Mark Muise

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-3 proposes to update the Pension Benefits Standards Act, a law through which the federal government supervises private pension plans.

Canada's system of retirement income has three pillars. The first pillar is the basic old age security paid to all seniors together with the various supplements paid to low income seniors. The old age security benefit has come under considerable scrutiny lately as Canadians await the finance minister's overhaul of the program.

As recently as last month the finance minister attempted to push through reforms to the program in Bill C-36. Bill C-36 proposed changes to the guaranteed income supplement that 1.5 million low income seniors receive. The changes increased the clawback on benefits to seniors who work part time for extra money. The PC Party proposed amendments at report stage of that bill to protect seniors who would see more of the supplement taken away from them.

The bill also proposed to change how the supplement was calculated thereby costing each senior a further cut of approximately $6 a year. PC Party amendments to protect seniors from these cuts were defeated by the Liberal government. However the finance minister has now agreed to propose further legislation to rescind these changes.

In a press release of May 25 the minister admitted that these changes had unforeseen adverse effects on seniors benefits. If it had not been for our party which brought the government's attention to these cuts, the proposed changes would have passed.

Retirement savings experts are already telling middle income Canadians over the age of 50 to be wary of savings in RRSPs because what they save now will most likely be eaten up in higher taxes later. This creates a directive disincentive for Canadians to do what is right and to save for their own future and their retirement.

The second pillar consists of employment based Canada and Quebec pension plans. Under the government's reform to this pillar Canadians will have to pay more to get less.

The third pillar includes retirement savings such as RRSPs and employer pension plans. The government has moved to restrict access to RRSPs by freezing contribution limits and forcing seniors to mature their RRSPs two years earlier. The legislation deals with other parts of the third pillar such as employer pension plans. Most employer pension plans are governed by provincial law, but 500,000 Canadians belong to the 1,000 plans that fall under federal law.

Ten years ago the Progressive Conservative government overhauled the Pension Benefits Standards Act, the law which governs those plans. Significant changes were made to the minimum standards that plans must meet in areas ranging from survivor benefits to information disclosure. The bill before us updates that act.

The goals of the bill are to improve the way that the plans are governed, to improve Ottawa's ability to step in when plan administrators do not appear to be following sound financial practices to set up rules for the withdrawal of pension surpluses. It will also allow Ottawa to enter into supervisory agreements with provincial regulators through the Canadian Association of Pension Supervisory Authorities.

Unlike other recent changes to our system of retirement savings the only parts of the bill to generate even minor controversy are the provisions that pertain to the withdrawal of pension surpluses. Pension fund managers are concerned that the surplus and the wind-up provisions in the bill are weighed heavily against employers. However the bill is not particularly controversial. There has some controversy over the introduction of some government bills in the Senate, a practice which has fallen into disuse in recent years.

Without getting into debate on Senate reform, if bills are to be introduced in the Senate, Bill S-3 is especially the kind of bill on which the Senate can do solid work before sending it on to the House of Commons. This is particularly the case given the combination of the technical nature of the bill, the expertise of those on the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce in area of corporate governance and the non-partisan spirit of co-operation with which members of this committee approach such legislation.

To not optimize the collective skills, wisdom and experience of these senators is an affront to Canadian taxpayers. We have a Senate and the senators on this committee have demonstrated prowess, ability and expertise in these areas.

I remind my colleagues that to not optimize this expertise would be denying Canadian taxpayers another level of deliberation on this type of important legislation. It is an approach that we could use here from time to time when we look at legislation, especially legislation affecting areas of corporate governance where there is a significant amount of institutional knowledge in the Senate.

The Senate banking committee has made six substantive amendments as a result of the testimony it heard from officials and from outside witnesses. The Senate amendments further clarify the rules to be followed when an employer wants to withdraw from the pension surplus. It struck a provision that would have given the Superintendent of Financial Institutions the ability to decide if a particular allocation of a surplus was fair as the issue of fairness should be left to employees and employers to be settled, not public servants.

It also improved the process for allocating a surplus in cases where a company goes bankrupt or winds down. It is very important that we protect individuals when a company is faced with the types of dramatic downsizing and corporate readjustments that have occurred over the past several years. The legislation will help improve that process.

Those amendments were developed by opposition and government members in the Senate working in the spirit of co-operation with the officials. A spirit of co-operation might be something we should try to duplicate in the House periodically when we are working on legislation as important as this.

At the end of this process financial officials conceded that the bill had been improved by the contribution of the Senate.

The PC party prides itself on working constructively to improve legislation that enters this House and the Senate which is why we proposed the amendments we did to this bill and Bill C-36.

I urge all parties to study bills affecting Canadian seniors with the same scrutiny in order to improve legislation and to protect our seniors.

[Veterans Affairs, June 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Sue Riordon has been fighting to have her husband's pension benefits increased in light of the fact that doctors have said that he is 90% to 100% disabled. Her husband, Terry, suffers from gulf war syndrome.

It seems coincidental that since she testified at the SCONDVA hearings in Halifax that their claim has been denied. This is yet another example of how the government is ignoring its veterans.

Will the Minister of Veterans Affairs explain why he is ignoring the doctors' recommendations by refusing to provide Terry with a full military pension?

[Parks Canada Act, June 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-29.

This act calls for the establishment of an agency to administer laws that apply to national parks, national historic sites, national marine conservation areas and other heritage areas and places. It would also amend related acts.

A number of amendments have been made to Bill C-29 which include changing the name of the agency. It was very important to us that the agency be known as the Parks Canada agency since Parks Canada has become a highly recognized tourism and cultural icon. While not all our amendments were adopted in committee we support the bill. It reflects the changes that need to take place be it by simplifying organizational structures, improving administrative efficiency and allowing more flexible staffing and financial procedures.

The bill establishes the Parks Canada agency as a distinct legal entity. The agency will report directly to the minister of heritage who will be accountable for its activities before parliament.

Bill C-29 also outlines the roles and responsibilities of the minister with respect to reporting and submission requirements to parliament, cabinet, Treasury Board and the public. This accountability regime includes responsibility for corporate reports, annual reports, state of Canadian protected area reports, management plans for both national parks and national historic sites and the holding of biannual public forums to solicit public feedback.

The legislation specifies the roles and responsibilities of the deputy minister of heritage with respect to policy advice, policy development and legislative development, as well as the roles and responsibilities of the chief executive officer of the Canada parks agency.

Bill C-29 also outlines the roles and responsibilities of Treasury Board as they relate to a broad array of administrative interactions between Treasury Board and the Canada parks agency. It also specifies the auditor general's audit function over the parks agency's financial statements and performance.

Bill C-29 also contains provisions for the maintenance of other government services and administrative functions as they relate to the functioning of the Canada parks agency. These include the Access to Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Employment Equity Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act.

This bill would give the agency a number of financial powers, including a two year operational budget, retention and reinvestment power for all revenues, the establishment of an account to fund new national parks and historic sites from appropriations, the sale and surplus of properties and general donations, and the authority to advance funds for various reasons, including unfunded land acquisition opportunities.

Bill C-29 was not and is not a perfect a bill. A number of opposition members proposed amendments to Bill C-29 to strengthen it. Some of those amendments were adopted but other amendments that would have given the bill more teeth were rejected. We were told that such amendments should be brought to other related acts such as the Parks Canada Act. During our hearings on Bill C-29 many of the witnesses, including representatives of the Canadian Nature Federation and CPAWS, shared their concern that the government must do more to protect the ecological integrity of our parks.

The auditor general in his 1996 report criticized Parks Canada for not doing enough to protect the ecological integrity of Canada's national parks. He also stated the government is in danger of not meeting its objective of completing the national park system by the year 2000. Even the minister of state for parks acknowledges that the national park system cannot be completed in the next two years.

My party looks forward to dealing with the Canada Parks Act when it comes before the House. Although Canada's parks service has been in existence since 1911 it has never been legislatively recognized as the manager of the park system.

For instance, Parks Canada is not even mentioned in the National Parks Act and does not have a significant legislative mandate. The PC Party has always recognized the importance of our national parks and national historic sites as contributors to our Canadian cultural identity.

In 1988 the former Progressive Conservative government modernized the National Parks Act which had not been updated since 1930. I look forward to remodernizing the National Parks Act and other acts that have a consequence on our parks, historic sites and waterways. My party will continue to work hard to promote, protect and enhance our rich legacy of accomplishments.

In closing, I thank all those groups and individuals who brought their concerns to me and assure them today that we will continue to work on their behalf to bring forward amendments to legislation as it comes before the House. As parliamentarians it is very important that we work together to ensure that Canada's natural heritage and resources are conserved for future generations. I urge all hon. members to support the bill.

[Fisheries, May 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, small craft harbours are in the process of organizing local harbour authorities whose responsibility is to maintain their wharfs. Wharfs with numerous fishing vessels can generate significant resources to maintain their existing facilities. However, small wharfs do not have that luxury and are in danger of losing their facilities.

What is the minister going to do to protect fishermen in small isolated areas from losing their wharfing facilities?

[Parks Canada Act, May 28th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would like to speak on Motion No. 6 put forth by my hon. colleague from Rimouski—Mitis.

National parks when established in a specific area might not take away but might prevent people who used the facilities without cost from going there. I think it is only fair that these people have access to the place. The reason I say this is these people are good ambassadors for the park because they will tell other people what is available because they have lived there all their lives.

Government members have already stated they would vote against this motion. I think they should look at different options to help make it fair for those individuals who live in those areas, who benefited from those areas in the past and can still benefit without having undue cost put on them.

I support this motion but I would like to see included a definition as to who are local residents and what are the costs local residents will incur.

I am asking government members, even though they have indicated they would vote against it, to consider something of this nature, clarify it and put it into effect.

[Parks Canada Act, May 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first time to speak to report stage. It is different from what I am used to. I find it quite interesting so please bear with me.

I support Motion No. 1 put forth by my hon. colleague from Rimouski—Mitis. It is very important that we not just concentrate on the economic benefits that a national park brings but also on the ecological and environmental issues that are part of the whole system. For this reason I support the motion.

On Motion No. 2 regarding consultation, many witnesses who came before the committee were adamant about the fact that it is important for consultations to take place. Consultation is only one aspect of it. Consultation and not taking action or recognizing that consultations took place amount to nothing other than grandstanding.

I hope the government when the round table discussions take place will take into consideration seriously the recommendations that are put forth. Therefore I agree with Motion No. 2.

Motion No. 5 put forth by my hon. colleague for Rimouski—Mitis goes hand in hand with Motion No. 2. If we have a round table and people have the chance to put their views forth, by having to report within 90 days will more or less put on public record that the discussions took place. It will have a positive impact on the government taking some of those recommendations to heart. Therefore I support this motion as well.

[Yarmouth Ferry Service, May 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on May 28 the Yarmouth tourism officials along with local businesses will celebrate the beginning a new high speed ferry service between Yarmouth and Bar Harbour, Maine.

Bay Ferries Ltd., led by President Mitch McLean, has taken over the services previously provided by Marine Atlantic, replacing the old Bluenose ferry with a high speed catamaran capable of carrying 900 passengers and 250 vehicles.

This new ferry is capable of reaching speeds of 90 kilometres per hour, reducing the length of the crossing from 6 hours to 2.5 hours, making West Nova a much more attractive destination area for our U.S. neighbours. It is anticipated that this new service will create 400 tourism related jobs and generate $15 million in direct economic spinoffs.

As May is officially designated national tourism month, I take this opportunity to wish Bay Ferries Ltd. every success with its huge endeavour and at the same time welcome all members of this House to vacation in my beautiful constituency of West Nova.

[Criminal Records Act, May 15th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the opinions of all members in the House but it bothers me greatly when I see a member make a mockery almost of a serious and important piece of legislation. I say that for the record.

I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-284. I commend the work of the member for Calgary Centre in tabling such an important piece of legislation.

Bill C-284 is important in that its focus is one of the highest priority, the protection of our children from abuse.

Conservative estimates are that 1 in 3 girls is sexually abused before the age of 18 while 1 in 6 boys is sexually abused before the age of 16. Even more frightening is that most abused and neglected children reportedly never come to the attention of authorities. This is especially true in cases of sexually abused children since there may be no outward sign of physical, psychological or emotional harm. Furthermore, sexually abused children are reluctant to report these crimes. They feel intense shame, and secrecy is often the result.

For these and other reasons we must focus our attention to combat child abuse at the preventive level. It is a serious matter of public interest which Bill C-284, if passed, would help address.

As outlined by previous speakers, this bill amends two existing statutes, the Criminal Records Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The amendments to the Criminal Records Act would allow for limited disclosure of the criminal record of a person pardoned of a conviction for sexual offence against a child. This disclosure would occur when the pardoned person applies for a position of trust over children. The information would be provided to only those individuals with responsibility for children who are considering such an application. Any inappropriate disclosure of information by these individuals would be subject to criminal sanctions.

Put simply, these changes would give organizations that deal with children an additional tool to scrutinize potential employees and volunteers before they are placed in positions of trust. Groups such as Scouts Canada, the Girl Guides and minor sports teams would have access to information that is extremely relevant to the selection process.

For those who would object on the grounds of privacy rights for pardoned offenders, I suggest they examine the reality of sexual offenders. Among criminal offenders, those convicted of sexual offences have one of the highest rates of recidivism.

Our children are far too important to risk having repeat offenders enter into positions of authority and trust. We must give child centred and youth centred organizations the tools to prevent future tragedies of child sexual abuse.

It is a sad irony that we presently have a government that cracks down on law-abiding gun owners and leaves tens of thousands of hepatitis victims twisting in the wind yet nonetheless feels the rights of convicted child sex offenders should take precedence over child safety.

The second component of Bill C-284 amends the Canadian Human Rights Act that permits organizations to refuse to employ individuals in so-called child trust positions on the basis of persons having a pardoned sexual offence against a child.

This amendment is the next logical step in Bill C-284. Once an organizations has access to relevant information it should be free to act on it without fear of reprisal.

I share the view of those who believe that rehabilitation is a laudable goal. I also believe that securing employment for offenders re-entering society is often critical to ensuring that they do not become repeat offenders. This in turn helps protect public safety.

We need to draw the line at allowing convicted sexual offenders, irrespective of whether they were pardoned, to secretly enter into positions of trust over children. Canadians need peace of mind that organizations to which they entrust their children have taken all the precautions necessary to protect their safety.

Bill C-284 gives these organizations another weapon to fight child abuse. This bill is a reasonable compromise between the rights of offenders and the rights of society, in particular our most important members of society.

On behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus I urge all members to vote in favour of this legislation. Let us support our many volunteer driven organizations that deal with children. Let us support our families. Let us support the safety of our children.

[Criminal Records Act, May 15th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I may be mistaken but I was under the impression that we were debating Bill C-284. I have heard absolutely no reference to the bill in the last three and a half minutes.

[Job Creation, May 15th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that there are provinces other than Ontario.

With the serious downturn in the fishery and with the agricultural sector struggling to overcome numerous obstacles including last year's devastating drought West Nova residents are very concerned about the kind of future they will be able to offer their children.

The 1996 census report recorded a decline of over 2,600 people in West Nova since 1991. Our children, our future, are leaving our rural areas in droves.

Can the Minister of Human Resources tell us what specific programs he is looking at to assist our young people to stay in our rural communities?