House of Commons Hansard #3 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was children.
Business Of The HouseOral Question Period
The Speaker
Before I recognize the member for York South—Weston, I would simply remind him that this has to do with legislation being put forth by the government for the House to consider in the next week. With that in mind, I turn the floor over to the member for York South—Weston.
John Nunziata Independent York South—Weston, ON
Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated that it is the plan of the government to send the elections bill to committee before second reading. That is an unusual procedure to follow. There are established rules in the House that require a second reading debate before a bill is referred to committee.
Could the minister explain why he is taking this unusual route with this bill?
Business Of The HouseOral Question Period
The Speaker
This is part of our body of rules right now. It is my understanding the minister will make known his reasons. When he introduces the bill he will be the first speaker. It is part of our body of rules and as I understand it has been since 1997.
Business Of The HouseOral Question Period
The Speaker
I will check into it. I was told it was 1997.
Val Meredith Reform South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make what I consider to be a very serious question of privilege.
This question of privilege arises from a lawsuit that was launched against me in 1996 but does not pertain to the actions of the individual who filed the lawsuit. Rather it concerns the activities and conduct of a government agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, during the course of this lawsuit.
To begin, I want to say that I do not question the established precedent that prevents a member from using privilege to guard against the lawsuit for what is said outside of the House. This question of privilege has absolutely nothing to do with that. Instead, I will provide prima facie evidence to the Chair that demonstrates how the conduct and activities of CSIS regarding this case form what I believe to be a new and disturbing method of intimidation of a member of parliament.
I will show that CSIS improperly collected information and then subsequently disclosed that information in clear violation of CSIS policy to a third party. I will show that CSIS abandoned the traditional non-partisan role of the public service by taking an active role in the preparation of a lawsuit against an opposition member of parliament, including having its legal counsel provide the plaintiff and the plaintiff's lawyer with advice.
Finally, I will show that CSIS misused its extraordinary authority to protect national security, was twice sanctioned for misconduct and deliberately misled the court to frustrate my ability to resolve the lawsuit.
Thus the gist of my question of privilege is the deliberate effort of CSIS to intimidate me from speaking freely in the House of Commons and from performing my role as official opposition critic.
I raise this issue today because this is the first opportunity to do so since the completion of my court case. Although the standing orders state that the sub judice convention only applies in a civil lawsuit during the trial days of the proceedings, I undertook an agreement with the Board of Internal Economy not to utilize this lawsuit for political purposes. At the time I entered into that agreement, I was unaware of the role that CSIS had played in the case up to that time, nor could I possibly have envisioned the role that CSIS would subsequently take in this case. I have lived up to my obligation with the BOIE and have bided my time until today, my opportunity to raise this issue.
As I previously mentioned, this form of intimidation is unprecedented. However in Erskine May, 21st edition, page 115 states that an offence for contempt “may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence. It is therefore impossible to list every act which might be considered to amount to a contempt, the power to punish for such an offence being of its nature discretionary”.
On October 29, 1980, a Speaker of this House had this to say:
—the dimension of contempt of parliament is such that the House will not be constrained in finding a breach of privilege of members, or of the House.
This is precisely the reason that, while our privileges are defined, contempt of the House has no limits.
Let me provide this brief summary of the evidence in the documents that I have before me that confirms their efforts to intimidate me. I am prepared to read it all but would prefer just to provide it to you, Mr. Speaker. Almost all the information contained in the plaintiff's statement of claim originated from CSIS. In fact the statement of claim contains a copy of my press release which bears the fax identification of the former solicitor general which was sent to CSIS.
The plaintiff's affidavit of documents consists of 107 documents which included some of my press releases, as well as newspaper clippings, radio and television transcripts from media outlets across the country. Every one of them came from CSIS, some of them before and some of them after the commencement of the lawsuit.
The plaintiff also included four video tapes of media reports, all of which were recorded by CSIS and forwarded to the plaintiff. In a discovery of the plaintiff conducted on February 17, 1998, the plaintiff admitted in regard to the video tapes that “they were provided to me without my asking”. Both the plaintiff and his lawyer admitted during the proceedings that CSIS assisted the plaintiff in the preparation of his lawsuit.
In a letter dated July 20, 1998, from the plaintiff's lawyer to my lawyer the following passage is included: “certain members of CSIS have co-operated with the plaintiff in preparation of his case”.
At a discovery of the plaintiff at the federal court on November 3, 1998, the plaintiff acknowledged that part of the reason he had contacted a senior manager at CSIS was to discuss the means by which he would proceed with his lawsuit. As well, at that same discovery the lawyer for the plaintiff admitted that “the legal counsel for CSIS had spoken with me from time to time, and I am sure with the plaintiff from time to time, trying to give us advice”.
Thus it is clear from these comments that CSIS played a role in the preparation and conduct of the lawsuit against me. What is of particular concern is the fact that throughout the discoveries it was confirmed that it was Mr. Tom Bradley who played the key role in providing all this information to the plaintiff. This is of concern because Tom Bradley is, or was until recently, a senior member of the CSIS secretariat.
On the CSIS organizational chart the secretariat answers directly to the director of CSIS and among their duties was liaison between CSIS and the solicitor general's office.
PrivilegeOral Question Period
The Speaker
Order, please. This is a question of privilege. It does affect all of us. I invite members, if they have other meetings, to please carry them on in the lobby. I am sure that I as well as many others want to hear what the member is saying.
Val Meredith Reform South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, the CSIS Act clearly limits what information CSIS can collect, generally restricting it to information that may on reasonable grounds be suspected of constituting threats to the security of Canada. I would suggest that the CSIS collection of all this information was improper.
As limiting as the laws are restricting the ability of CSIS to collect information, they are equally restrictive with regard to the ability of the service to disclose any information collected. Section 19 of the CSIS Act severely restricts the information it may disclose and nowhere in this section does it permit the disclosure of information to a private individual to assist his lawsuit against a member of parliament.
In addition to the CSIS Act, section 3.(7) of the human resources policy manual states that employees must not support or oppose any person, organization or product by using information obtained through their employment by the service except when authorized by the director. It is quite clear that the disclosure of this information to the plaintiff was in violation of the service's own policy.
Unfortunately CSIS was not satisfied with the role in assisting with the preparation of the lawsuit against me. They proceeded to directly involve themselves in the case in what can best be described by the following: In July 1998 Madam Justice MacLeod of the Ontario court ordered that the plaintiff must answer 38 questions that he had refused to answer at discovery.
Immediately following the court's granting of the aforementioned order, counsel for CSIS filed a certificate of objection signed by Jim Corcoran, CSIS deputy director of operations, with Madam Justice MacLeod pursuant to sections 37 and 38 of the Canada Evidence Act. In that certificate Mr. Corcoran claimed that disclosure of the information requested in 32 of the 38 questions which were ordered to be answered would be “injurious to the national security of Canada”. The remaining six questions were considered personal.
In July, I was forced to challenge the validity of that certificate through a notice of application filed in the federal court.
In August, Mr. Justice Teitelbaum of the Federal Court of Canada issued an order which, among other things, instructed that cross-examination of the affidavit should occur prior to October 5, 1998. CSIS filed the affidavit by Barry Denofsky, director general of analysis and production, on September 11. However, in direct contravention of the order of Mr. Justice Teitelbaum, they refused to make Denofsky available for cross-examination.
On October 5, Mr. Justice Teitelbaum ruled that CSIS must make Denofsky available for cross-examination and costs were awarded against CSIS. Mr. Denofsky appeared for cross-examination. However he refused to answer almost all questions of substance, 51 in total.
My lawyer filed a notice of motion requiring CSIS to produce Mr. Denofsky for further cross-examination, requiring him to answer the questions he had previously refused. The day before the federal court hearing on January 14, almost 11 weeks after Mr. Denofsky's cross-examination, CSIS provided responses to 39 of the 51 questions they previously had refused to answer.
On January 15, 1999, the hearing before Mr. Teitelbaum took place and Mr. Justice Teitelbaum ruled on March 5. He ordered CSIS to answer an additional three questions, which meant out of the original 51 questions that CSIS had refused to answer only nine of them, less than 20%, were deemed to be valid objections. Once again costs were awarded against CSIS.
It is clear from the behaviour of CSIS that its main objective was to drag out the proceedings and deny me the opportunity of having this case heard in court. However the delaying tactics of CSIS were only part of the process. The content of its responses was even more troubling, which I have included in the documentation.
In answering a question about the information the service passed to the plaintiff they neglected to mention the 107 press releases. CSIS also stated that it had passed the video tapes to the plaintiff in response to a request from him. However, as I have mentioned before, the plaintiff in discovery said that they were provided to him without his asking.
In addition it mentioned that only one CSIS policy document was passed to the plaintiff. Yet the very affidavit that this discovery was about lists five different CSIS policy documents. In other words, of the three points that CSIS made in this answer all three of them were incorrect.
I cannot imagine, after making inquiries, that any member of a professional intelligence agency would be so incompetent that they could possibly inadvertently overlook all of this information, including the very affidavit that was being reviewed.
The last piece of evidence that I will mention concerns the very certificate of objection that CSIS filed. When CSIS filed the certificate on July 7, 1998, the deputy director of operations, Jim Corcoran, certified that he had carefully reviewed and considered all the questions set out in that statement. He then certified that “the information sought by this motion, either by confirmation or denial of the said information, would be contrary to the public interest as it would be injurious to the national security of Canada”.
One such question was where the plaintiff refused to state during discovery whether or not it was normal that a full scale security investigation be done for people getting their security clearance renewed. Despite the claim of CSIS that the answer to this question would be injurious to the national security of Canada, I have obtained the answer to this question from the Treasury Board's public website, listed under personal security standards.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I believe that I have provided you with sufficient evidence to find that there is a prima facie case of contempt against the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. As an opposition critic who has previously been critical of CSIS, its role in this case has effectively prevented me from raising concerns about it for three and a half years.
In addition, CSIS has sent me and all members of the House a clear message that it is keeping track of us, watching what we do and listening to everything we say, and that it is prepared to pounce if it objects to the way in which we conduct ourselves. It has also shown that it is prepared to misuse the extraordinary authority that parliament has given to it to put us in an unwinnable situation.
The premier of Quebec launched an inquiry when officials in his government improperly released information about a federal member of parliament. While not raised in a question of privilege it was considered wrong and an inquiry was ordered. The National Assembly of Quebec chose to take action against this activity, and this parliament should do the same in the case concerning CSIS.
In my case CSIS conducted certain activities and utilized significant resources against me. The evidence shows that CSIS certainly took a role in orchestrating the lawsuit against me. As I have shown, CSIS improperly collected information and then subsequently disclosed that information to a third party in clear violation of CSIS policy.
I have shown that CSIS abandoned the traditional non-partisan role of the public service by taking an active role in the preparation of a lawsuit against an opposition member of parliament, including having its legal counsel provide the plaintiff and the plaintiff's lawyer with advice.
Finally, I have shown that CSIS has misused its extraordinary authority to protect national security, that it was twice sanctioned by the federal court for misconduct, and that it deliberately misled the court to frustrate my ability to resolve the lawsuit.
One of the basic tenets of democracy is that opposition politicians have the ability to oppose the government without fear of intimidation. I suggest that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service has tried to introduce intimidation into Canadian politics.
I believe it is vital that this form of intimidation is stopped immediately. Opposition critics need to know that they can fulfil their function of criticizing a government department without fear that the department will retaliate by orchestrating a lawsuit against them.
I therefore encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to make a precedent in this case by finding the behaviour of CSIS in this case in contempt of the House. I will provide the document I have here to support this claim. If you find that there is a prima facie case of privilege, I will move that this issue be sent to the appropriate committee for consideration.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for entertaining what I think is a very important question of privilege. The detail has been gone into at some length here. I invite you to examine that record and the more detailed information that the hon. member will provide to you.
What I think it comes down to is this, and it is a very important thing. There are a couple of important things to remember about this question of privilege. First, as has already been detailed by the hon. member, the question of contempt is an open-ended one. It may not be with precedence, and I do not think you will find precedence for this, Mr. Speaker. Certainly I was not able to find precedence in a question of privilege, but contempt of parliament is an open-ended subject and in this particular case I hope you will find a prima facie case for contempt and will refer it to committee.
The second thing I want to mention, which the member did not bring up but which is important for all members to remember, is that if a member of parliament is sued by anyone else in Canada and the person who does the suing receives substantial support from a government department, there is no way that a member of parliament, with few exceptions, has deep enough pockets to fund an adequate defence against an entire government agency.
I can think of another very troubling case that was settled some time ago involving former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney over the airbus incident. I do not want to cast any idea of who is right or wrong, but what was interesting was that the government eventually had to settle for over $2 million to pay for the legal bills that Mr. Mulroney, because he is a wealthy man, was able to put forward in his own defence.
How many members of parliament could have ever done that? If he had been an ordinary member of parliament without those kind of deep pockets, I think Mr. Mulroney would be hanging on the ropes today instead of free and clear of that issue because he was able to fund that defence.
That is why I think it is important that a government agency versus an ordinary member of parliament is an unequal fight and a contempt of parliament and we should see it that way.
Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Mr. Speaker, as the solicitor general critic for the official opposition, I draw to your attention a meeting of our standing committee on May 25 with Director Alcock of CSIS.
Mr. Speaker, if you have an opportunity to review the committee report of that session, you will find that the director exhibited the kind of culture and characteristics that have been spoken about by my colleague. As my colleague has pointed out, it is very important that parliamentarians are free from any sense of intimidation, in particular in the case of the meeting on May 25. It was so troubling to all members of parliament, government members and all opposition members, that we subsequently held a second meeting to find out what our remedies would be in trying to get instruction to a very reluctant witness. In this particular case it was Director Alcock who just basically refused to respect the questions from the people in the Chamber.
I draw that to your attention, Mr. Speaker, because I think it adds something to the picture that we are looking at here.
Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I have listened with attention to the initial presentation made by the hon. member and the subsequent statements that were made.
First, I do not believe that Mr. Speaker should be influenced between a criminal case against a civilian and a civil case against a member of parliament. The two comparisons that were made have, quite frankly, nothing to do one with the other and the references to them are immaterial. I do not know what they do to the seriousness of this issue.
I am prepared to acknowledge that the accusations themselves are obviously quite serious. It has been alleged that CSIS offered assistance to a former employee in a civil case involving a member of parliament. It is alleged that this action then constitutes a question of privilege or possibly contempt or both.
If I understood what the hon. member requested, it is that this case should be brought to the attention of a parliamentary committee for review.
Given the seriousness of these accusations, I want to remove the other materials stated by other members of parliament. I do not think some of them had anything to do with this issue.
I would ask Mr. Speaker for a stay on the ruling he intends to give, whether this constitutes a prima facie case of privilege. I would ask that I be given a little time, and possibly other members might want to contribute toward what has been alleged today. In a few short hours we will have a Hansard or at least a fast version of Hansard giving us the details of what the hon. member has said. If I understand correctly, she has offered to table some documents with Mr. Speaker. If some of us could perhaps have those documents made available to us we could further contribute before Mr. Speaker makes his initial determination as to whether this constitutes a prima facie case of privilege.
To repeat what I said earlier, I would ask for a stay in the Speaker's ruling on this matter, given the issue in question and the considerable amount of information made available to us by the member of parliament in question, to permit us to at least examine the material, then contribute and perhaps Mr. Speaker will consider ruling only at that time.
Val Meredith Reform South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to table this information.
PrivilegeOral Question Period
The Speaker
These allegations are indeed serious if the allegations are true and if I decide that we will go ahead with a prima facie case. I want it understood that it is not just for opposition members for whom we are talking. We are talking about the rights of Canadian parliamentarians specifically. I of course invite the hon. member to submit to me any and all documents.
I also invite the member for Kootenay—Columbia, seeing as he quoted or said that it was in a committee report—either he could do that or I could direct my clerks—to make the information from that meeting and a subsequent meeting that he mentioned available to me before I make my decision.
Seeing that there are no more interventions at this time, I intend to review everything that has been said and everything that has been written about this particular point and I am going to give this latitude. It may be a point of privilege and it may be contempt. I am going to look at it in both venues. I am not going to stand here on splitting a hair. It may be privilege or it may be contempt. I will decide that after I have it all laid out in front of me.
The hon. government House leader has asked that I stay my decision. I have said that I would do that. I would entertain information if it pertains directly to what was said by the hon. member here in the House or what is in the documents which she is going to provide to me. Any other statements will not be heard by me. They must be specifically to those points.
I will take this information under consideration now and I will get back to the House with a decision on this case.
The House resumed consideration of the motion for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her speech at the opening of the session, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.
Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
At the time that the debate was interrupted the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra had five minutes remaining for questions and comments. There were two minutes left in the presentation and then five minutes questions and comments. Would the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra like to proceed directly to questions and comments or take the two minutes to sum up?
Ted McWhinney Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Mr. Speaker, I had essentially completed my remarks which were on the knowledge century in the new millennium, the 21st century professorships. I had also made some brief remarks on several other matters. I think we could take questions at this stage if there are any questions from hon. members.
Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
There being no questions or comments on the intervention by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra and before we get into debate, I would like to make something clear because there was a misunderstanding a little bit earlier.
During the time for questions and comments that are usually five minutes, if there are a number of members standing when I call for questions and comments who have indicated that they would like to participate in the questions and comments, then I will try to advise who will be called for questions and comments. At that time, it is obvious that if there are five minutes to spend on questions and comments and three people who wish to make a question or a comment, it requires about 30 to 40 seconds with a little bit of leeway. After that, the point is going to have to be made and the response is going to have to be made with equal brevity. If we do not do that, we are not going to get the opportunity to have as many members participate. If there is only one member standing then we will have much more latitude for the question, comment or response. That is the way we have been proceeding for the last two years. That is the way I intend to proceed, in the absence of advice otherwise, for the next two years.
Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague for Brandon—Souris and I will be splitting it equally.
There are a lot of issues that need to be addressed. A lot of people were waiting for this wonderful vision for the millennium and thought that was exactly what they were going to get. They thought that they would see things that would turn things around throughout Canada, from the east coast to the west coast. A lot of people were very disappointed after the throne speech came out.
We know that the good book says, “where there is no vision the people perish”. That has been the situation in Canada under the government because so many people are hurting. I thought there might be something there for the Atlantic region. I know the MPs from the Atlantic region were waiting for the throne speech because they thought there would be something there with regard to regional development. I heard one MP say that she was so pleased with the throne speech that she was going to dance in the streets. I have not found anyone else that wants to be her partner while she is dancing. She is going to dance all by herself. The lack of vision was truly sad.
The one good thing that came out of the throne speech was the infrastructure program. Having been a mayor, and many of us in the House of Commons were mayors before, I know how we fought for that infrastructure program. The government is saying it is going to continue the program. I have talked to the people from FCM and they are very pleased about that. I am also pleased about that.
However, we should have been back here September 1, not the middle of October. Let us look at what is happening with our airline service. We are not sure where it is going. In my city of Saint John, New Brunswick, we are not sure what is going to happen. If we do not have airline service then what happens to the economy? What happens to the people?
Let us take a look at the other issues, the immigration issue and the illegal immigrants coming into Canada. No one has dealt with that very serious situation. Let us take a look at the fishery.
I asked those questions today in the House. The fisheries is a serious situation and violence can and will occur unless the Prime Minister of Canada himself steps in. The Prime Minister has to go to the table. I had aboriginal people in my office at nine o'clock this morning. These are not people that live on the reserves, but the minister of fisheries has refused to meet with them. He and the Prime Minister have to meet and talk with them.
There was a great deal in the Speech from the Throne about children. I have two children of my own and two grandchildren and like everyone else I am very concerned about the future. I want to make sure there is a strong foundation for my two little grandchildren.
I feel very strongly about families. I feel very strongly that we have to help them. We have to make sure that there is a strong foundation to continue to build on and assist the family unit. It is very important that we reduce personal income tax. We should be putting money back into the pockets of those parents.
It is also very important that the transfer payments be increased so that we can have health care back where it should be. One would not believe the horror stories in my riding office that have happened through health care. We have lost in our part of Canada many of our specialists. They have gone to the United States. That is where they are at. We just lost another one. We cannot replace them. We cannot afford to pay them the same salary. It is a major concern. We have to reduce our massive national debt. I do not want our grandchildren to have to pay for it. I want us to work and do it right.
When I took over as mayor the city was in a very poor financial position, just like the country is in a very poor financial position, and I wanted to get us into a borrowing debt free position. I asked the commissioner of finance to give me three programs to look at to try to get us into a borrowing debt free position.
When he put those programs before me it just so happened that on my council I had a professor at the time. That professor said to me “Elsie, come here to the window”. I went to the window and I looked. He said “That little man down there sweeping the street works for us, Elsie. We have to make sure that man continues to work. We do not want to slash, burn and cut to the point that he has no way to feed his family”. We did it in a very responsible way. This has to happen again at the federal level.
I have waited, and I am sure a lot of people across the country were waiting, for something in the throne speech on defence, something in that speech to help merchant mariners so they are not back here on the Hill on a hunger strike again. If we do not resolve the compensation issue for merchant mariners they will be back up on the Hill by November 11 and they will be on another hunger strike.
Of those men who were here on a hunger strike, one of them has been in the hospital for two operations since he went back. If he comes here again we will be burying him from the steps of Parliament Hill. That has to be resolved and it has not been resolved. It is truly sad when we take a look at how the Liberals have cut the defence budget to the point that our troops that have to go to Croatia, Kosovo and East Timor do not have the equipment they should have.
This is the international year of seniors and seniors were never mentioned in the throne speech. What an insult for the seniors of Canada. They must have been hurt. I have looked at the cutbacks in programs that used to be there for them. They are no longer there and the seniors are having a difficult time.
The government needs to raise the basic income tax exemption to $10,000. This could eliminate a lot of people from the tax rolls, more than two million lower income workers. The solutions rest in the strengthening of the family unit with lower taxes, with better co-operation among Ottawa, the provinces, the territories and our communities. We have to look at the quality of life.
Since the government came into power in 1993 it has increased personal income taxes by 15%. In five years it did that. In five years a lot of middle income Canadians are worse off today than they have ever been. I know that myself. My daughter-in-law said to me “Mom, I find it hard these days to make ends meet”. I said “I know, dear, because you are paying more in taxes than ever before”. I have to say right now that things have to change, that things have to turn around.
It was a throne speech. It was supposed to be for all the people. However, there had better be a better vision than what was contained in that throne speech if we want to turn Canada around. If we want to do what is right for families, if we want to do what is right for all Canadians from coast to coast, there is a lot more that needs to be done.
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold Bloc Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the member for Saint John and I think she gave a fine speech. I also see that she has the same health problems in her riding as we have in Quebec.
The present federal government, led by the Liberals, has always given us to understand that only Quebec had problems with its health system, because of its sovereignist government. Its sidekick in Quebec, the Liberal Party, has said the same thing. I am therefore happy to note that the member for Saint John has the same problems in her region.
But, given the Canada-wide problems the member pointed out, I would like to know what this government, which has helped itself to provincial transfer payments, should have done right away in the throne speech, instead of promising action for 2001 or 2002. I would like the member for Saint John to tell us what she would have liked to see in the throne speech that would have solved health problems in Canada.
Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB
Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to have seen money injected immediately into our health care, our educational system and transfer payments for both, along with social programs, and not in the year 2001. That is two years down the road.
We are suffering now and steps have to be taken now to correct it. In the year 2001 we will be worse off than we are today. Steps have to be taken. We have to push the government to make sure that it puts that money in there before the year 2001.
René Canuel Bloc Matapédia—Matane, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have also listened to my colleague. She said that there was absolutely nothing for seniors. I say that this is scandalous, when we are in the International Year of Older Persons.
Last week, I saw some publicity on seniors clubs while watching television at home. Mr. Boulianne from my riding was on the program—and this very honourable gentleman did a very nice job, I might add—but they paid to get some coverage. There are other equally honourable people who cannot get on TV and they are forgotten. Why are only a few people shown on television while others without a cent to their name are forgotten?
There are many seniors living in almost dire straits. I will let the hon. member respond to that shortly.
Reference is made to youth and children. In 1988, the House of Commons voted unanimously for there to be no more poor children by the year 2000. There were a million of them at that time, and today there are 1.5 million. That is shocking. A policy has been announced. I am not saying it is not helpful, but it is not applicable until the year 2001.
I am asking what the hon. member for Saint John thinks of this.
Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB
Mr. Speaker, as I stated, we need to have policies right now. The government has cut the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation housing project. We had a number of housing projects for seniors in my riding which gave them a beautiful quality of life. It also put carpenters, electricians and cabinetmakers to work. It created a good economy for us, but there is nothing for these people now. I have 1,000 families in Saint John, New Brunswick, that are in need of housing and there is no program at all.
They do not want to tell me that the year 2001 is good. It has to be done now.
Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Mr. Speaker, it is always difficult to follow the member for Saint John. I will try my best to liven it up, but as I said it is somewhat difficult to match that enthusiasm.
I am very pleased to be able to respond to the Speech from the Throne as presented by the new governor general. We all congratulate and welcome Adrienne Clarkson to her new post as governor general.
I am pleased to stand in this august House to represent my constituents of Brandon—Souris. I certainly thank them for giving me the opportunity to represent them. I assure them that I will do my best to represent them to the best of my capacity. I will certainly pass on their concerns to the government.
As one of the members of the government said, the throne speech was not supposed to have any substance to it but was supposed to show the vision of the government going into 21st century. By the way, the government succeeded in not having any substance in that speech, but it did not succeed very well in showing the vision of the government going into the 21st century.
My colleague from Saint John talked about a specific area that was neglected in the throne speech, that of housing. It is incumbent upon the government to see where Canadians want to be not only next year or five years from now but ten and fifteen years from now. Housing is only one cog in the wheel of what Canadians require for their well-being and livelihood. I will touch on a couple of others.
The Liberals succeeded in putting forward a very warm and fuzzy Speech from the Throne. They touched on some of the hot buttons, the points of issue Canadians feel very comfortable about. They touched on the environment. That is very good and very positive. The environment is very important to all of us as Canadians. We have to breathe air and drink water and make sure we have sustainability in our agriculture community so we have food to sustain us through the next decade and the next century.
They touched on health care but they talked about the research requirements in health care. They did not really talk about where health care would be going in the next 10, 15 or 20 years, or about what Canadians would like to see as their health care system unfolds into the 21st century. This is not something that we can say is status quo. We have to look to the future.
They talked about children and youth, a very important aspect of our society. The children we bring into this world and this country are obviously a resource and we have to look after them. Unfortunately they did not go far enough with respect to children and youth in our society.
The problem with Canadians today in listening to the throne speech is that they have a tendency not to believe governments any longer, in particular this government. The government has a history of perhaps saying things Canadians would like to hear but of perhaps not implementing them in the way Canadians feel they should be implemented.
I do not have to go very far. I simply have to look at the record. I have to look at the red book. I have to look at the scrapping of the GST which did not come to fruition. I have to talk about the free trade issue. They were going to rip up the agreement, which is one of the major reasons the budget is now balanced. It is the reason the Liberal government can now take credit for something that was put into place by a government that had vision, that could look 10 and 15 years down the road and say that what is right for Canadians now is a free trade agreement so that we are a partner in the globalized trading world of today. If it were a Liberal government that had to put that into place, we would still be hewers of wood and drawers of water.
The Liberals have not fulfilled any of their promises. Canadians today will be somewhat skeptical when they look at the throne speech that was presented two days ago.
The Liberals talk about taxes that will be reduced. Canadians do not believe them because right now taxes are taking a larger portion of their pay packets than what they did previous to 1993.
The Liberals talked about health care and they talked about the research components of health care. What they did not tell us is that by 2003, with the $11 billion put back in by the Liberal government over five years, we will be at the same level of support in health care that we were at in 1993. That is the wrong way to head into the new century. We are going backward, not forward. The Liberals hold it up as being a centrepiece of their platform. The fact is they do not know where they are heading with health care and Canadians are concerned about that.
I think Canadians wanted to have a good feeling as to where this government wanted to head in the future with respect to the retirement of our debt. Our debt did not come to us immediately. As a matter of fact it came to us over a number of years inclusive of the Liberal government and Mr. Trudeau and inclusive of other governments.
We have to put a plan together so that we can reduce that debt. It has to be a well thought out logical plan that extends a number of years into the next century. But there was none of that. What was in the throne speech was that yes, they will deal with it if they possibly can. That is not a plan.
The throne speech did not talk about an area that is very close and dear to my heart and my constituency of Brandon—Souris, which by the way I think reflects society in general, an urban rural area. We have people who are rich and poor. We have people who are young and old. My constituents wanted to hear something about agriculture. Not once was the word mentioned, with the exception of WTO and trade and agriculture put together.
Agriculture is the backbone of this country and always has been. I am frustrated and disappointed. We did not have to come up with the solutions. What we needed was the vision. A government member said “we do not deal with substance, we deal with vision”.
Where are we going with agriculture? There is no support. We are not supported against the Europeans and the Americans right now. All the government had to say is that philosophically agriculture is a very important component to this society, that it believes in a very strong, domestic supply of food for our country. That is all the government had to say. It had to say that the environment is very important and agriculture is an important part of the environment. It had to say that with the endangered species legislation the government talked about, it is important that we deal with agriculture and producers to make sure the endangered species legislation works. The government never said that. It never tied into it. That is vision and that is what is lacking in the throne speech.
That is where we had to head with vision and that is what I did not see.
We talk about the seniors. What about vision with respect to the baby boomers that are now among the seniors? Why do we not talk about retirement in 2010 or 2020? That is vision. This is a reactive government, not a proactive government. I would rather have had something in the throne speech that said there is a change in what is happening in society right now. A huge population is aging. We have to look at retirement. We have to look at government policies as to how those people plan for retirement. There was none of that. What was there? In the last budget the Liberals put into place they increased the CPP contributions by twice as much. That is their plan for retirement into the future. There is no vision. That was lacking in the throne speech.
A pet peeve and a soap box I like to get on is the world of work. Work is changing all around us. There is contract work. People are now doing work in their own homes. There are people who are part time employees, whether they want to be or not. That is the vision. The Liberals have to put a plan in place to accommodate those people in 2000, 2010 and 2020. I am disappointed. What we got were warm fuzzies with no substance. Yes, that is what the Liberals attempted to do and that is what they achieved.
First, we do not believe the Liberals will do anything that they said they would do. Second, it did not go far enough.
If this is the vision of this government, if this is the direction in which this government wants to take us after January 1, 2000, then I am very concerned. Our citizens are concerned.
I have to register my final complaint. It goes back to agriculture. For the government not to have said a word about it is absolutely disgusting. Canadians from coast to coast needed some assurances and confidence. They got nothing in the throne speech and I am very concerned about our direction in the next century.
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold Bloc Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the speech by the hon. member for Brandon—Souris. I would have liked him to have said what he thinks about the measure on parental leave.
The government tells us that we need to help young families to have children, but then it organizes things in such a way that parental leave will only take effect in the year 2001, and takes the money from the employment insurance fund. I would like to hear the hon. member address this point.
Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Mr. Speaker, I left the parental leave to my colleague from Saint John and I thought she handled it very well.
I have two children. I believe very strongly that children should have access to their parents during their formative years, particularly between one and three years of age. I did it as a father. My wife did it as a mother. I am very proud of the way we had our children grow up and develop.
At that time we did not have many supports from the federal government. If those supports are available, we will encourage it absolutely. We have to make sure that our children are taken care of because that is the resource we are going to depend on over the next number of years.