MP here. Are people going to be better represented because we stuff more people into this place, increase the operating budget of Parliament, revamp this whole Chamber so we can squeeze extra seats in, and not only that but leave it in a formula that will see it continue to expand year after year? Is that in the best interest of the Canadian public? I do not think so.

We need elected representatives who are going to listen to the people. It does not matter if there are a thousand people in here, if they do not listen to what the people say it will do absolutely no good. That is what is happening in Bill C-69.

The government is not listening to the people who have already had input to the boundary commissions and said this is what they want. It is prepared to scrap that. There are not enough changes in these amendments or in the legislation proposed by the government, sent once already to the other place and returned to be sent back again, to justify spending $6 million to $8 million all over again. As I said, the end result is going to be the same thing or the total ignoring of the wishes of the public.

I am here to represent my constituents. My constituents can best be represented by the style of boundary changes we already have in place. If this bill goes through, with or without the Senate amendments as they have been proposed, then the wishes of my constituents are going to be ignored. Consequently, I do not support the government's legislation dealing with C-69 one way or another, with or without the amendments from the other place. It is still an unacceptable piece of legislation and I will never support it.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was interested to hear my colleague talk about the bill coming in at this time.

I am interested in his experience in the transportation portfolio he is working on. I wonder whether he has made any observations in that area with respect to the kinds of representation people are talking about. I know he has travelled quite a bit and he has talked to a number of people who may be looking for the kind of representation he is talking about. Is he basing his concept of representation on the remarks and the comments he hears from people as he travels? If so, what is he hearing?

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her inquiry. I have travelled a great deal and I have talked with people on a number of issues not only in the transportation area but in many other areas as well, including representation and how that would be affected by the make-up of a riding.

For example, one of the problems we will have if the bill passes is that we will not know what the boundaries are. When we talk about representation we have no idea whatsoever who will be representing what area. The hon. member from Calgary could have her boundaries changed substantially. In my own riding I could look at the original model of boundary changes. It was changed immensely from the initial proposal by the boundary commission after listening to input from people who would be affected.

As I said, we either represent the will of the people or we ram something down their throats. In this case we do not know which way government members will go because once in a while they listen. I do not know if it is because we are getting to them or the people are getting to them but every now and then they listen. It catches us off guard when it happens. More often they do not listen to the people. We are seeing all kinds of legislation being rammed through the House right now and they are certainly not listening to the people on those matters.

That is one of the problems we have, and I am hearing about it as I travel from riding to riding across Canada. I have had meetings in places like Mississauga. The problem is that if the bill goes through the way the government proposes it, with or without the amendments now before us, we are looking at an unknown future for all ridings and for all boundaries. We have absolutely no idea who will be representing which portion of which riding.

In the case of my riding of Kootenay West-Revelstoke, a portion of the north would be cut off under the current proposal and massive areas would be added to the west. On the previous proposal I would go east all the way through the next member's riding and lose a portion of the compact area of my own. It is very important that we consider not only our own ridings but those of all MPs across the country.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, I noticed the hon. member was concerned about the cost of Parliament and the cost of members of Parliament, and I think rightly so. It is very important that taxpayers' money be well spent and be seen to be well spent.

However I noticed last evening the member sitting down and standing up very slowly during the votes. I have heard that one of the costs of Parliament is the cost of running the House and I have been told that it is roughly $48,000 an hour. It seems to me last evening the standing up and sitting down very slowly perhaps cost us an extra three hours, which would be roughly $150,000 or roughly the salary and associated costs of an MP for a whole year.

I noticed the hon. member was standing up particularly slowly and sitting down particularly slowly. I wonder what he thought about spending the equivalent of the annual salary and benefits of one member of Parliament in one wasted period of three hours last evening.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased the hon. member on the other side noticed anything at all.

With respect to the cost of running Parliament last night and getting around his stopwatch timing of how fast or slow I do my callisthenics from here, I would suggest to him that he should talk to his party leaders. We inquired if they were interested in moving things quickly last night. We were prepared to do that. We offered to have the whole House close down and we could have been well on our way long before he ever envisioned. However they chose not to go that way.

If we want to talk about wasting money and wasting time, let us examine why we were here last night in the first place. The reason we were here is that all last spring and all last fall the government had all kinds of opportunity to bring the bills forward that we are now ramming through with time allocation and late night sittings. Let us talk about things like Bill C-7, an absolute piece of garbage. That legislation has sat for an entire year with absolutely nothing being done, and the government is talking about bringing it forward next week and ramming it through.

If there is waste in the House it is not on this side; it sits firmly with the member and the Liberal Party on that side.

[Anna Terrana, Liberal, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have been travelling with my hon. colleague on the transport committee so I know what his principles are. We shared a good relationship on the committee.

The riding of Vancouver East that I represent includes a portion of the former Vancouver-Kingsway riding that will be re-established. In 1988 I made a presentation to the travelling committee on the Kingsway riding. I remember at the time I suggested that Vancouver-Kingsway should be kept where it was because the population would grow and we would need it again. Most of the constituents of the riding asked for Kingsway to remain. As we can see seven years later we are trying to re-establish Kingsway and at the time, as I said, the constituents wanted Kingsway to remain.

Does my colleague think that we should have some kind of order in a bill that helps us make better choices on the process of redistribution?

By the way, the part of my riding that will go is one of the best parts of my riding. However I am not speaking to that effect because whatever will come will come. I am not trying to change things. I am just thinking that there is a need for some order in the redistribution of the electoral boundaries and we need a bill to that effect.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. She is right. We have had many good times on committee together and I do appreciate her point of view from time to time.

However I find interesting one of the comments she made when she said: "that helps us make better choices". I did not think we were here to make choices. I thought we were here to represent the choices made by our constituents.

In my riding what was proposed was a great problem. However the people of my riding had input and as a result the riding boundary was changed from the original proposal, not in a minor manner but in a major way.

The consideration is not what we in Parliament will do but rather making sure the people in the riding have the democratic input into electoral boundary commissions. I know for sure it happened in the B.C. interior. I can only assume the member and her riding, being I am sure she would suggest well represented, would ensure that the democratic process took place in the electoral boundary commission.

As far as changes are concerned I said in my speech that changes were needed. Changes should be brought in as a routine matter between electoral boundary revisions, not at the eleventh hour when it is all but completed, which would scrap the entire process and we would start all over again at great cost and with great uncertainty to the constituents of the various ridings.

[Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais, Liberal, Madawaska—Victoria, NB]

Madam Speaker, I heard right, but I thought the hon. member would come back with different comments and maybe undo what he said in the first place. He said that the cost of sending MPs here was very high, with which I agree, and that we did not need to increase the cost and increase the number of MPs in the House.

I am surprised because the thrust of the bill will permit western Canadians to have adequate representation here as far as numbers are concerned. I do not agree with the member from western Canada who wants to eliminate the possibility of westerners having more MPs and more representation in the House.