Debates of Oct. 7th, 1997

Transportation

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, we negotiated a very good deal. It is a good deal for taxpayers. It is a good deal for airline safety.

What better structure to have than those representing the aviation industry, the stakeholders, running the system, keeping the seamless safety record intact, one day with the government, the next day in a non-profit organization?

Foreign Affairs

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Canadian ambassador to Mexico resigned after making incendiary comments, including his reference to international business transactions between Canada and Mexico as being a joke.

The ambassador also referred to U.S. tactics regarding law enforcement in Mexico as hiding a darker U.S. reality.

Irresponsible comments like these can undermine our foreign policy legitimacy. I ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs if those comments were simply a diplomatic faux pas like the Prime Minister's at NATO or are these statements part of some emerging Canadian foreign policy?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to compliment the Prime Minister on his major diplomatic achievement at Madrid at the NATO meeting where he was able to secure an agreement.

Having put that aside, I point out that the ambassador to Mexico made his own decision that the comments he made which were published in a Mexican magazine, were inappropriate and were going to limit his effectiveness. He, therefore, requested he be reassigned to Ottawa. We agreed with that request. It reflects no policy position whatsoever of the government.

Frank McKenna

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that I learned today that Premier Frank McKenna of New Brunswick has decided to quite politics.

He has been a very good public servant for a long time. He has done a fantastic job in his province. He was elected for three terms. He changed the province by bringing responsibility to public administration and at the same time kept a social conscience, a balance that we all try to achieve.

He has gained the respect of the people of New Brunswick and all of Canada. In Calgary last summer he played an extremely important role in using his experience as the dean of the first ministers to develop a consensus that was very important for the future of Canada.

As a premier, he was always interested in the status of minorities. I had the pleasure of meeting him myself, because he vacationed at Cap-Pelé, in the riding I represented for a number of years. He has, for many years, spent his holidays with francophones. He always took a keen interest in the status of the French minority in New Brunswick and throughout the country, and of the English minority in Quebec.

I believe he served his province and his country very well and we wish him all the best in his future endeavours.

I would like to pay tribute to his wife and family for the wonderful support they gave him during his many years in public life.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition I would like to pay tribute to Frank McKenna. The fact that he was premier of New Brunswick for 10 years certainly withstands the test of time for any leader.

Frank McKenna was one of the first premiers who acknowledged the need to balance the books in his province. This is being celebrated right across the country now and we certainly appreciate it.

He served his province and his region, especially as an advocate of free trade and private enterprise. This also has spread right across the country and we celebrate that because that is the only way we will be able to work our way out of the terrible debt situations we have all found ourselves in.

He also was a signatory and an important player just last month in the Calgary declaration. He endorsed the national unity process, the process the premiers were talking about in Calgary. He found it important to note that consultation is important, but also to recognize the equality of all provinces. We appreciate the fact that he thinks this is important and we want to move ahead in that area.

We want to wish him well. Again I wish to say on behalf of the official opposition that we probably have not seen the end of Frank McKenna in this country.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of Premier Frank McKenna's resignation I rise today on behalf of my colleagues to wish him well. There are few Canadian politicians, in fact not one that I could name, that have to their credit having won 58 out of 58 seats in a provincial election or any election. This certainly has been an indication of the level of support the premier has had throughout his 10 years of office.

I note it is rumoured that Premier McKenna is thinking of leaving politics and perhaps going to work in Africa. The current prime minister should beware. When I stepped down as provincial leader in Nova Scotia it was my intention to go to Africa, not to go after the top job in the federal NDP. So one never knows where Frank McKenna may land when it comes to his future decisions.

During 10 of the 12 years that Frank McKenna was in the New Brunswick legislature, I had the opportunity to serve in the adjacent legislature in Nova Scotia. During that time we had differences of opinion as you might expect. There were a couple of particularly strong ones over his commitment to workfare, which I think has been proven to be something of a failure, and also over his commitment to court corporations into the province to create low wage jobs as long as they were subsidized by the public.

Despite my differences with Frank McKenna from time to time, I have never questioned his sincere commitment to serve the people of his province as he saw fit.

On this occasion I would like to wish him and his family well. Whatever he decides to pursue in the future I am sure he will undertake with the same kind of zeal and passion with which he has approached his job as premier of the province of New Brunswick.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as has been mentioned in the House by the prime minister and the leader of the official opposition party, Premier Frank McKenna will be stepping down effective October 13, which is the 10th anniversary of his leadership of the Liberal Party of New Brunswick.

Frank is very personable and he has tremendous family values. He is a man whose family comes first. His wife Julie and his children have given a great deal to Canada and to New Brunswick over the last 15 years. Frank was there as an MLA before he became leader of the party. He said when he was elected as the leader of the Liberal Party that he was going to be there for 10 years and that was it. He kept his word.

A lot of people are critical of politicians, particularly politicians who do not keep their word and Frank did. He worked very diligently for the people in New Brunswick. There are a lot of us here who live in that province. I served as mayor of Saint John for 11 years, so perhaps I worked with Frank more closely than anyone else in the House. Sometimes we agreed and sometimes we did not agree, but we always had great respect for one another.

We will miss Frank. I am hoping that he does not go to Africa. I am hoping that he finds something in Canada, preferably in New Brunswick so he can continue to work and promote our province. He is known probably better than any other premier we have had across Canada for his stance.

To Frank, to Julie and the children, we wish him good health and the best of luck. I am sure we will see him again.

Privilege

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It came to my attention yesterday afternoon that the office and position of legislative counsel has in a de facto manner ceased to exist. I would suggest that this in and of itself is a prima facie case of breach of privilege.

I need not remind members of the House that a breach of privilege occurs according to all the precedents when there is some improper obstruction to the member in performing his parliamentary work. The facts are that in 1993 there were seven legislative counsel and today there are approximately two point something legislative counsel. This is the improper obstruction.

I have three questions to ask. How can a member of any of the 18 standing committees be reasonably expected to have access to independent legal advice concerning the probable effect of specific sections of bills before a committee when no legal counsel is available? How can a member draft amendments to legislation when there is a six month wait for the same two point something people to draft private members' bills? How can a member who is sent here as a legislator fulfil that role without reasonable access and availability of legal counsel? In brief, to do the job, each member requires the tools.

The Privy Council in the case of Kielley v. Carson in 1842 when ruling on a question of privilege noted that members of the legislative body enjoy these privileges because the legislature cannot act or perform without the unimpeded use of the services of its members.

Yet members are in fact being impeded in performing their parliamentary work. Indeed I as a member have no reasonable access to the services of the legislative counsel's office. As a member of this House I have been disempowered in carrying out my duties.

As the guardian of the rights and privileges of this place, I implore you to give me along with others in this place the right to do our work. I am suggesting to you that this is not a matter for the Board of Internal Economy. That body functions in a realm that is defined by statute.

What I am asking of you is to uphold my rights as a member of this House and not my interests as a member of a particular political party which we know is reflected in the composition of the Board of Internal Economy. When the Board of Internal Economy meets, its members present the positions of their parties and members but do not speak or represent each and every member of the House. Only you, Mr. Speaker, as guardian of privileges can act in such a manner.

I am not asking for another business process review of the House staff and functions, nor do I believe that I should be forced to resort to individuals who have been subjected to four hours of training and are now called legislative clerks.

Finally, I am aware suggestions abound that the British Parliament uses legislative clerks to fulfil the function of legislative counsel and by extension the same could apply here. I would suggest that this kind of logic ignores 130 years of the evolution of this House to the point that we are unique and not a twin or clone of Westminster.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that a prima facie case of privilege exists and with your permission I would like to move the motion:

That the lack of legislative counsel to assist members in fulfilling their duties is a prima facie case of privilege and this matter shall be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[The Speaker]

I will wait for more discussions on this particular point of privilege but at least at this point, I will not accept the motion until I find if indeed there is a prima facie case.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I believe that, with all due respect for your decision, if you were to agree to consider the motion, you would find there was agreement. That is because each hon. member who has used the services of the legislative counsels in the past to draft bills knows just how time consuming that is, without the proper resources.

I know you have been extremely attuned in the past to our task as legislators, but how can anyone seriously claim in this House that our privileges are not being violated when the situation is such that gaining access to legislative counsel has become extremely complicated?

I remind you that a committee addressed this matter only four months ago, with the suggestion that more legislative counsels be added, contrary to what has been done recently. It is a fundamental privilege for each member to be able to act as the spokesperson for his community and to be able to introduce private members' bills.

Everyone is well aware that the complexity of the matters dealt with, the complexity of the subjects the hon. members must debate in order to properly speak for their communities, require us to have access to a level of expertise such as the legislative counsels possess.

I truly believe that there is unanimity in this House. Let us recall the time, not so long ago in parliamentary history, when private members' business was allotted far more time. If the work of the legislator is to have any meaning, it is important that we be equipped to be able to introduce private members' bills.

I believe our colleague deserves our gratitude today for bringing to your attention the fact that our privilege is being infringed upon by the lack of resources.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to second what the member for Sarnia—Lambton and the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve said.

I had a couple of private member's bills in the system long before the House sat, and since then a couple of more, but they were not ready when the draw was taken.

I am sure many other members in the House have had the same situation where bills they were hoping to be drafted and ready for the draw were not.

Our privileges are affected, especially when we made commitments in the last election to constituents that we would do things when we got here and present legislation as private members. However, because they were not done, our privilege of having our name in the draw was not there. That is key to this whole argument. That is why most private members in the House are upset with this whole situation.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you take that as the major consideration. If we cannot have a bill in the draw or it is in there but it has not been drafted because there is not enough bodies to draft it, there is a problem with the system. It is a good issue to be referred to a committee so we can solve the problem of private members and ensure that all private members' bills and amendments are drafted as quickly as possible so they can do their job.

We know the government with all its machinery can get bills drafted in a day if it wants to present them in the House. Yet a private member comes nowhere near that ability. It is taking months, at least three and a half months in my case for one bill which is still not finished. I think we should have better service than that.

I am hoping, in your considerations, Mr. Speaker, that you will see fit to allow it to go to a committee so we can solve this serious problem.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to respond to the last remark of my colleague opposite. He indicated that there may possibly be some preferential treatment to members on the government side. I do not believe—

[An hon. member]

That is not what he said.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

I am sorry, I apologize to the House. If in fact it is a reference to the government in terms of drafting bills, yes, it has certain resources.

I think this question of privilege was raised already by a government member who had experienced some frustration and was possibly looking for a different or a better means of being able to serve his constituent through private members' bills.

I will wait for the decision of the Speaker on whether this is a prima facie case. As one member of the board, it is certainly a matter the Board of Internal Economy has already been apprised of and sensitized to.

In a matter of hours, possibly, as we get together for our first meeting the issue will be high on the agenda. We will be looking to address it in the best interest of private members. It is not a government-opposition issue but is a member issue that should be addressed by the board. I will certainly abide by the ruling of the Chair.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member on the government side for bringing the issue to the floor of the House.

Many colleagues on the opposition side as well as on the government side have experienced this situation. I lend the voice of our party in support of the motion that has been brought forward. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you will address this proposition and take it under advisement. We want to support it.

[The Speaker]

Unless there are new facts that members would like to bring to the argument, as opposed to support one way or the other, I will take it under advisement.

However, if there are new facts members would like to bring forth, I will listen to some brief comments.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I do not know if it is a new fact, but I want people to know that it is a fact the NDP shares the concern raised by the hon. member and others who have brought it to the attention of the Chair.

We will be doing what we can, either through the Board of Internal Economy or in some other way, to make sure the matter is addressed.

[The Speaker]

If I am to hear more facts about support that is one thing, but if we have new facts to bring forth that would be another.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the problems we have as private members, during the clause by clause amendment of Bill C-68, a large controversial bill, we were unable to get the services we required to draft amendments.

We had over 200 amendments and we were not able to obtain the services from legislative counsel because of the overload they were experiencing. We had to not bring in our amendments at clause by clause stage. We had to bring some of the amendments in at report stage.

I add that to the volume of information that has been placed before you for your consideration, Mr. Speaker.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the new facts you have at your disposal to enlighten your decision, I would like to point out that there used to be a law clerk here, who reported directly to the Speaker of the House. Over the years, the idea got lost, and little by little we slipped into a funnel with fewer and fewer resources.

The fact I would like to add is that having only two permanent law clerks for 301 members is the result of a number of years of systematic erosion of the resources available to us to perform our duties as members.

We both know that time is very important in politics. We had an example here today in which the auditor general commented on employment insurance. Had we asked for a bill to be drafted for a month or two, or some such, and we could not take political action before next January or February, then I would consider my parliamentary privileges were being breached.

[The Speaker]

We have had quite a bit of information on this matter. I remind all hon. members, with respect, that last week a question of privilege was brought up to which I will address myself in the next short while.

All the interveners seem to be of one opinion. The hon. government whip has stated that the matter would possibly be brought up in the Board of Internal Economy today.

I would like to take some time. Perhaps some information will be forthcoming to me in the next 24 hours or so. I will review everything that has been said today as I have been reviewing with regard to the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River. If it is necessary for me to get back to the House I will do so after a brief delay.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, an act to establish the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board and to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.

Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act

[The Speaker]

We have six minutes remaining for questions and comments.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much enjoyed the debate that was going on in the last couple of hours. It really demonstrates the difference between a group of people who have not really thought about what they are proposing and some people who have given a considerable amount of thought to what is actually happening.

I gave a statement in the House the other day in which I pointed out that young people today, like the member who was speaking, pay $3,400 a year for 35 years to pick up a pension of about $8,800 a year, when that same money invested in a very modest RRSP style plan for the same number of years would end up with an annuity of something like $92,000 a year.

Members on that side who still think an $8,800 a year pension is good news should give their heads a shake because it is totally ridiculous.

As a secondary effect of these CPP taxes, what does the hon. member feel the impact will be on small business? At the moment, having come from small business myself, I know that every month they have to pay CPP taxes, UI taxes, corporate income taxes, income taxes for employees, business licences, Workers' Compensation Board taxes and capital taxes in B.C.

Could the member give us an idea of the impact on small business of this drastic increase in CPP?

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

The impact on small business of the proposed payroll tax increases in Bill C-2 will be considerable. Self-employed small business people will face an increased payroll tax burden of some $3,600 a year.

For some hon. friends opposite who are expecting to cash out on the great Las Vegas MP pension scam, $3,600 is not a lot of money. For a lot of people in my constituency it is the difference between being able to take a holiday in a year, being able to take their kids for a trip in the summer, and perhaps being able to hire an extra employee to help them so they can actually go home a few nights a week and spend some extra time with their families. For the people that I know $3,600 a year is an integral part of their quality of life, which will be further eroded by the payroll tax increases in the bill.

As I stated during my speech a direct link between higher payroll taxes and fewer jobs has been demonstrated again and again and again. That is one of the reasons we still have over 9% unemployment, 1.4 million unemployed Canadians, and 17% youth unemployment. If that is not evidence enough that high taxes kill jobs, I do not know what is.