Sue Barnes

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that the member of the Reform Party had the right to choose the subject matter of debate. There is also no doubt in my mind that Reform members knew last night, as we applauded the Speaker, what the outcome of that vote would be. All they had to do was look around to see that the only persons not applauding the Speaker's decision were the Reformers.

Yes, they have the right to bring this to debate. However, it is not a debate that was needed to take the time of this Parliament when we have situations of unemployment, the budget and other important situations. However, that was not my choice. It was theirs and they have made. I also think there are other manipulations going on here which I think Canadians are beginning to understand.

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Brossard—La Prairie.

I have asked to speak today but I am saddened that this debate is taking place. I think of all the things we could be debating tonight. We are voting on budgets, among other things. I think of what has been displaced by this time. But it is a choice. Canadians have to understand that while the government is elected and generally puts its legislation forward to be properly debated in this House, we have these days of opposition motions, and it was the Reform Party, the party of the member who just spoke, that chose to have this debate. We must understand that.

This debate is not about who is the most patriotic. I do not find this debate to be about patriotism. I firmly believe that patriotism is not only individual. It is collective as a nation. It is the sharing of values and what we believe.

I do not find it necessary to stand up and parade all the examples of how I show my patriotism. I am here as the servant of the people who elected me from the constituency of London West. They elected me to do the business of the nation. They elected me to come to this Parliament and to debate with my words, not with props, with flags or with noise. They elected me to think, to research, to represent and, I believe, to lead.

When I was thinking about what I would say today I looked back to my first speech in 1993 when I talked about what a privilege it was to serve in this House. I talked about having the courage and the courtesy to serve not only my constituents but my own sense of values. That courtesy, I believe, extended to members sitting across from me.

When I spoke for the first time in the 36th Parliament I said “I wish to congratulate the Speakers”, and I went on to say that I would co-operate and respect this office and this Parliament. I also said that I would continue to treat other members with the respect and courtesy which any member of Parliament deserves.

I believe that is fundamental. I think the issue we are really addressing today is how this Parliament functions for all Canadians and how we bring the legislature out of the war of words into action in our communities.

This is a very democratic institution. From across the nation men and women are drawn together, often sacrificing time from their careers and their families, to express ideas and to battle each other through ideas and policies, not individually, not the political thrust of the cheap shot. How we manage to do that is through an institution called the Speaker.

The Speaker in Canada is elected by all members of the House. It is the very first thing we do each time we come together to open a new Parliament.

The Speaker has been given the obligation to make sure that order is maintained in the House. The Speaker is there to make sure that when I rise to speak I do not have to fear someone coming at me physically. I can get my ideas across to all the people in the land. I can put forth an argument that can be heard. The Speaker ensures that I have the ability to make my argument democratically, logically, without coercion or fear from anyone in the Chamber.

There are parliaments, such as the one in Kenya, where last spring the members almost began a fist fight. There have been other examples throughout the Commonwealth and other democracies.

The purpose of this Chamber is to debate ideas. It is not for stunts.

I ask how have we come to this position where it is us and them politics. The symbol of our nation sits beside us. It has not been outlawed to have the flag in this Chamber. I am looking at it. Canadians can look at it. Every time the camera is focused on the Speaker they see it. We are not outlawing the flag. This is not about flags. This is about our being able to speak freely. We are able to speak freely because there is a person sitting in that chair who keeps order in this place.

This is a back door effort to appeal a ruling of the Speaker, whom we all said we respected when we elected him, which was made yesterday.

I heard an hon. member opposite say that all they are asking for is a yes or a no today. They want to talk about it again. If they had ears or eyes in the House yesterday they would have seen every party except one stand to applaud the Speaker. The Speaker's decision was right. It was based on precedent and precedent in this Chamber has ruled out props. Why? Because they are not necessary.

It is not necessary to have push button politics and stunts on the Hill. It is not necessary to hire mariachi bands to know that absenteeism is wrong.

I have two teenage sons. I do not want to see grown men sitting around in an unsafe manner, abusing the flag as was done on the Hill.

The taxpayers do not want to see any member of Parliament behave as these people have behaved in the last little while.

I remember a time in 1993 when somebody said “we came to Ottawa to do politics differently”. How different has it been? It has been very different. It seems that research, logic and courtesy have gone the way for cheap headline hunting. I see this motion as political manipulation of a very base kind. I do not have to defend myself that I do not love my country or I am not patriotic enough because there is a symbol sitting in front of me. I wonder how many people sitting at their desks today have a symbol sitting in front of them. However, I would never question their loyalty to this country.

The absence of symbols in this House in this manner is not the be all and end all. I appreciate the fact that members opposite have even acknowledged that today. I think it is reasonable.

This is about reasonable debate, following the rules, courtesy and respect for the institutions of our democracies as shown by the Speaker's rulings. To my knowledge there are no appeals to Speaker's rulings. We do not do things in democracies by the back door. There are rule books such as Beauchesne's which states very strictly how to go against the Speaker. One may bring forward a motion and debate it. Do the members opposite have the courage to debate that? I do not think so.

I think this is a way out. However, things are very rarely answered properly by a yes or a no.

What we have here is something which I regard as one of the lower days of debate and it is not because I do not value my flag. The flag deserves to be known for what it really is. In Canada it is a symbol of a country that knows peace, shows tolerance and knows understanding. It is a symbol of those that are greater than the individuals who stand in this country, whether they are here by choice or by birth, and it is worthy of respect. It is not worthy of disrespect to make cheap political points and play political games that are not entertaining, funny or worthy of the democratic institutions as fine as Canada has.

We have one of the best democracies in the world. We have one of the best parliaments in the world. In my maiden speech in 1993 I said to a member of the Bloc, who talked to me about the right to speak, that I would defend their right to speak but did not have to agree with their ideas.

I will be voting against this motion tonight because I do not believe that I need to have a prop to show my love for my country or the value of this institution. I know what I am doing and I know my constituents will understand.

[Access To Information Act, March 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to clarify some of the issues raised by Bill C-216 and the subject of enhancing access to government information.

This subject is important to Canadians. Since the passage of the Access to Information Act in 1983, Canadians have grown to expect that they will be able to obtain information controlled by the federal government. They believe they have a right to this information whether it is held by a department, an agency, or a crown corporation.

At the present time the Access to Information Act does not apply to all government organizations. It covers only those institutions listed in schedule I of the act. If a particular body is not listed, the legislation does not apply to it.

Bill C-216 proposes that Parliament extend the coverage of the act by listing all the federal crown corporations in the schedule. By recent count there are approximately 48 parent crown corporations, 27 of which are already subject to the access legislation. This proposal would include the remaining 21 corporations under the purview of the act.

It is important to carefully consider the fact that crown corporations were created specifically to deliver various programs and services to Canadians as commercially viable federal institutions and not as traditional departments or agencies.

By definition, crown corporations serve the public interest in a commercial environment. They range in size from small appropriation dependent corporations with limited commercial revenue to large commercial operations that operate on a self-sustaining basis. They are involved in activities that directly affect the lives of Canadians in areas such as transportation, communications and finance.

Crown corporations already respect the spirit of the government's broad socioeconomic policies. They have been subject to the Official Languages Act since it was passed in 1969. They also apply the principles of employment equity.

When the Access to Information Act was first debated, there was considerable discussion about which parts of the government should be covered and which should not. Crown corporations were often the focus of discussions precisely because they operate at arm's length from the government. While some argued that there was an even greater need for these institutions to be accountable for their actions and for the public funds for which they were responsible, one must keep in mind the fact that the Government of Canada has built-in mechanisms and reporting measures for crown corporations.

Since the establishment of the Access to Information Act, there have been further debates about the coverage of the legislation. For instance the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act were reviewed in 1987. Members of the standing committee on justice and the solicitor general have examined the Access to Information Act and the information commissioner has made several representations on the subject over the years.

In 1994 a special report entitled “Where Lies the Kingdom of Access” included a proposal that the crown corporations should be covered by the act unless Parliament in its wisdom specifically chooses to exclude an entity in explicit terms. It also proposed that there should be a special provision made to exclude all program materials of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

Excluding program materials of the CBC from access highlights the issue of the unique nature of many crown corporations. It is possible that the application to the CBC of some of the existing provisions of the legislation could have a very chilling effect on the ability to collect information and could compromise its sources. They could potentially impede the corporation's ability to disseminate information which we would all agree is its primary purpose.

It must be recognized that because many crown corporations compete with private sector firms they are expected to function like their private sector counterparts. They must operate in an environment free from the undue interference of government administrative constraints. Their use of private sector business practices often requires that the general government policies be tailored specifically to their needs.

Consequently even before considering the extension of the Access to Information Act to the entire group of crown corporations, close consultation with each and every corporation should be made and an examination of the unique circumstances in which it operates would have to be made.

If Canadians want their crown corporations to provide services and deliver programs effectively and efficiently, these institutions must not be subjected to measures that could severely impede their work. In other words, if we expect crown corporations in effect to compete with the private sector, we should not force them to meet requirements above and beyond those of their competitors in the same market.

The federal government recognizes and appreciates the right of Canadians to have access to federal information. There is, however, an important and essential balance between the broad legal right of Canadians to information and that of individual privacy, commercial confidentiality and national security. This balance must be protected if we want crown corporations to be successful.

With respect to the protection of the release of commercially sensitive information, these kinds of safeguards are particularly important to maintain the competitive position of our crown corporations. These measures are consistent with the Freedom of Information Act in other jurisdictions, namely the provincial ones.

For example, the Ontario legislation covers crown corporations that market their services and products to the public while providing a clear and significant exemption for commercially valuable or sensitive information. If any adjustments were made to the current provisions of the act, the special interests of the individual crown corporations would have to be appropriately accommodated. Furthermore, we could not simply amend or extend access principles in this way without causing damage to the legitimate interests of one or more of these corporations.

The government supports the principles of openness and accountability inherent in the Access to Information Act. However, Bill C-216 in its present form suffers from sins of omission. The most serious sin is that it fails to provide any provision to protect the legitimate commercial interests of the crown corporation either collectively or individually. These interests must be observed since this complements the public interest in ensuring that corporations continue to operate effectively and on a level playing field with their competitors.

Therefore I must firmly reject the bill in its current form. I am very confident there are good reasons for doing so.

[Revenue Canada, March 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, a new national 1-800 overflow call centre is now open in Ottawa. The centre has the capacity to answer an extra 10,000 inquiries a day. This will pick up automatically if the regional call centre has a busy signal.

We have invited eight million Canadians to file their tax returns using telefile, using a push button phone. This will cut the processing time in half. Returns take just minutes to file over the phone. The service is available seven days a week and best yet, you get your refund faster.

[Employment, March 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the newly released employment figures for February reaffirm that the government's policies are contributing to job creation.

Full time employment rose by 84,000 in February. Unemployment fell by an estimated 38,000, dropping the unemployment rate to 8.6%. What is especially significant is that nearly half of February's employment increase went to youths 15 to 24 years of age. Two-thirds of this gain was in full time work. This employment increase among youth led to a decline of 23,000 in the unemployment ranks.

The help wanted index now stands at its highest level since November 1990. As employer hiring intentions are at record levels for the 1990s, there is no doubt the government is on the right track with respect to job creation and employment for Canadians.

[Observance Of Two Minutes Of Silence On Remembrance Day Act, March 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, reviewing the Young Offenders Act is a priority for the Minister of Justice, but it is clear that legislative reforms alone would not have prevented any of these tragedies.

Legislative reform is one tool among many to deal with issues of youth crime and the most effective approach would be a comprehensive youth justice strategy that includes proactive as well as reactive measures.

The solicitor general and the justice minister plan to launch a community based crime prevention initiative in 1998 and particular attention will be paid to measures for children and youth. Individual communities are well placed to identify their challenges and needs, and our initiative will encourage a partnership approach to helping communities prevent and reduce crime.

If, however, serious crimes are committed by young people, we need a legal regime that is fully capable of responding. Criminal laws and criminal law principles must be applied appropriately to young offenders. Criminal behaviour committed by young people needs to be denounced as wrong. Young people capable of forming criminal intent should be considered criminally responsible and held accountable for their misdeeds through fair and proportionate penalties.

Intensive rehabilitation and reintegration efforts may need to be applied to serious young offenders to promote the protection of the public by giving young offenders the best chance at becoming law-abiding and productive adults.

Criminal acts by youth range from high spirited behaviour to murder, and the response needs to be effective and proportionate. For less serious offences accountability and responsibility can be achieved by some innovative alternatives such as restorative justice approaches.

The goal of the comprehensive strategy would be an effective youth justice system in which the public could have confidence. It is never too early to intervene in the lives of troubled young people and never too late.

The intervention, however, must be appropriate and effective. We do not want to be incarcerating our children at disproportionately high rates, nor do we want people labouring—

[Observance Of Two Minutes Of Silence On Remembrance Day Act, March 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is mistaken when he suggests that employment insurance has increased poverty.

The first major reform in 25 years is fundamentally about helping Canadians get back to work quickly. The old system encouraged ongoing dependence and did not address structural unemployment. The new reform invests in people who are prepared to invest in themselves. It is fair, balanced and reflects the job market of realities across Canada.

The employment insurance system combines income support with practical results oriented, active employment measures. To help unemployed Canadians get back to work, an additional $800 million will be reinvested annually in re-employment measures, bringing the federal funding to more than $2.7 billion annually by 2000-2001.

In addition, a three year transition jobs fund is now in place to help create lasting jobs in the high unemployment rate regions of this country. Co-operation with provincial and territorial governments and the private sector in developing and delivering these benefits is an essential part of the EI system.

Labour market agreements with 11 provinces and territories will reduce the overlap, duplication of efforts and ensure that employment programs meet local and regional needs. As well, decisions on the most appropriate forms of assistance to help the unemployed get back to work will benefit from the insights of those most closely in touch with local markets.

The government with EI reform ensured that the new system was fairer and more equitable. The new system provides a family income supplement to help those with children. Because the entrance requirement is now based on hours of work instead of weeks, 500,000 additional part time workers will have their work insured for the first time.

Labour market conditions are now substantially improving. As 1998 begins the unemployment rate has dropped to its lowest level in seven years. More than one million—

[Observance Of Two Minutes Of Silence On Remembrance Day Act, March 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would like to clarify some points about the rate of return that Canadians will receive from the Canada pension plan.

A generation of Canadians born in 1988 will earn an effective rate of return on their CPP contributions of 1.9%, comparing the benefits they can expect to receive to the contributions they will make. However, the Reform Party does not tell you that this return accounts for commitments already made under the CPP. In fact 6.1% of the 9.9% steady stay contribution rate in 2003 will pay for the benefits of contributors. The rest is needed to pay for the plan's unfunded liability which is currently around $600 billion.

The effective rate for contributors would be higher if the contribution rate was only 6.1%. However, this would be possible only if we reneged on commitments already made under the CPP or paid them from a source the Reform Party has not identified.

The money actually invested in the CPP under the new, more fully funded approach is expected to earn a 3.8% of return after inflation. This is comparable to the returns of any large pension plan in the private sector.

Finally, the hon. member should know that the recent report of the Association of Canadian Pension Management supports a retirement system that includes the CPP as well as employer plans and RRSPs. It does not support, and I stress it does not support, the kind of privatized system that the Reform Party wants. On the contrary. It points out that private plans can have much higher investment costs than the CPP to the investor's disadvantage. Those are the facts.

[Supply, March 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, he doth protest too much. Honestly, when hon. members on the other side of the House get to choose the subject and choose to talk about education and scholarships, I am going to canvass the subject.

We have just had an excellent budget. In that budget there were excellent avenues for people across this country to not only save for education for their children but to access it, and if they are a part time or full time student, to access finances and get relief. There was opportunity for lifelong learning through the registered education savings plan. There are going to be the biggest investments ever by a federal government in the post-secondary educational system. It is wonderful for Canadians.

I find it perplexing that anybody could be so upset when the students in their riding are going to have the benefits of this. I am very glad that we are here as a government to assist those students.

[Supply, March 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the Canadian opportunities strategy does provide a diverse and comprehensive set of tools.

This is a debate about education. It is a debate for all Canadians across Canada who have to understand the tools now available to them through the budget. There will be the millennium scholarship plan. There are also all the other measures in the budget. All of them are equally important and will provide access to education to those students in Quebec who maybe are not going to hear about it from their representatives sitting here who want to talk solely about what will happen in the year 2000 with our millennium scholarship.

I am here to say I am happy that students of Quebec and students across this nation, no matter who they are represented by, will have access to the scholarship fund and all the other tools.