Scott Brison

[Supply, September 18th, 2003]

A ship.

[Chief Actuary Act, September 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-421 whose purpose is to provide for an independent chief actuary who would report directly to the House of Commons.

I remember, as many members of the House will remember, back to 1998 when Bernard Dussault was fired by the superintendent of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, OSFI, just weeks before he was to give a major report on the Canada pension plan. The firing of the former chief actuary highlights the need for greater autonomy in the office of the chief actuary. He sued for wrongful dismissal, claiming he was fired for refusing to put an optimistic spin on government CPP projections. He said that he was fired because he refused to keep projections for CPP premiums under 10%. That was a case where the chief actuary was about to contradict the then finance minister, the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, who at that time had drawn 9.9% as the line in the actuarial sand.

Mr. Dussault said that OSFI had asked on at least two occasions to change the figure so as not to embarrass the minister. As such, according to Mr. Dussault, he refused to succumb to such pressure and was fired. Last October, the government paid Mr. Dussault $364,000 in compensation for wrongful dismissal. What a waste of taxpayers' money.

All of this, the application of pressure to massage figures in order to avoid political embarrassment, transpired from direct political interference. To what extent the former minister was aware of what was going on perhaps we will never know, but the fact is that Parliament does need a referee who can call political interference from time to time.

The government's position on the bill is that we have ministerial accountability. The government has made a mockery out of the notion of ministerial accountability. In fact, no government in the history of Canada has done more to undermine the principle of ministerial accountability, which is a cornerstone of Parliament, than this government with the endless scandals and cover ups associated with it, whether it is HRDC, the sponsorship scandal or the Grand-Mère scandal. Again, the police in Toronto have identified more problems in HRDC. This is after $50 million was spent on an internal audit program designed to identify these sorts of problems.

It was not that audit program that identified the most recent issues with HRDC; it was the police in Toronto. In public works, we now see an investigation into the Liberal Party around the sponsorship program. It is little wonder that we do not have enough RCMP policing the streets of Canada when it is too busy policing the Liberal Party of Canada and the Department of Human Resources Development.

The fact is that the Prime Minister has set the ethical bar very low and the ministers continue to limbo under it. We need greater accountability to Parliament. It would make a great deal of sense to have the chief actuary report directly to Parliament. Furthermore, to have a chief actuary reporting directly to Parliament would benefit members on both sides of the House.

Many Liberal backbenchers ought to also consider it from the perspective that there is in fact more to empower individual members of Parliament and as such, diminish the stranglehold on power that the PMO currently has. Strengthening the House and individual members of Parliament ultimately strengthens democracy because we have more ability to represent effectively the people who put us here.

An independent chief actuary reporting directly to the House of Commons is a good idea that I support strongly.

[The Economy, September 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is reeling from an unprecedented series of disasters: SARS, BSE, power blackouts, western forest fires and floods in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. As a result the Canadian economy shrank more than expected in the last quarter and 50,000 Canadians have lost their jobs.

Why will the finance minister not commit today to presenting a full budget in February to provide Canadians with a real plan to address Canada's economic uncertainties?

[The Economy, September 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister has admitted that due to the Prime Minister's long goodbye Canadians will just have to do without a February budget. It is another case of Liberal leadership politics trumping the interests of ordinary Canadians.

Why will the Prime Minister, who the Liberals do not want, not step down in November so Canadians can have the budget they need in February?

[Foreign Affairs, September 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there was a time when Canada played a leadership role in shaping the world. Under the Liberals, the government is trying to escape it.

For a decade now, Liberal indifference has eroded Canada's authority in the world. Canada has gone from a position of influence to a position of irrelevance.

Now it seems Canadians are paying the price for Canada's diminished influence abroad. Canadians can no longer assume that a Canadian passport will be respected by other countries. They can no longer assume that they will have meaningful access to and support from Canadian consular officials when in trouble.

Canadians are angry at the inability of the government to protect our own people, including people like William Sampson, Bruce Balfour, Mahar Arar and Zahra Kazemi.

When will the government stand up to protect Canadians travelling abroad?

[Chabad, June 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Chabad Lubavitch is the world's largest network of Jewish educational and social service institutions.

This vast and modern network of activities and services can be attributed to the vision and leadership of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneersohn, of blessed memory. He has been described as a profound scholar, statesman, administrator and teacher. His love of all humanity and his dedication to helping people are his unique legacy.

July 3 will mark the ninth anniversary of the passing of Lubavitcher Rebbe. Let us mark that day to promote goodness and kindness throughout the country. Let all of us in the House encourage our fellow citizens to live by the values of tolerance, understanding and love for each other.

[Canada Elections Act, June 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure today that I rise to speak on Bill C-24, as I am fundamentally opposed to much of what is included in Bill C-24. I think this legislation strongly favours incumbency. It strongly and particularly favours the governing party. Having the money going to political parties determined by the results of the last federal election is like having one's mortgage based on the value of one's last house. It makes no sense at all.

I do not like the anti-democratic nature of this legislation in the fact that we lose any right as individual taxpayers to control where the government subsidy goes in terms of political parties. Currently if an individual Canadian wishes to choose to support one political party or the other, that is his or her choice. Through the tax system there is a subsidy, but the choice lies with the individual Canadian. We are taking that choice away from individual Canadians and instead using a highly bureaucratized method of financial support, taxpayer support, for political parties, not based on individual taxpayer or voter choice but based on a ridiculous, arbitrary decision of the previous electorate. It makes absolutely no sense to deny individual citizens the right to choose where their money goes in terms of the support of political parties.

Currently, if individual Canadians support the Progressive Conservative Party, the Alliance or the Bloc Québécois, that is their choice. We are taking that choice away from them with this legislation and instead just basing it on the arbitrary result of the last federal election. It makes no sense whatsoever.

I am in favour of caps of perhaps $10,000 on corporate and union donations and full disclosure. I think there is an inherent check and balance in full disclosure. In fact, as long as there is a cap on corporate and union donations and there is full disclosure, I do not think there is any problem whatsoever in having both unions and corporations contribute to political parties.

I will give members some examples. Twenty-five per cent of my party's revenue stream comes from corporate donations. Special events and dinners account for 35% of our revenue, and of that, 90% comes from corporations. There is no real discussion on how this revenue would be replaced. Effectively taking the choice away from individual corporations and unions simply on an arbitrary assessment based on the results of the last election makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Individual Canadians ought to have a right to determine where their financial support for the political process ought to go. Individual corporations ought to have that right as well.

We must not forget that corporations pay taxes. Denying corporations and unions an opportunity to participate in the process in a direct and fully disclosed way and in a transparent way will simply lead to them finding other ways to support the political process which may be less transparent.

For any number of reasons, this legislation is, as the president of the Liberal Party of Canada has said, as crazy as a bag of hammers, and I do not often agree with the president of the Liberal Party of Canada. It certainly does not address the real need for political finance reform in Canada. Clearly, addressing disclosure and putting caps on corporate and union participation or contributions would make sense.

However this anti-democratic legislation, which further divides Canadians from the political process and provides a huge head start based upon incumbency to the current governing party, will further divide Canadians from the political process.

If we look over the last 30 years, but particularly over the last 10 years, Canadians have drifted away from politics. This legislation will divide Canadians further from the political process. I am strongly opposed to the legislation and would urge, as many members on the government's side who have also raised these issues, the government to reconsider this legislation which is fundamentally flawed, anti-democratic and unfair, not just to those involved directly in the political process, as members of Parliament and as candidates, but is fundamentally unfair to Canadian voters and the Canadian taxpayer as well.

[Petitions, June 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the other petition has to do with the war in Iraq and expresses strong disapproval for Canadian support for any military intervention in Iraq. It is from the citizens of Wolfville, Nova Scotia.

[Petitions, June 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting two petitions today. One is on the definition of marriage and is in opposition to any change in the definition of marriage from the current definition of marriage, that being of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Lumber Industry, June 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the four Atlantic premiers have signed a letter to the Prime Minister expressing outrage about the federal government's proposed sell out of the Atlantic Canadian softwood lumber industry. In that letter, the premiers say, and I quote:

We therefore expect the Government of Canada to take immediate action to remedy this unfortunate error.

Will the minister retract this ridiculous offer and end his attack on the Atlantic Canadian lumber industry?