Alex Shepherd

[Division No. 549, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will vote yes.

[Forest Products, May 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources.

There is a worldwide campaign of misinformation directed at the purchasing of Canadian lumber products, especially those from British Columbia.

What is the government doing to counteract this unwarranted attack on the Canadian forestry industry that has the potential of putting tens of thousands of forestry workers' jobs at risk?

[Highly Indebted Poor Countries, April 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the poorest countries in the world are being made poorer because they are increasingly having difficulty servicing their debts owed to developed countries such as Canada.

I was pleased to take part in the 101st conference of the Interparliamentary Union in Brussels. It dealt with this very point. The most highly indebted poor countries, or HIPCs as they are known, are increasingly redirecting their expenditures away from their own domestic populations in areas of health care and education in order to service their debts.

Canada put forward a resolution requesting that debtor and creditor nations quickly convene a meeting to work out an accountability framework which would see an enhanced acceleration of the forgiveness of these debts.

The gap between rich and poor nations is greater than ever before. Citizens of the richest countries, the top 20%, consume 86% of the world's goods. The poorest 20% consume a mere 1.3%. The ability of these nations to lift themselves out of poverty is being choked off by massive debt.

Early action on this recommendation is required to—

[Supply, April 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will not answer the specifics of that, but the issue of ethnic cleansing, whether it has been holy wars or whatever the case, has been with humanity as far back as history books were written. The point is that we have to move beyond that.

We are approaching the 21st century. Surely we have developed at least a degree of a civil society that would say this is ridiculous and it has to to stop and we will not allow people like Slobodan Milosevic to be successful. He will have to learn to live with ethnic diversity, just as we do every day in the House and in our country. It is something we have to promote.

We must resettle the Kosovars to their original homeland. As far as I am concerned, every single one of them has to be put back. We have to set that up as an example for the world and say that it cannot happen any more.

[Supply, April 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to follow my colleague from Scarborough East. He was speaking about the meeting, which I think was last week. Kim Phuc was there. I agree with his sentiments about the people who listened to her.

Just to refresh our memories, she is the girl in the classic picture of a little girl running down the road naked, having just been struck with napalm in the Vietnam war. I know as she told her story that all of us were very cognizant of the fact that we were engaged directly in a campaign of dropping bombs and other so-called military hardware in the area of Serbia.

I do not think we can ever forget about the realities of war. It is very nice to be able to sit home and look at it on our television sets as if it were a strategic, very clean process. I do not think our television sets tell us about the horror and suffering of whatever side it is, whether Kosovars or Serbians or others are involved in this tragic affair.

It is with great reluctance that we deal with the whole issue of aggression, whether we are aggressive or whether we are trying to defend a group of people from further aggression among their own people.

I just came back from Brussels where I attended the interparliamentary union. This is a group of parliamentarians from 130 nations around the world. It meets on a biannual basis. The discussion there was basically about Kosovo.

It was a great opportunity for me. I know the Reform Party does not like to participate in these things, thinking they are a waste of time and money, but for me it was a great opportunity to talk to parliamentarians from that area of the world. The Yugoslavs were there. The Russian federation was represented, as were Bulgaria and most of the countries that surround the former Yugoslavia.

It was interesting to talk to these people about some of the history of these conquests. I had the opportunity before that to look at an art museum. I went in and looked at the various pictures. There was a very tragic picture of a murder, of somebody stabbing somebody with a knife.

I looked at the bottom of the painting where it read “The War in Kosovo, 1825”. It tells something about this conflict which seems to have been going on almost indefinitely. I believe it started with the penetration of the Ottoman empire into Europe and the gradual withdrawal and downfall of the Ottoman empire. As this happened different ethnicities mixed within Europe, specifically in the areas of the Balkans. The Kosovar people are basically Muslim while the Serbian population is Christian. This seems to be the nucleus of the conflict.

Those of us in Canada think this as kind of absurd. The object of the exercise is that we can all live together in spite of our cultural differences and religious beliefs, but apparently that is not so in that part of the world.

Another element that is very much a part of the process is the whole issue of sovereignty as has been mentioned a few times today and in other debates. What is the limitation of sovereignty? The member who spoke before said that he did not think we had attacked a sovereign country since the second world war. That is probably the case.

The world population is now changing to the point that it recognizes there is such a thing as human rights. Human rights to a certain basic fundamentalist supersede the rights of sovereign countries and how sovereign countries deal with the people within those borders.

A Canadian jurist heads up the World Court. It is very unfortunate that the World Court is not as strong as it should be. We need to support the World Court process a lot more. If people like Slobodan Milosevic thought they were involved in this war, that bombs were going to land on them, or more important that there was a higher court, a world court that would actually try Slobodan Milosevic for some of his atrocities, this conflict could have possibly been nipped in the bud before it got totally out of control.

We in Canada and our international partners have to be more judicious in bringing a form of justice throughout the world. We have to temper our views about sovereignty to the point where we will not tolerate its entrenchment or overriding of the basic fundamental human rights we believe in.

It is an oddity that the nations which are the strongest critics of NATO's actions invariably are countries with their own human rights problems. It is an odd case where the NATO forces have got together and basically said it is time to draw a line in the sand concerning just how far we think a nation can go in ethnic cleansing, or whatever the case may be, to show that we are not willing to tolerate it any more.

A regrettable crossing of the line has occurred here. It is appropriate that we take this kind of action. It is regrettable because I do not think anybody wins in a war. Nobody wins by the destruction of assets. Nobody wins by the expenditure of large amounts of money on military hardware and other things. Everybody is a basic loser. It is unfortunate that the international community has let this situation get to the point where we have to take this action.

On the good intentions of my NDP colleagues who want to address the need for a diplomatic solution, I do not think there is any question that Canada, its NATO partners and others in the United Nations have tried to arrive at a diplomatic solution to the issue through the former Yugoslavia, from Bosnia to Croatia and so forth. It does not seem to be in the cards. I do not know why we do not seem to be able to curb the desire of Mr. Milosevic to cleanse that country. I know his policy is Serbs for the Serbians and the way to do that is simply to remove that element within his population that is not homogeneous.

That is why we cannot let Mr. Milosevic be successful. The fifth point of this is the one that is bothering everybody, which is the continuation of some kind of force after the conflict has been resolved. It is clear we must resettle these people in their homelands. It will be very expensive because their homes have been destroyed. Their businesses are gone. It will take significant amounts of capital. It will not simply be expending money on the military or peacekeeping forces within the former Yugoslavia. It will also require capital assets to rebuild businesses and so forth. It has to be done because there is a fundamental human point here. We cannot allow ethnic cleansing to be successful.

When I was in eastern Europe I was surprised when I talked to people, for instance in Poland. Poland before the war was a multi-ethnic society. Today it is homogeneous. Mr. Hitler's policy was successful in Poland. It is a homogeneous ethnic group. We must not let this be successful in the eyes of the world.

Furthermore, having the Russians on board is a good idea. When I got to the conference, the Russians moved a motion condemning Canada and the NATO forces for their aggression. Mr. Speaker, you would be surprised to know that none of the countries, in spite of the fact that they dislike the military conflict going on, not one country bordering on Yugoslavia supported the motion, other than Russia itself.

It is regrettable we have had to come this far. We are trying to find a diplomatic solution to the problem. The Russians are not nearly as significant a force as some people would like to believe. Remember that Russia is likely to declare bankruptcy as a nation this year. It has defaulted on significant amounts of its government debt. I question how much of an asset it would be to resolving this matter for us. It is always nice to have friends on side.

Canada has never said that only a NATO force can occupy the area but we have to have a force. It has to be armed so that we ensure this conflict does not start up again and a long term peacekeeping solution can take place.

To resolve these conflicts will take at least a generation. A lot of the skills that our armed forces have in the area of peacekeeping will be very much in demand in that part of the world. I am happy to be part of a country and part of a government that supports this humanitarian effort. I can only hope it ends in success shortly.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, April 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to enter into debate on Bill C-78. I want to reiterate some of the things I said earlier during questions and comments concerning the nature of the plan.

I discussed the aspect that this is a defined benefits plan. That is very specific because what it says is that it is based on certain things. For instance, the last six years of employment earnings is how they go about calculating the pension one will receive in retirement.

Quite frankly it has nothing to do with the money sitting in the plan. One could actually even have a plan of this nature which has no money in it whatsoever, as long as the employer was of sufficient calibre to make the payments. The reason there is a notional plan is that it involves the actual contributions by the employees and the employer.

Various legislative bodies from time to time say that should be invested. The whole concept of investing it occurs within the private sector because we are not so sure the employer will be there to make the final payments. Most of us agree that it has occurred by way of convention that most people believe the government will somehow continue to be here and somehow continue to honour their pensions. The reason there is a surplus is that there has been some kind of actuarial decree which is some kind of inexactitude.

I would like to point out another very basic aspect of this plan. Most private plans require contribution ratios of the employees of at least 40%. This plan has had a contribution ratio from the employee of only 30%. The employer, the government, has actually paid 70%. Most people would conclude that this has been a very generous plan.

Earlier today I heard the minister say that civil service employees are good workers, that we honour that and we are happy to give them a very generous plan. However, our generosity has to stop when we start talking about this notional surplus.

How would members opposite deal with the surplus? Would they physically give money or enhance the benefit packages of the beneficiaries? That would be breaking the original terms of the agreement. That would be saying that we are going to pay even better benefit levels than those which were originally agreed to, as generous as they were. Or would they reduce the premiums, even though the premiums are some of the lowest of all the pension plans in the country?

Indeed, because it is based on 7.5% of earnings, less the amount of Canada pension plan contributions, members' contributions to the plan have been decreasing, whereas everybody else in the country has been paying higher premiums into their pension plans, realizing that to have an enhanced pension plan it has to be paid for.

There is no justification for the argument that somehow the money belongs to people other than the people who originally put in the money, who are the taxpayers of the country. I am very surprised by the attitude of Reform members. They say that we have to reduce deficits and then suddenly they say “Leave the money in the plan”.

However, there is no plan and there is no physical money in the plan. The plan is financed from the general revenues of the Government of Canada. They are saying “Take money out of the tax revenues this year and give it away to these people”. Reform members are saying that the taxpayers should somehow shell out more money for a plan that has been very well put together, at great benefit to the employees of the civil service, who are already receiving the benefits they were guaranteed under the plan.

Is this called progress? Is this called integrity or accountability? It is ridiculous. I am surprised. I hope we do cut off debate because the debate which is coming from that side of the House is not very meaningful.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, April 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's speech and to the debate generally.

It seems to me one precious part of this argument is missing. There are two different types of pensions in the private and public sectors. One is called the defined benefit program. The other one is a fluctuating benefit program.

The fluctuating benefit is determined by the amount of money that is invested in the plan. In other words, it is an actual calculation of how much money is invested and then the benefit level is determined.

This plan is a defined benefit plan. It means very simply that the benefits are predetermined. It is irrelevant how much money physically is in or is not in the plan. The beneficiaries will get the same pension.

The Reform Party's position is even more ludicrous. The Reform Party is saying to leave the money in the plan. But there is no money. It is a notional amount that does not exist. There is no bank account with $30 billion in it. Whether we left it in the plan or took out it will not improve the employees' benefit levels.

This particular intervener talked about defending the workers of Canada. I suspect that those workers are also taxpayers. What he is talking about is giving this $30 billion of the taxpayers' money that has built up in this fund to somebody else. I just said that it would have no impact on the calculation of people's benefit packages.

How could the member justify taking a predetermined benefit package and increasing people's benefits for which there is no legal framework to do so, in other words, taking it off those very workers he claims to defend and giving it to another group of workers? It makes no sense.

[Revenue Canada, March 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.

The PSAC rotating strikes are occurring during the tax filing season. These strikes are costing Canadian taxpayers generally and small businesses specifically millions of dollars, money needed to operate their businesses.

Can the Minister of National Revenue tell us how the disruptions will impact on Revenue Canada's ability to service Canada's small business sector?

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, March 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to enter the debate on Bill C-68, the changes to our youth criminal justice system.

I come to this debate with some new-found experience. I left the House on Thursday and entered my home around 12.00 a.m. to discover it had been broken into and violated. Windows had been smashed. I lost about $20,000 of personal assets. It is the second time this has happened. Obviously I cannot accuse young offenders of doing this because I am not certain who it was. They may well have been graduates of the young offenders school. Therefore, I speak with some experience today.

The first constituent to come into my office on Friday sat down and pounded on the table. He had sold some cattle and had some money in his house. He believed that young offenders had broken into his house and had stolen his money.

On the train coming back here last night another constituent told me that someone had stolen his car on the same night my house had been broken into. He is a local high school teacher. His car was found at the high school.

I come to this debate today saying there is definitely a problem. I can now say that I am a victim of this type of crime. However, I do not believe that incarceration and penalizing by a harsh system is the answer. Canada has one of the highest incarceration rates for young offenders in all the western world. That is not the answer. A very informative trip to Millhaven penitentiary convinced me of the total waste of human assets in our prison system. People are wasting their days away at the taxpayers' expense.

In studying the whole youth justice system, one thing which seems to be missing is some kind of retribution. The retribution process is one which recognizes that somebody has committed a crime against another person. We live in a very plastic society. We turn on the television set and see crimes committed. We do not believe there are any human beings behind the crimes. We believe that people's property can be stolen, or they can be maimed and there really is no downside.

I have been very impressed with some of the programs our minister has sponsored in my riding to increase the awareness that the people who commit crime have done so against other people. An aggressive program in south Oshawa involves the street crime unit, the crown prosecutor and others. We have had some positive results. Youth crime has declined in these areas.

One commonality is it seems that communities are acting in a holistic fashion to deal with the problems of crime. One issue which also seems to be in there is that younger people for example go to the supermarket and talk to the person who is running the store or talk to families or other people who have been violated. They see that real people are involved in the process and it is not just some statistic.

I listened attentively to the Leader of the Official Opposition. His simple answer was that to empower families would solve all of our youth justice problems.

I have taken the time to sit down with some families that have been affected in that their children have committed youth crimes. There was a period during which they felt they had lost control of one of their children while the other children were fine. These things often are not predictable. Parents understand that personalities can be very different.

Everyone of these people came from very caring families. They all said that the intervention of the state at a certain period of time was useful. It takes the custody situation out of the family unit. Somebody else is responsible for curfews, et cetera, and creates a positive attitude of rehabilitation.

I know of many dysfunctional families. There are limitations as to what we can do to empower families. It is a fair and respectable thought process to take care of each other within our family units, but the reality is that is not where society is today.

Whether we should go back to that regime is another point of view. Even if it were possible to go back to that kind of a society is questionable as we enter into a more global society. People are moving. Families are scattered all across the country. People do not live in the same little areas they grew up in, the flip side of which I suppose is that people are pursuing more interesting careers.

The bill tries to segregate violent and non-violent crimes. Basically it takes two courses of action. The Leader of the Opposition talked about the fork in the road, but we are talking about treating crimes differently depending on what the commission of the crime is.

I think we would all stand back and say that this legislation attempts to be tougher on acts of violent crimes against people by allowing younger violators to be tried in adult court, the publishing of their names, et cetera. The second area is non-violent crimes, the type that affected me and would be dealt with differently. I fully respect that. I would rather have these young people out working in the community, earning money and paying people back as a consequence of their actions rather than having them sit in a penal institution wasting their days away.

We are talking about preventative measures and more community based measures in order to solve the issue of youth crime. When the person is reintroduced into the community they realize they are part of a family, a family of communities. Within that structure they have a responsibility for their actions. It is for those things that are in this bill that I am very supportive of the minister and her legislative process. We all have a tendency to wish there were simple solutions.

I have said to a lot of my constituents, “Do you not think that if changing a couple of lines in the Young Offenders Act would do away with youth crime in this country we would not have done it long ago?” The reality is that it is a societal issue.

Members of the Reform Party think there is a cause and effect, that before they commit a crime they study the Young Offenders Act and the sentencing provisions and then commit the act. People tell us all the time that there is no thought process put in place before the crime is committed, even with adult crimes. There is no consequence of people saying “Should I or should I not carry a gun”. They are not brilliant people. They are probably some of the lower educated people for a variety of reasons and do not think that way.

Simply changing an act here in Ottawa is not going to change the problems of youth crime in our communities. It has to be done through assistance to communities and through preventative action programs such as the ones in the bill. Communities must also become more aware of how they can enhance their communities to make them safe and ensure that young people will not follow a course of violence and crime.

I am very supportive of the legislation, especially the preventative measures. And I hope I do not have another incident like the one last week.

[Supply, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is odd that the opposition from time to time comes out and says “Is it not a terrible thing that you whip your caucus?” This man just said he disagrees with his own party's support of this motion yet he is going to stand up tonight and support it. Where does that put him?