Carolyn Parrish

[City Of Mississauga, February 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to proudly announce a benchmark achievement by the city of Mississauga, the ninth largest city in the country and the fastest growing at half a million in population.

Mississauga led the country in 1994 in issuing almost $1 billion worth of building permits for 4,400 new residential units and 2.2 million square feet of industrial commercial floor space.

Corporate head offices continue to find Mississauga an ideal place to locate because of the attractive tax and hydro rates and the proximity to Pearson International Airport. They include Sunbeam Corporation, Siemens Electric and Mary Kay Cosmetics.

The value of these permits represents a 37 per cent total increase over the previous year and a 30 per cent increase for the industrial commercial sector.

The prosperity and phenomenal growth in Mississauga is yet one more signal that Mississaugans and Canadians are confident in the Prime Minister and the Liberal government.

[Foreign Affairs, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Canadian participation in the United Nations mission in Haiti demonstrates our commitment to restoring democracy in that country. Could the minister tell us exactly what Canada's contribution to the UN mission in Haiti will entail?

[Charitable And Non-Profit Organization Director Remuneration Disclosure Act, February 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure today to second and to speak in support of Bill C-224, an act to require charitable and non-profit groups receiving public funds to declare the remuneration of their directors and senior officers.

This bill is the first important step toward reforming Canada's not for profit sector. With the implementation of C-224 all organizations with charitable or non-profit status receiving public funding by direct grants, government transfers or by tax exemption will be required to publicly disclose the amount of the salaries and benefits paid to their principal officers.

This bill is about accountability. It is about allowing these collectively funded organizations and agencies to be scrutinized not only by government but also by the public. It sets the same standard of accountability for not for profit organizations as those set for individuals, businesses and government.

When government funds individuals and businesses, rules and regulations are in place to ensure accountability. Why should the rules be different for not for profit organizations? In difficult economic times all precautions must be taken to ensure sparse public funds are allocated according to real need.

The issue is of utmost importance given the absolute necessity to control government spending today. We are forced to re-evaluate the role of government in society generally. Now more than ever we must closely scrutinize recipients of all public funds.

There are two distinct advantages to achieving charitable status in Canada. Once an organization is registered it is exempt from paying income tax. Registration also allows the organization to issue official donation receipts which donors then claim as income tax credits. This results in a reduction of tax revenues to the government.

Currently, registered charities, including private and public foundations and charitable organizations are required to file a registered charity information return with the department of revenue. These returns are also available for public release as per section 149(1) of the Income Tax Act.

Section D of the return asks how much remuneration is paid to employees, executive officers, directors and trustees. The question of how many people are paid from the total regular employees remuneration is not asked. As long as the organization files a return, even though it be incomplete, it retains its charitable status. There is no penalty if required information is missing.

The member for Hamilton-Wentworth's November 1994 report concerning special interest group funding contains returns from selected charitable organizations. Of these, only 50 per cent specified the number of executives or their salaries. The other half implied they had no executive officers, directors or trustees and therefore did not have to specify how much money was allocated for their salaries.

One wonders how an organization such as the Canadian Council on Smoking and Health claiming receipts of almost $1 million and employee salaries of close to $400,000 can function without directors or executives.

By simply including all salaries in the figures paid out to regular employees, organizations avoid having to identify or reveal executive salaries. The current charity information return does not require detailed information about remuneration. Canadians who are hard pressed to donate a simple $25 to a charity may be appalled to find its executive director receives half a million dollars in salary.

While the Income Tax Act requires charities to use at least 80 per cent of individual donations on charitable activities, it does not mention what proportion of a government grant should be used in this way. Moreover, when a charity is 80 to 90 per cent government funded the current rules leave an enormous gap.

The situation is even worse for non-profit organizations. They are generally not taxable. While non-profit organizations cannot issue official tax receipts, they receive direct funding from the government by way of grants and transfers and indirect funding in the form of tax exemptions.

Currently, non-profit organizations are required to file a non-profit organization information return with Revenue Canada detailing their financial information. Not every non-profit organization is required to file a return. Only those having revenue exceeding $10,000 per year or having assets of more than $200,000. Only 4,960 of an estimated $40,000 non-profit organizations filed a return in 1993. Under the Privacy Act and section 241 of the Income Tax Act all of this information remains confidential.

A non-profit organization has absolutely no public accountability. There is no way for any member of the public or the government to adequately assess the financial operations of these organizations. MPs are asked to approve grants for organizations in their own constituencies having little idea where that money is actually going. I have personally withheld cheques from organizations in my constituency that have failed to provide me with adequate financial information.

Bill C-224 requires a detailed public breakdown of all salaries for all charitable and non-profit organizations. This would eliminate a prime area of potential abuse in a largely unaccountable sector.

The Consumers' Association of Canada lists three sources of income on its information return with government grants totalling almost $900,000, more than 70 per cent of its total revenues. This organization pays one executive officer $96,000 a year. At least it reports this information. Most do not.

We can no longer allow any publicly funded organization to remain outside financial scrutiny. Given the state of the government's finances, the present situation is totally unacceptable.

There are more than 66,000 registered charities in Canada, a number which increases by 4,000 annually. We do not know exactly how many non-profit organizations truly exist.

The Canadian Centre for Philanthropy reports approximately $86 billion passed through registered charities in 1993, 13 per cent of Canada's gross domestic product and equal to the entire GDP of British Columbia. We can safely say that together charities and non-profit organizations account for more than $100 billion in cash flow. They pay out approximately $40 billion in salaries to 3.2 million people or 9 per cent of the Canadian labour force.

Registered charities alone receive approximately 56 per cent of their revenue directly from various levels of government, $49 billion annually; $5.5 billion comes from the federal government in direct grants and transfers and $600 million in forgone tax revenue, over $6 billion in total per year.

In our quest to control government spending, not for profit organizations cannot be ignored. Accountability in terms of salaries paid out by government funded agencies is the essential first step proposed in this bill.

Other important recommendations in the bill also need to be considered. The Income Tax Act must be amended to allow public access to the financial statements of non-profit organizations. Revenue Canada must scrutinize more closely the activities of registered charities.

Applicants for government funding should be required to waive certain protections offered by the Access to Information and Privacy Acts. Organizations should not receive significant government funding without having had their annual statements reviewed and approved by the granting authorities.

All of these recommendations establish accountability. Current financial conditions demand close scrutiny of all groups receiving government funding. This bill is only the tip of the iceberg, a small but necessary step in reforming the way we handle Canada's non-profit sector.

In the U.S., charitable and non-profit organizations must file returns with the IRS which are available for public inspection. Information must be filed by both charitable and non-profit organizations, unlike the Canadian policy which keeps the returns of non-profit organizations confidential.

The U.S. form is much more comprehensive and detailed. One section asks for the names, addresses, compensation, benefits and expense allowances of officers, directors and key employees. If any receive annual compensation of more than an aggregate $100,000 an additional schedule must be attached. The organizations are thus held directly accountable to the public.

We publicly fund charitable and non-profit organizations in Canada which engage in activities unrelated to their charitable status. Some participate in blatantly political activities by donating funds to political parties.

The Canadian Labour Congress was given a grant of over $3.6 million in 1993 for its labour education program. The CLC contributes none of its own revenues to this program yet was able to give over $1 million to the New Democratic Party in that same year.

The definitions of charitable activities are vague and open to abuse. Activities in the public interest and those of special interest are not clearly defined. As for non-profit organizations there are very few guidelines. Some of these organizations such as the Canadian Ethnocultural Council receive up to 80 per cent of their revenue from sustained government funding. Many could not survive without direct annual funding from the government. We are talking about $49 billion in government funding each year. We must get our act together.

I ask all hon. members to vote for the bill as a first step in addressing a situation that both the public and the legitimate not for profit sector should welcome. The taxpayer has a right to evaluate the spending priorities of recipients of government grants. Legitimate not for profit organizations have an interest in knowing that both government and private funding is allocated to those who need and deserve it most.

[Committees Of The House, February 9th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I must thank the member for pointing out something I had hoped would sneak by the rural members. He knows I was hoping it would sneak by.

I have to represent the area I live in. I also believe in representation by population wherever possible. I would be absolutely adamant in hoping, as is the Liberal way, we will come up with some sort of amicable solution wherever those boundaries touch each other. My first principle has always been representation by population, wherever it is possible. I will be defending my little clause in the bill to the death.

[Committees Of The House, February 9th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the compliment. He noted that I was the only Liberal he ever met who has tried to save money. Of course that is not true but it shows he has a certain bias and that is why he likes to get into exchanges with me on subjects like this one.

In the United States there is quite a difference in concentration of population. If we look at the numbers in the United States and the way its population is concentrated, its congressmen tend to be able to serve people in a more compact area. Canada, by nature, is very spread out and very diverse except for areas like Mississauga West. Generally it becomes a logistical problem.

The other thing, in my opinion, that happens in the United States is that it requires millions of dollars to get elected so only the wealthy run. Therefore, I do not know if the member would be here but I for sure would not. To suggest that many people require a prolonged campaign and require enormous election expenses ensures that only the very wealthy become elected to its representative houses.

Obviously I would like to see a cap at some point on this House. The member and I have both agree on this. However, in the democratic process that went on in the committee we talked about it, looked at it and decided it required much more study than we were able to give it at this time. I hope I have sufficiently answered the member's question.

[Committees Of The House, February 9th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am rising today to speak in favour of the government motion for concurrence in the 51st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the electoral boundaries adjustment process.

The issue of governance is one that affects every member. As the member for Mississauga West with the second largest and possibly the most diverse riding in the country I have a keen interest in the bill before the House today which can affect my riding profoundly. It is definitely not tiddly-winks in this one.

Canada has a long tradition of fairness and compromise in dealing with the allocation of ridings in our nation. Since Confederation this House has taken extraordinary steps to ensure that such diverse areas of Canada as Prince Edward Island, Quebec and the Northwest Territories each receive special consideration. While Canada is a federation of many different cultures, ways of life and ethnic backgrounds, the ties that bind this country have from time to time been rather tenuous.

One of the most important ties we do have is a strong federal government represented by members of Parliament who are seated in this House. In order to build harmony and foster a sense of balance and fairness, we must occasionally examine and adjust the way we are governed and the method by which we choose those representatives who are seated here today. Our prime concern should be one of fairness and equity.

In 1900 over 80 per cent of Canada was rural and largely English or French background but we have changed rather dramatically. In 1995 we are largely urban with a huge influx of new Canadians, each with different points of view and a strong desire to participate in the new land they now call home. Yet representing this diverse population in a fair and equitable way through the redistribution of ridings remains a highly controversial issue.

In the riding of Mississauga West over 250,000 residents struggle each day to pay bills, become familiar with new customs and pursue their piece of the Canadian dream. This riding is at least the size of three average Ontario constituencies and double the entire population of Prince Edward Island, which by the way sends four excellent members to this House.

Clearly the time has come to address the challenges presented by a rapidly growing, highly urbanized area such as Mississauga West. Over 40 per cent of this riding speaks neither official language. With many of the 131 languages spoken, schools have fewer than 10 per cent English or French speaking students. This is an amazing transition in only 10 years.

As background I point to the growth patterns of the city of Mississauga in the region of Peel. Since its incorporation in 1974 Mississauga has tripled in size. Growth projections provided by city staff show a steady, planned, accurate and predictable growth pattern.

In 1974 the population was 165,000. It currently is just over 500,000. Only the recessions of 1982-83 and 1993-94 slowed a very steady and dramatic pattern of growth. This year Mississauga is Canada's ninth largest and again fastest growing city. I represent half of it.

With more than $850 million in new development we have exceeded the predictions for this year by more than $250 million, a figure which matches the pre-recession levels of growth for 1988-89. Industrial growth in 1994 was also 30 per cent ahead of the previous year.

I remind the House that these growth rates are equally common throughout the entire greater Toronto area. In the areas like Markham, Brampton and Oakville the story is very similar. New urban areas attract thousands of people annually along with new businesses and an appetite for government services, not to

mention a vocal and persistent desire for direct access to their member of Parliament.

We all know how much work it is to build new cities. Each of us knows of the struggles to fund schools, roads, parks and other aspects of infrastructure. These are the urgent and visible needs of all new communities. What are the less visible needs? Many new Canadians require a great deal of help from their federal member and his or her riding office. There is no longer a tradition of volunteer community help to fall back on, as is more common in rural areas. Urban areas tend to be more threatening, less welcoming and frankly, tougher places to fit into.

My own riding office routinely deals with over 100 phone calls per day. The majority of those involve relatively complicated questions dealing with immigration and unemployment, not to mention pertinent advice and instant solutions to all our budgetary problems.

The cultural and language problems are immense. Imagine trying to deal with at least 40 different major ethnic groups, each with special needs and problems. By now members of my staff have learned bits of language from all around the world as they try to offer friendly and efficient assistance to the best of their abilities. I actually have one staff member who is in hospital.

These are just some of the problems with monster ridings like Mississauga West. I know that as I speak each of us is thinking about our own home riding, its problems, its challenges and its special situations. In that respect we are all alike in this House, men and women trying to do the best we can in the situations we are faced with each day.

However rapidly growing areas such as York North, Ontario riding, Scarborough and Mississauga West need special consideration in dealing with redistribution. This report goes an immense distance toward meeting the needs of such high growth communities.

I draw attention to the size variable of plus or minus 25 per cent which has been discussed in this House. This provision will allow high growth areas more flexibility in establishing realistic long term boundaries. Such growth predictions and subsequent planning efforts are relatively accurate. Growth areas can be easily identified and subsequent adjustments made. There is very little risk of error, judging from past predictions and actual growth patterns.

The new electoral boundaries process will include the direction that a commission be established following each five-year mini census if more than 10 per cent of the province's constituencies vary by more than 25 per cent from the provincial average.

These five-year mini census adjustments further serve as a method to ensure fairness in riding sizes without changing the actual number of seats for each province. Thus an area like Mississauga West or Mississauga generally could be divided into four or five ridings, each with 25 per cent room for growth.

In effect for the first time ever we would be exhibiting good planning and a recognition of the special circumstances in which cities like Mississauga find themselves. After all, politicians serve people, not geography. Politicians work for people, not hills, mountains and fields.

In the past, growth has overwhelmed ridings such as Mississauga West which expanded from 140,000 to 250,000 people in 10 years and from 80,000 to 163,000 eligible registered voters. Ten-year adjustments are inadequate. We need to recognize that the urban residents in new communities create tremendous work while their area is expanding and establishing its roots.

Federal services do not keep pace, further adding to the burden on an MP's office. Unemployment insurance offices, Canada Post, passport centres and district tax offices cannot keep up. The flight of city dwellers to suburban areas is much quicker than the corresponding addition of new federal services to meet their demands. We know that many immigrants who currently land at Pearson airport will settle in the outskirts of urban centres where taxes, rents and services are less expensive.

The 51st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding electoral boundaries also recognizes an often overlooked aspect to riding boundaries: communities of interest and existing municipal boundaries. In the past the gremlins of redistribution often cobbled together some fairly innovative, if convoluted, riding boundaries. Many were more representative of a pretzel than a riding. I can only speculate on the motive behind the more innovative electoral creations.

Suffice it to say the best interest of communities and of people will only be served if the riding boundaries are sensitive to communities of interest. They must recognize the cohesiveness and shared concerns of certain geographic or municipal areas.

Some proposals in the recent past had Brampton and part of Mississauga in the same riding. This may not be troubling to some people, since we know Mississauga is the gateway to Brampton, possibly the centre of the new universe as I know it, but it does create problems of a practical nature.

Think of the extra unnecessary work created in a riding that is geographically split or extremely diverse in interests, economics or lifestyle. It becomes a delicate and largely futile effort to

keep many very different areas in balance. My colleague for Bramalea-Gore-Malton knows exactly of what I speak.

The report we are debating today addresses these sensitive situations. The new guidelines also provide a greater opportunity to enhance our relationships with area municipalities, not unlike the very co-operative process under which the government's infrastructure program was developed and implemented.

Local planning staff, area residents and municipal leaders will have a far greater role and responsibility in ensuring the needs of their communities are taken into consideration long before final boundaries are decided on. MPs will not be required to make the decisions of King Solomon, with very diverse interests forcing a member to choose between one community of interest and another quite opposite one.

There is another innovation. This report specifies, as has been mentioned, that three different alternatives for each riding redistribution be presented by the electoral commission with a detailed rationale for the one they have chosen. The commission will collect and justify its preferred option, but the alternatives will be available to those who wish to raise objections for the first time ever.

This new procedure alone adds immeasurably to the empowerment of local citizens and civic officials. The hearings will then allow citizens to select another option with equal population distribution based on alternative communities of interest or geographic characteristics.

Until now the boundary setting process has been at very best something of a mystical, partisan federal rite occurring once within each decade. Now the process will be viewed as clear cut, straightforward and inclusive. The five-year review is a further refinement, reflecting the belief that expanding areas change dramatically in a short period of time and therefore need more than the current ten-year review.

Last, the report attempts to bring fairness and balance into riding redistribution. We must be fair to Canadians regardless of where they live. Each Canadian is equal in voting power to the next. Each vote should, as close as is constitutionally possible, carry the same weight as the next.

While the urban areas are growing rapidly, it is a matter of political fairness that new ridings continue to be established where the people live. This shift seems inevitable and needs to be recognized. My 250,000 constituents deserve full representation, full enfranchisement and full democratic powers.

The population of Mississauga West will soon reach 300,000 people yet we have only one voice in Parliament, as strong as it is. We need to approach this challenge with an open mind and a commitment to equity. It is not likely that we will ever please all Canadians regardless of our best efforts.

Some will always cling to old notions in a process that is long out of date. I understand how difficult it is to serve areas that are losing population with vast geographic areas between pockets of small populations.

The report also addresses the concerns of low population areas and rural establishments. Some ridings have tremendous historical roots dating back to Confederation. They find the idea of redistribution or expansion suspect. I am also keenly aware of the arguments in favour of certain special status cases such as Prince Edward Island. My favourite line, to the member who sits in front of me from P.E.I., is it takes eight of him to make one of me.

These exceptions to the general rule of representation by population have long served Canada's best interests. I understand that certain compromises may be necessary to ensure harmony and equity.

The time has come for all MPs to recognize that rapid growth also creates special circumstances of equal importance. The government motion for the very first time comes to grips with the growing problems in urban Canada. For the first time, it introduces five-year census adjustment rather than ten. It allows rapidly growing ridings to be set at limits 25 per cent below the provincial average to allow for expansion which will probably occur within those five years.

It stresses communities of interest as a prime criteria for drawing riding boundaries. It requires the presentation of three different options for intelligent community input on riding redistribution.

I invite all hon. members of the House, regardless of political persuasion, to consider these proposals carefully and to wholeheartedly endorse the government motion.

In conclusion, I would like to very humbly thank the committee for allowing me to join it halfway through its deliberations. I feel as though I rode in on a white charger just in time to save the large ridings from once again being subjected to the very cavalier attitude that has been prominent in the past.

The chairman has been a marvellous chairman and I really consider it a great privilege to have served on this committee.

[Petitions, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present two petitions, the first one on behalf of Dr. Eron Horton and Glen Reist of the Mississauga Gospel Temple in my riding. The second one was given to me by Dr. Lester Laird, also a constituent in my riding.

The petitioners request that Parliament not amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval for same sex relationships or homosexuality.

[Hazel McCallion, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to welcome the mayor of Mississauga, Hazel McCallion, who is visiting Ottawa.

While the mayor's party affiliation has always been a mystery, her politics are clear. Born in the Gaspé, she has served the public for 27 years, 16 years as mayor of the ninth largest city in Canada.

Mississauga is debt free with almost half a billion dollars in reserves. All public buildings, including the new city hall, are mortgage free. A $60 million Living Arts Centre is currently under construction, thanks to the mayor's personal fundraising

efforts and to the recognition of the Minister responsible for Infrastructure that such projects are a worthwhile use of infrastructure money.

Again, I wish to welcome Mayor McCallion to our fair city. I would also like to issue a warning to batten down the hatches. She usually stirs up a pile of trouble wherever she goes.

[Criminal Code, October 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Pearson International Airport is a vital asset to the Canadian economy.

I recently chaired a Toronto Liberal caucus task force investigating the immediate needs for runway construction at Pearson. The task force reviewed the available documents and held two public meetings. There were several issues considered: the immediate completion of a second north-south runway; the construction of two additional east-west runways and the impact these runways would have on the travelling public, the economy and the surrounding communities.

Currently air traffic at Pearson is handled primarily on two east-west runways. Five per cent of the time, about 70 times per year, severe cross winds force planes to change to the one available north-south runway for periods of up to five hours, a total of 350 hours per year. Capacity is cut in half, disrupting airline schedules, forcing delays and re-routing, allowing potentially dangerous landings to occur on the east-west runways at higher cross wind limits than are allowed at U.S. airports.

Does Pearson need a second north-south runway at this time? The Minister of Transport recently announced a second north-south runway will be tendered for completion. This construction will not increase the overall capacity at Pearson, only the efficiency and the safety.

An environmental assessment report completed in 1992 recognized that a second north-south runway was needed to eliminate the current imbalance of two east-west with only one north-south. They wanted a safety and operational feasibility of a shorter 4,500 north-south runway investigated. This short runway would have had less noise impact on the local residents.

Two studies were undertaken by Transport Canada and the Canadian Airline Pilots Association in 1992 and 1993. They found that 85 per cent of the aircraft that use Pearson could not land on a 4,500 foot runway. Arriving aircraft would have to be kept at high altitudes of 10,000 feet to facilitate sorting and sequencing. These restrictions would increase the probability of mid-air collision. The operational separations imposed for safety reasons might even result in less capacity than exists now.

Both reports concluded that safety concerns would have to be given priority over all other considerations. They recommended

against the short runway. The caucus committee concurred that a full length north-south runway is needed at this time. It further recommended the new north-south runway should be used for landings only during severe cross wind conditions only.

Does Pearson need two more east-west runways at this time? The Air Transport Association of Canada has provided figures which indicate aircraft movements are down 12 per cent from their pre-recession high. Currently Pearson processes 20.5 million passengers per year, a volume easily handled by the two existing east-west runways.

Travel replacing technology such as faxes and tele and video conferencing are being increasingly utilized with fewer people travelling for business purposes.

Our committee concluded that any additional runways should not be contemplated until the threshold of passengers exceeds 30 million per year. This will not take place before the proposed Canadian airport authority takes over the management of Pearson.

I endorse the minister's decision to complete the second north-south runway for economic and safety reasons. I applaud the innovative plan to turn the operation of airports over to local airport authorities so they can be financed and improved in a self-sufficient, cost-effective, businesslike manner.

I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport to expand on the concept of the Canadian airport authority for the residents of Mississauga. What assurance do we have that this will be the most efficient and economical solution to Pearson's current problems?

[Mississauga West, October 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today close to the one-year anniversary of the last federal election to thank the hundreds of grassroot volunteers who worked tirelessly to ensure I could represent Mississauga West here in Ottawa.

I particularly want to express my deep gratitude to a small core of people. Through their hard work and dedication over a nine-month period I was able to win an incredible nomination battle against five other Liberals and the largest democratic nomination in the history of Canadian politics.

I want to sincerely thank George Carlson, Elias Hazineh, Denise LaParairie, Maggie Mavromatis, Arlette Neufeld, Louis Robitaille, my husband David, my two daughters, my mother Helen Janozeski and my late father Edward Janozeski. These are the real heroes behind my nomination victory.