Bev Desjarlais

[Health, September 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have allowed health care to deteriorate and the lives of Canadians are at risk.

Nowhere is the problem more severe than among the first nations where diseases such as TB, diabetes and HIV are rampant. This problem is aggravated by unacceptable housing conditions in many first nations. Families live in overcrowded houses without modern sewage facilities and are deprived of safe drinking water.

It is reprehensible for the government to allow these third world conditions to persist. The government must honour its obligations to the first nations and take meaningful action to alleviate this crisis.

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member of the Conservative Party. I certainly intend to wholeheartedly support the amendment and the motion.

I speak on behalf of my constituents, who are quite comfortable in this area, recognizing the diversity within Canada and also recognizing that as a rural northern area we probably fall into an area that has related incidents or deaths. But we also recognize that the problem is not the gun, but rather the situation that precipitates what happens with the gun. That has long been recognized in a number of our communities.

We are not willing to sacrifice the dollar usage for gun registration, which we in our constituency believe is faulty. We do not intend to imply that law-abiding citizens should be affected by this legislation.

If I believed one iota that gun registration would lessen deaths I would be there a hundredfold.

The parliamentary secretary indicated that legally acquired weapons are used. That is the issue. There has never been enough enforcement in this area. There has never been enforcement of storage or follow through with FACs, who had acquired them and whether they had committed a crime after the fact. That is where the fault lies with gun registration and gun control.

There needs to be greater gun control, not gun registration. There needs to be greater enforcement. The dollars should be utilized to ensure that there are better programs within communities and better support systems.

I want to commend the hon. member for his amendment.

[Petitions, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as well I have a petition on behalf of a number of citizens of Ontario. They note the Treasury Board's bad faith in negotiating with federal workers and ask parliament to enact legislation that would broaden the scope of the Canada Labour Code to include all federal workers.

[Petitions, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of members of the Sagkeeng First Nations who comment on conditions in their community and call on parliament to put in place a process that will assist them in improving the quality of life in their community.

[Pay Equity, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister.

Last night talks with the public service alliance broke down because the government demanded rollbacks and concessions in return for pay equity.

Human rights are not negotiable. Pay equity is not a bargaining chip, it is a legal right under the Human Rights Act.

When will the government stop violating the human rights of Canadians?

[Special Interest Groups Funding Accountability Act, September 21st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the bill put before the House today by the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain.

Private Members' Business is one of the most genuinely democratic functions in this House because it allows us to represent our constituents without partisan constraints.

I appreciate what the hon. member is trying to accomplish with Bill C-310. He is a colleague of mine on the Standing Committee on Transport. He did good work on that committee so I was surprised when I read this bill to find that it has rather obvious oversights and mistakes.

It appears that when the hon. member was drafting the bill he had a rare lapse in judgment. I wonder if he took some advice for the bill from some of his Reform Party colleagues. That would explain how the flaws came about. In any case, having carefully considered the bill before us I cannot support it.

As members of the House, one of our most important responsibilities is to ensure that the government serves the people of Canada effectively. To that end we must make sure that government is not bogged down in administrative and bureaucratic red tape. Reform has pushed this issue on numerous occasions.

Make no mistake, Madam Speaker. I greatly value the work that our public servants do for the country, but we must always make sure that the work we give them advances the public interest. Creating unnecessary red tape is an unproductive waste of society's resources. That is what this bill would do. It would create unnecessary red tape.

The bill would require every charity receiving federal funds to file an annual report to Parliament to show how these funds were used. In principle that sounds fine and dandy but think of the cost of implementing such a scheme.

First, the charities themselves would have to devote more of their resources to accounting for where every penny of their federal funding goes. This might be possible for larger charities like the United Way, but what of the smaller ones? Many charities, including many food banks, are run by just a few dedicated volunteers. And in these days in Canada under this government we have needed more and more food banks.

These people give so much of themselves already. Many have to fill out reams of forms just to apply for a little federal funding to keep them afloat. It is hardly fair to expect them to fill out even more forms.

Regardless the size of the charity, whether it is the United Way or the local priest who hands out winter boots to underprivileged children, all this time and energy spent doing even more paperwork for the government would be better spent carrying out their charitable work.

Not only would this bill be an unnecessary drain on charities, it would be an unnecessary drain on the government itself. Think of the bureaucracy it would take to process the reports. Knowing the current Liberal government, the funding for this bureaucracy would come from existing budgets. Public servants, many of whom are still waiting for the pay equity they are entitled to by law, have been denied by 14 years of government stalling tactics. They would have to add this new paperwork to their workload. This would mean fewer resources devoted to health care, fewer resources devoted to getting EI cheques out on time, just to process these redundant charity funding reports.

I say these reports are redundant because the various government departments and agencies that dole out the grants and loans already serve the function of holding them accountable. If they do not see results, they can simply discontinue funding. Since this mechanism is already in place to make sure public funds are not wasted, the extra expenditures called for in this bill are unnecessary.

As if this bill did not waste enough resources, it would then require each report to be tabled in the House of Commons. I cannot even fathom a guess as to why the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain included this in the bill. Why would he not just have the Treasury Board publish and release the reports? Why bog down the House by tabling financial reports when it should be debating issues that matter to Canadians? It makes no sense.

Another thing that I question about this bill is its name. I know the naming of a bill is not important in how the bill functions. For instance, 20 years ago the government passed a bill called the Canadian Human Rights Act. One would think that an act with such a name would guarantee Canadians their fundamental human rights. But this has not prevented the current Liberal government from trampling on the human rights of Canadians by brutally cracking down on a peaceful democratic protest at the APEC summit, or by denying female public servants equal pay for work of equal value. So clearly the name of a bill has little relevance.

Nevertheless the name of a bill can offer insight into what its writer is thinking. I wonder what was going through the mind of the hon. member when he called this bill before us the Special Interest Groups Funding Accountability Act.

Clause 2 of this bill specifies that it only applies to groups or individuals who receive public funds for charitable purposes. From this I can only conclude that the hon. member considers charities to be special interest groups. He does not seem to understand what a special interest group is: a group that works to further its own interests.

Charities on the other hand do not fit that definition. Instead of serving themselves, they exist to serve others. They provide countless valuable services to society from meals on wheels for shut-ins to emotional support for cancer victims and their families.

I for one have experienced some of the things the member talks about. After the last federal campaign there was a rumour that the Reform candidate had received some funding from a group that was receiving government funding. But I am not willing to sell out the work that the charities do for the sake of one person or one organization that may not be doing things accordingly.

I would like to conclude by thanking the hon. member for bringing this bill before us today. Although the bill is flawed and redundant I appreciate and agree with his sentiments that there should be greater accountability for the spending of public funds. However, it is not the charities that need to be watched more closely, it is real special interest groups like corporations.

Today corporations receive billions in tax breaks and subsidies from the Government of Canada, yet there is no mechanism for holding them accountable for how these funds are used. Many corporations take this money but lay off hundreds of thousands of Canadians.

I urge members of the House to closely examine the tax breaks and subsidies government gives to corporations. Let us not be fooled into believing that all corporate tax breaks and subsidies are good or that they are detrimental. Some are undoubtedly used in ways to stimulate the economy while others waste monies that could go toward health care or tax relief for Canadian families.

We need to identify corporate tax breaks and subsidies that advance the public interests and do away with the ones that do not.

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken previously in the House about the Sayisi Dene of Tadoule Lake who suffered unjustifiably because of forced relocation by the government.

The Sayisi Dene are one of the Denesuline Nations of northern Saskatchewan and Manitoba that have outstanding concerns regarding their traditional use of land north of 60°, land that is a part of Nunavut.

Bill C-39, the Nunavut Act amendments, received the support of parliament. My party supports the principle of self-determination.

It is imperative that the government deal with the concerns of the Denesuline before proclaiming the Nunavut legislation. We must not taint the principle of self-determination.

The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Assembly of First Nations fully support the objectives and initiatives of the Manitoba Denesuline, including the legal challenge before the Federal Court of Canada in defence of territory claims and treaty rights.

Must every issue this government deals with end up in the courts? These people have suffered long enough. The federal government has an obligation to meet with the representatives of the Denesuline—

[Supply, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very basic question. Does the hon. member think that the Rosenberg case should be appealed?

[Petitions, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have petitions on behalf of citizens of Manitoba. They request that parliament support the immediate initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an international convention which will set out a binding timetable for the abolition of nuclear weapons.

[Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, June 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will take a little time to go over the bill since we have not had the opportunity to discuss it fully as a result of the process that has been taken.

Bill S-3 was passed by the Senate on November 20, 1997. The legislation governs private pension plans set up for employees working in businesses under federal jurisdiction, including banking and interprovincial transportation and telecommunications. The pensions of parliamentarians and those of federal public servants are not covered by this legislation.

What is Bill S-3 intended to do? It would introduce to the Pension Benefits Standards Act the same philosophy that governs the changes to the legislation governing federally chartered financial institutions in Canada.

The overall intention of the bill is to set clear ground rules for housekeeping, to codify the rules on how to handle the controversial issue of the treatment of surplus assets in a pension plan, to restore better balance between the employer and those who benefit from the plan, to enhance the ability of the minister to enter into agreements with provinces to apply and enforce the provinces' pension legislation. There is a mandate for the administrator of the fund to invest the assets of the fund in a manner that a reasonable and prudent person would apply in respect of a portfolio.

Why are we opposed to this? All of these are good intentions and the roads to hell are paved with good intentions.

There are three major reasons we oppose Bill S-3. It entrenches regulations which unnecessarily bypass parliament. S-3 promotes an obsession with surplus withdrawal rather than a focus on ways to improve the existing pension system. S-3 emanates from the Senate and is part of a sloppy process that abandons the role of parliament.

First, the regulations which unnecessarily bypass parliament. Section 10.1(2)(b) of Bill S-3 allows for the imposition of rigid arbitrary rules without consultation, truly a Henry VIII clause. There is no evidence that such arbitrary carte blanche is needed. The provision confers tremendous powers to unaccountable bureaucrats.

Section 10.1(2)(b) stipulates that there shall be no improvements in pension plans if the solvency ratio of the plan falls below a specified level. The solvency ratio is defined by regulations. We have a major problem with this concept.

According to the testimony of an Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions official before the Senate banking committee, the prescribed level would initially be set at 105%. This would have had a very serious impact on the take home pay of plan members and on the ability of trustees to improve benefits.

It is our understanding that following a discussion with the Canadian Labour Congress and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, the OSFI now intends to use a less stringent ratio. Section 10.1(2)(b) allows OSFI to do this through order in council without having to go back to parliament. There is no guarantee that an unaccountable bureaucrat at some point will not impose a harmful solvency ratio at some time in the future.

What happens if a stringent solvency ratio is imposed? A too stringent solvency test such as the 105% ratio threatens to stop the development of any new benefit programs in a pension plan and even discourages improvements to existing defined benefit plans. It will be virtually impossible for some private plans to become more attractive because this may cause short term fluctuations in their solvency ratio. If similar rules were to apply to the purchase of homes, very few consumers could purchase a home unless they could use existing liquid assets to fully purchase the home or fully pay for any home improvements.

If these rules had been in place 30 years ago, it is hardly exaggerating to say that we would have had no defined plan in Canada. Every time an employer based plan improved benefits, it had to incur a temporary solvency deficiency, which was paid up later.

At a time when the federal government is encouraging privately funded fully defined benefit plans, a 105% solvency ratio will also discourage employers to set up new plans. The Canadian Institute of Actuaries concurs. We are also concerned that the solvency test becomes in principle a model for pension legislation, which the provinces will adopt.

Why a shotgun approach when the OSFI has ample powers to place restrictions on poorly funded plans or on plans deemed at risk?

OSFI may be looking for the easy way out; a lot of arbitrary authority but not enough staff for a fine tuned regulation. Hence, it is much easier for the OSFI to end its examination function and strap all defined private pension plans into a solvency ratio straitjacket, even if it freezes initiative and may end up killing certain plans. At the very least, it shows a lack of understanding of the historical modus operandi of private pension plans.

We are uncertain as to which problem this government is trying to resolve.

There is no solvency crisis in the private pension system. Since the Pension Benefits Standards Act came into force in 1987, 392 plans terminated. The assets were wound up and distributed. Of these only nine terminated in less than fully funded status. In most of the nine the loss of benefits to the members was minimal and the plans had very small membership. In one plan only the members received less than 95% of the pension benefits credit. In that case the members received approximately 80%. The source for that figure is the Public Benefits Standards Act annual report.

It is inappropriate to undermine the ability of all plans to enhance pension benefits and become more attractive because of the exaggerated importance given by the OSFI to short term market fluctuations. It is the view that prescribing any solvency ratio test for plan investment is probably not the right approach to making sure plans do not terminate in an underfunded situation.

Bill S-3 already gives OSFI wide reaching powers to force poorly funded plans to take whatever action is necessary to bring assets and liabilities in line. There is no need for a Henry VIII clause that removes parliament from the equation.

The current five year funding solvency constraint in the PBSA is already sufficient to limit a situation in which contributions and plan assets could fall short of termination liabilities. The five year funding framework also provides ample guarantee that termination liabilities are funded over a short period. OSFI is taking a major policy position without any broad discussion. Even the U.S. has much more relaxed rules.

The government should instead make the plan sponsor liable for all the unfunded liabilities should the plan be terminated. In the province of Ontario, for instance, an employer that terminates a plan has to make up for the unfunded liability and not just be on schedule with amortization payments as is currently the case at the federal level.

This creates a self-regulatory incentive for the employer to follow the prudent per cent approach in making improvements to the plan. The system works well. Why not pursue this avenue at the federal level?

The Canadian Labour Congress has said that it may be more important for OSFI to take action against individuals who have acted imprudently than to try to create a general rule governing plan improvements.

An obsession with the surplus withdrawals rather than a focus on ways to improve the existing pension system is our second concern. Bill S-3 proposes a mechanism for employees and employers to take the surplus out of a private pension plan rather than offer incentives to improve pension plans.

The Liberal assault on the Canada pension plan, old age security and its gutting of universality on the backs of the working poor are followed by this assault on the middle class, the main beneficiary of the private pension system. This lack of legislated incentive to make things better is a hallmark of a mediocre management vision of the public interest. It condemns an increasing number of workers and retirees to poverty.

Bill S-3 should impose an outright ban on the removal of surpluses from ongoing plans and require the consent of plan members to remove surpluses in plans being wound up. It is especially annoying to see the feeble position of the government on the surplus issue when it is proposing nothing in regard to inflation protection.

There is today an urgent need for public policy to strengthen our public and private retirement systems. While CN and VIA Rail retirees have seen their pensions lose value because of poor inflation protection, the CN and VIA Rail pension plans are approaching a surplus or are in a surplus position. Rather than focusing on surplus refund, would it not be better instead to focus on ways to enhance the CN and VIA Rail pension plans?

The government has failed to move away from its obsession with short term bureaucratic efficiency. It should endeavour to work with employers and provinces to improve pension plans rather than focus on ways to take the money out.

Bill S-3 emanates from the Senate and is part of a sloppy process which undermines the role of parliament.

It is worth taking some time to talk seriously about the one sided and dysfunctional legislative process that bills like Bill S-3 are symptomatic of. We saw it earlier this morning and we are seeing it again.

Canadians want to believe in the House of Commons. They want to believe that what goes on here is a process steeped in trust, openness and mutual respect. They want a process that allows all voices to be heard, a process that is respectful of not only the will of the majority but the rights of the minority, and a process that is conducted in good faith, recognizing that there are people whose voices are too often excluded from the most critical legislative stages.

I could not help but listen to the minister speak on this matter and indicate that he had heard from the Senate and from industry. Nowhere did he mention that the House of Commons had a chance to be heard from. Nowhere did he mention that Canadians as individuals had a chance to be heard from.

The problem is that the government has made us all so captive to the process that there is no quarter for those indispensable principles of democracy. We give up on democracy to deal with mountains of legislation. While the government is sure to say it is a legitimate function of the Senate to deal with such a bill, I would hasten to say that there is no legitimacy in having an unelected body drafting bills that would affect the pensions of thousands of workers.

The government has no legislative vision. It is so obsessed with pushing forward bill after bill that it loses sight of the delicate interrelations that exist between one program and the next. We saw this with the changes to CPP.

The New Democratic Party kept calling on the government to table the changes to old age security as well. We can hardly change one without knowing what is going to happen to the other. Yet the government failed to act. Five months later while seniors fret about their security the government is still tinkering with the old age security.

There is a lack of consultation. Instead of inviting Canadians to share their voices with us the government marginalizes people by consulting with polling firms rather than with Canadians. Bill S-3 may have gone to the Senate banking committee but I would be overly charitable if I were to call that consultation.

Only two groups appeared before the committee. More shocking than that, the government wants us to accept fundamental changes to these pensions in the absence of broad based consultation. Even though this bill affects only 10% of total pensions in Canada it introduces to the private sector a paradigm that may threaten other plans including those run by the provinces. Would a government that believed in consultation not have sought out the voices of the people?

Members on the opposite side of the House are very comfortable with their slim majority. Canadians see them forcing through legislation. They see them stopping legitimate debate in the House and making major policy statements for the cameras rather than for their colleagues. This sort of arrogance and disrespect for parliament is a symptom for bad legislation such as Bill S-3.

In conclusion, I was honoured to stand today on behalf of the member for Qu'Appelle who is our critic and who is in Sault Ste. Marie listening to what Canadians have to say about bank mergers. The government has refused to allow parliament to do its job and called for an all party parliamentary committee to review the merger. On behalf of that member I present his words.