Brian Pallister

[Terrorism, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs says we must review all security related issues. He says we are at war with terrorism and he is right.

The Prime Minister has argued today and on the past weekend against changing our nation's approaches to security issues. Could the Prime Minister explain to the House the blatant contradiction between the minister's position and his own?

[Terrorism, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's standing in the world depends on its ability to deliver on its commitments. If the United States asks the NATO alliance to participate in military action against those who perpetrated these horrendous acts, I think Canadians deserve to know if our NATO allies can rely on Canada to answer the call, yes or no.

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Yes, I did, Mr. Speaker. The reality of our nation is that our inseparable links, especially on the issues of trade, are a tremendous strength to us. However we face an obligation in terms of responding properly as a nation to the threats posed to security in the United States. Many Canadian families were directly impacted by the horrible actions of last week, but we have an obligation to all people of the world in terms of standing up against terrorism. It was never more apparent than it is now.

The fact is that perimeter security, because of the shared continent we inhabit with the United States, is an essential issue that we must address proactively. Our failure to do so should be obvious to all hon. members.

Our failure to strongly endorse actions that would protect every person on the North American continent from the potential actions of terrorists would be to put at risk the strong trade and protectionist relationships between Canada and the United States.

We have seen as a consequence of last week's actions the impact Canadians and Americans felt directly. Those who have travelled here from other points around the world have seen the delays, the costs to our small business community and the costs to the significant number of Canadians who count on employment as a result of trade.

The direct impact of our unwillingness to address the challenges of perimeter security is that the border between Canada and the United States becomes a perimeter which the United States must concern itself with protecting.

Any action which necessitates further delays and reductions in the efficiency of the markets which function in our two countries has a profound impact in a negative way on Canadians. The challenges are clear.

There are those who argue that there is a sovereignty question and that we should somehow take pride in the fact that we have become a home for far too many terrorists and a land that is known in too many quarters of the world as a place that welcomes and is hospitable to those who might do damage to others. That is a very serious charge that we must address. We have to address that proactively in the House through meaningful measures and not through lip service. That is our challenge in the weeks ahead.

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of my constituency of Portage--Lisgar to offer my profound condolences to the families and friends of those killed and injured in the horrifying terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

The events of the last week have made an indelible impression. The harrowing images of death and destruction will forever scar our memory. But it is the heroic qualities, the compassion, the courage, the faith that emerged in response to this horrible cruelty that strengthened each and every one of us.

Through the compassion of others not just in North America but also around the world we are reminded of our own humanity, of the trivial nature of the things that divide us and of the importance of what we share. We recognize that we are tied together. We recognize that we are bound to one another in the pursuit of freedom.

As we, who are colleagues in the House of Commons offer our words today, I am reminded of the old adage, love is more than words; love is deeds. Our words, though sincere and well meaning, can do very little to undo the horrific events of last week. It will be our deeds which will reveal the genuine depth of our true compassion. It will be our actions which will demonstrate our unquestionable commitment to the prevention of future such tragedies and our very real love of freedom.

These devastating events have awakened us in many ways. The anesthetic of complacency has worn off and a painful awareness grips all of us as we acknowledge the piercing sense of guilt that we all must feel. We ask ourselves the question: Could I have done more to prevent this? The unavoidable answer is yes.

There can be no plausible deniability for Canada's leaders on the issue of whether we are complicit in terrorist operations. Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has been urgently pointing this out for some time. The Ressam case, and far too many others, provide growing substantiation.

In January 1999 a special Senate committee on security and intelligence stated very clearly that Canada is a venue of opportunity for terrorist groups. Several former senior government staff members have expressed concerns. For example, former CSIS chief of strategic planning David Harris referred to Canada as a “big jihad aircraft carrier for launching strikes against the United States”.

The evidence is clear. Canadians are not interested in finger pointing. They know, as we do, that the clock cannot be turned back. Neither will they accept continued inaction. Canada must not be a bed and breakfast for terrorists.

It is natural for policy makers to be defensive of the status quo but I was very pleased today to hear the comments of the Minister of Foreign Affairs that all security related issues should be on the table for discussion. I offer my encouragement to him and my encouragement to other government members who, along with my Canadian Alliance colleagues, are committed to the pursuit of necessary changes.

No issue is of greater urgency than North American perimeter security. On the farm we do not strain the grain to find rats; we reinforce the walls to keep them out. Our walls must be reinforced. Our entry and exit security must be improved.

By threatening the openness which we have enjoyed along the Canada-U.S. border, we jeopardize billions of dollars of trade and tens of thousands of Canadian jobs. Our very standard of living is at stake. Over 87% of our trade is done with the United States.

Those who argue that the adoption of stricter perimeter entry policies will sacrifice Canadian sovereignty are either arguing for decreased security or increased unemployment. Neither of these is a laudable goal.

In terms of immigration, those who argue speciously that the strengthening of screening approaches is anti-immigrant are profoundly mistaken. Our immigration policies must be generous but they can be rigorous as well and they must be. We can no longer have a policy of admit first and ask questions later.

Canada has signed the United Nations international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism. We must uphold our commitment. Other signatories, such as Great Britain, have taken decisive action. They have adopted legislation which would make it a criminal offence to raise and provide funds in support of a terrorist organization. They have legislated such harsh penalties as banning from the country any group which participates in terrorist activities.

Many of my colleagues will be presenting proposals in the near future which, once adopted, will assure Canadians of our commitment to combat terrorism. Inaction on our part increases the speculation among our allies that our word will not be kept. We must show them that Canada is not on the sidelines in the battle against terrorism but where it belongs on the frontlines.

We believe that in order to break down the machinery of terrorism we must strengthen our security and intelligence commitments. The Prime Minister has acknowledged that international terrorism is a growing threat, yet a Liberal led Senate committee found that operating funds for federal agencies with a security or intelligence role fell by approximately 30% in the 1990s.

The struggle against terrorism is a global one. It is diplomatic. It is legal. It is political. It relies profoundly not on problem solving but on proactive strategies for prevention. What is required is information and intelligence gathering. Coalition building is essential. Canadians have a valuable contribution to make, but resources must be taken from lower priority areas and made available.

In the near future we will be enunciating specific suggestions on how this goal can best be attained.

Much more than its allies, Canada has cashed in its so-called peace dividend. Since the end of the cold war, Canada's diminished military capability has had an erosive effect on our world reputation.

Our NATO allies rise to the challenge of battling global terrorism and our Prime Minister hesitates. The Prime Minister's indecision is understandable, given the rusty and overstretched Canadian military machine as it exists today. The restoration of our defence capabilities is an important component of restoring Canada's reputation in the world.

When our house is in flames we want our neighbours to come running with a bucket today, not a card of condolence tomorrow. When the roles are reversed and our friends yearn for our assistance, we must not be hallmark allies offering pity but little else. Canada must seize the opportunity to assist in deeds not only as we do today in words. We cannot do everything, but we must not let what we cannot do prevent us from doing all that we can.

Today we have an opportunity to grieve together and to be angry together, but more than that to commit our hearts and minds to action together. We in the House are bound together by the task that stands before us. We are bound together in our desire to see the world become a place where all children can grow up free and strong.

Ours is not the first generation of Canadians to face the challenge of fighting for freedom. I will close by reciting the inscription on the soldier's tower at the University of Toronto:

Take these men for your example. Like them, remember that prosperity can only be for the free, that freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it.

[Canadian Wheat Board, June 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Prairie Centre for Agriculture recently released a study of wheat marketing in 35 nations. It found that Canada is one of only two countries not moving toward more private ownership and freer markets.

Incredibly, the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board has told western farmers that the solution to their income crisis is to stop growing wheat. When will the government realize that the real problem is not the state of the wheat market, but state control over the wheat market?

Western Canadian farmers have repeatedly called for the freedom to add value to their produce and create employment in rural areas. While farmers in other regions of Canada are relatively free of government control, western Canadian farm families remain hobbled by a restrictive, Soviet-style marketing system. The government should just get out of the way of western initiative.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 6th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism may want to add some comments. I believe if she were in the private sector she would have been fired long ago. I believe she would have been fired, dismissed, sacked and gone. If she would like to add—

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 6th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to add my comments to those made thus far on this bill.

I begin from the position that there is room for principle on all sides of this debate. I begin from the position that every member of the House will use what principles they have to make their decision on this bill. However, we were not born with principles, and some would argue that the very fact we are debating the bill is evidence that we have do not them. I do not take that position either. I take the position that I have principles, so as a principle based member of the House I will try to use those principles to make my decision on how I vote on the bill.

I begin by sharing with the members of the House some of the experiences I have had which have developed those principles in me. One fundamental principle I have is that I believe very strongly in equal pay for equal work. I believe that is a fundamental principle that we should all stand for in the House and that we should support wholeheartedly with every ounce of strength we have.

In my first occupation I was given the opportunity to work as a school teacher. We did not receive pay differentiated on the basis of our sex, race, creed, colour or any other factors. We received equal pay for equal work based on our training and educational background. That was a fundamental principle of my experience as a school teacher. Then I entered the private sector.

As a person who started a small business from scratch, I employed people on the basis of the fundamental principle, which should apply in the private sector and unfortunately sometimes does not, that people should be paid equally on the basis of their work regardless of any other factor. When replacing a position for example, one should compensate that person similarly or identically based on his or her equal ability to offer work and skill to a small business venture.

In the public sector such a principle is well understood. We abide by this principle in the public sector in every respect. We must support the principle of equal pay for equal work. That principle is something I believe is very important to all of us.

The question then becomes what principles are greater than that one? What principles are more important to us in the House than that one? If there are principles of more significance to us as members of the House, then let us speak to them through this bill.

The bill contains a clause which allows members to opt in. What that does is create two classes of members not differentiated on the basis of skill, work ethic, what they offer to the House or to the members of their constituencies, but solely on the basis of how they choose to listen to their principles and whether feel that the bill is in keeping with their fundamental beliefs.

If members of the House feel very strongly that the bill is contrary and contradictory to their fundamental principles, they must vote against it and must therefore opt out.

Let us examine why they must opt out. Because it is in the bill. Only for that reason must members be put in the position of having to make the choice as to whether they do or do not receive the benefits that other members do. In other words, what we are doing is debating a bill which penalizes those of principle.

It fundamentally detracts from the compensation of some members of the House based on one factor and one factor only: their personal principles, and that is wrong. It is wrong to debate a bill which contains a clause which creates two classes of members of parliament. That sends the wrong message to the people of the country.

As a member of our local chamber of commerce and as a participant in the national chamber of commerce, I know that small businesses in the private sector united together and initiated, through tremendous effort from their collective members, the idea of promoting equal pay for equal work across Canada. I understand how much work is involved in that. I understand the collective sacrifices made by volunteers to try to create a level playing field and provide an opportunity for all Canadians to share the benefits they deserve to receive from their work.

I understand what this opt in, opt out situation does and so should the members opposite. It sends a completely flawed message to the people of Canada. It says that there can be two different classes of members of parliament based on their fundamental principles. That is wrong.

The government House leader has repeatedly said that he hoped everyone would opt in. He said it with a palpable sense of guilt because he knows, as thinking members of the House must know, that this opt in clause is fundamentally flawed. I invite the House leader to explain if it is not flawed, why it is legitimate and valid. I invite him to tell us what the purpose of it is beyond the fact that it will simply allow members of principle to be punished financially for expressing their views on this bill.

Is there some fundamental greater principle to be served when we do not have the option in the House to opt out of any other piece of legislation? He uses the example of superannuation, but he knows full well that benefits are received in another form if not going into superannuation. That is not a legitimate example.

Is there a fundamental principle served by the presence of the opt in clause in the legislation? I ask him to address that question.

I believe that this particular clause in the bill sends the message that opposition has its price. It is too cute by half. It will be seen by Canadians to be a ploy to suppress opposition rather than encourage debate on principle. For that reason it is a sham and a shame. It creates a crisis of principle because it forces individual members of parliament to participate in what is essentially a game that none of us can win. It is a game which creates two classes of members of parliament for no legitimate reason whatsoever.

With the absence of this clause there would be opportunity for fundamental debate that could take place on significant principles on the differences we have, which are honest and legitimate. The reality is that this clause creates a phony debate. It is a diversionary tactic.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 6th, 2001]

Do you give us everything we ask for over here?

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 6th, 2001]

Two wrongs do not make a right.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Brandon—Souris for his comments. I share many of the views expressed he expressed.

The bill begins and ends with some errors in it. One of the key errors is it seems to misunderstand in its writing the fact that this is not the private sector we are talking about. Many of the members in the Chamber could be in the private sector earning more. Many of them came from the private sector where they were earning more. Many came from jobs in the private sector or the public service where they were earning less.

The fact of the matter is many members in this Chamber, if they were in the private sector, would have been fired long ago. The fact is that many of the members in this Chamber, if they were in the private sector, would have taken demonstrable cuts in their pay because of their inability to serve their constituents well or because of their unwillingness to serve all their constituents rather than just the few who perhaps supported them.

The reality is that this is not the private sector. To be fair, the reality also is that there are many members in the House who would in the private sector have earned bonuses and additional pay because the job they have done is above and beyond the call and the responsibility.

However the fact of the matter is this is not the private sector. Therefore, the fundamental principle that is at work here is that all members are equal and that all members are paid equally. The fundamental flaw that lies in this bill is the opt out provision which the Prime Minister has clearly designed to try to muzzle opponents to the bill.

The reality is there is a fundamental principle in our society and embodied in some of the acts of parliament that requires equal pay for equal service. The reality is that in most cases it is impossible in the public sector to measure the value of that service. Nonetheless the fundamental principle exists.

The truth of the matter is that for most of the members of the House this is not at all about the money. This was not about the money when they ran. It is not about the money now that they are here, and it probably will not be about the money when they leave. It is about something entirely different. It is about making a difference. It is about coming here to try to better society. It is about coming here to try to create a better society than the one that existed before we came here. Those things are far more in the minds of most of the members of the House, I expect in all parties, than the money. It is about making a difference.

Because so many members in the House are absent from the processes and the actual power making, there is a great sense of frustration. I would say frustration would be the dominant emotion on all sides of the House. With the possible exception of the front bench of the government, most members feel absent from the opportunity to really make a contribution and a difference. That being said, just because they cannot make a real contribution does not entitle them to get what they can out of the job in terms of financial compensation.

The argument has been made that by increasing the compensation Canadians will benefit because we will be able to draw a better class of people to this place. That does not say much about the people who are here now. I do not buy that argument any more than I buy many of the arguments made by the government in defending this bill.

There is a fine quality of people here generally and the reality is that most of them, as I said before, were not drawn here because of the money.

Why then would this bill be fair? It is fair in some respects. It is fair in part because the process which led up to it being drafted, for example the arm's length nature of the way in which the recommendations were developed, was good and we supported it. As the Canadian Alliance has said for a long time, we believe that the arm's length process should be followed in terms of the compensation determination for members of the House. As well we have supported the greater transparency that will be embodied in part by some aspects of this bill. The changing of tax free compensation to taxable is a move in that direction.

I supported as a provincial legislator a number of measures to increase the greater transparency and understanding taxpayers would have concerning legislation, regulations and compensation of members and people in the public service. I believe very strongly that this greater transparency is something to be applauded and it is something that we should support.

As well, I believe there are some positive aspects the bill in terms of the future removal of direct involvement by members of this House in the determination of what their compensation would be. These things are good, fair and comprise part of the bill.

However on balance I cannot support the bill. We will support our amendments to hoist this particular piece of legislation. I see it as largely unfair. I see it as departing from the so-called arm's length panel's recommendations in some key ways, particularly the MP pension calculations. It departs significantly from the recommendations made by the panel. That is not right. In terms of the retroactivity of the benefits back to January, it departs from the panel's recommendations, yet again creates greater generosity toward the members of the House than was the intention of that independent panel. That is unfair. That should not be the case. I cannot support the bill on those bases.

As well, this was not an election issue, as was mentioned by the member for Brandon—Souris, certainly not in my riding or in his. Nor, do I expect, was it an issue in the ridings of most members of the House. It was not an election issue. It was not raised. Why the hurry now? What is the rush? What is the reason that we have to push this thing through as quickly as this? I do not understand that and I do not think most members on this side of the House understand or accept the arguments made by the government on that issue.

There were election issues and there are issues that are important to Canadians that have not been addressed, very urgent and important issues in terms of agriculture, in terms of a decaying infrastructure and in terms of a growing sense of regional alienation across the country. Meaningful ways of addressing those serious and urgent problems should be sought and must be found. Instead the government moves to push this to the top of the order paper.

There are clearly three options that each of the members in the House must choose from in regard to this legislation, apart from abstaining which I will not include. I will include in these options whether or not they choose to opt out or in of these benefits.

First, they can say yes to the bill and obviously would therefore say yes to the benefits. If they believe on balance that this is a good bill, an urgent and necessary one, then that would be their position.

The second position would be to say no to the bill and no to opting in, thus creating by their decision, their moral decision, which is their rightful decision to make, a two tiered structure for members of parliament in terms of their compensation, based on a system that would punish those who stand on the basis of principle and reward those who choose to support the bill. Clearly this is what the Prime Minister had in mind when he put the opting out clause in the bill itself.

There is a third option. The third option is this: to say no to the bill because on balance it is seen to be wrong, because it is weak in many ways, because it needs to be debated more stringently and more fully by the Canadian people and for many other good reasons. The option is to say no to the bill, but then to be forced to make a decision subsequent to its passage, which the government may choose to force, to say yes to the benefits.

What would happen if someone were to do that? That person would be labelled a hypocrite, certainly by the Prime Minister I am afraid, certainly by certain members of the public. That person would be labelled a hypocrite but the reality is that this might not be the case at all.

In regard to including an opt out provision, I will reference Shakespeare. This is something from Othello which I was reading the other day:

Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing; 'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to a thousands; But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed.

The attempt by this government through this Prime Minister's design of this piece of legislation is to rob honourable people of their good names. It is to rob proud people who stand on moral ground and say no. It is to rob them of their income and then to rob them by accusation, if they choose not to support a two tiered compensation system for members of parliament, to rob them of their good name by calling them hypocrites.

I would say it would be hypocritical of a government to create that circumstance. I know of no good reason why the government would include such an obligation as to opt in or opt out of compensation and create a two tiered system within the House when such has not been the case in the past. Nor should it be the case in the future. Equal pay for equal work should be the rule that governs this society and it should govern in the House as well.

In closing, I want to say that there should be a free vote. Our party would support a free vote in the House. We should be mindful and respectful of the views of all who express their opinions on this issue.

I will not give in to muzzling attempts. I will not give in to threats. Threats do not work with me and they should not work with any thinking and respectful member of this parliament.

I encourage the members on the opposite side to join with us and hoist this bill six months into the future so that Canadians can be part of this important discussion just as much as the members of the House have been.