Alex Shepherd

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

Mr. Speaker, I am simply reading the committee report. On page 7 it reads: "Issues such as senatorial floor and the grandfather clause whereby no province can lose seats from the number it had in 1986". The report is available from the committee. That is basically what it says. Obviously it is referring to a specific grandfather clause which existed and dated from 1986 onward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

I was not actually referring to the Constitution Act. I was referring to a separate agreement which I believe dates to 1987. It is a fairly recent agreement with some of the provinces and basically said that from 1987 onward there would be no reduction in their seats. It is not actually in the Constitution Act; it seems to be a separate agreement with some provinces that they simply would not be reduced from what they were in 1987. It is not a constitutional amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in my place today to discuss the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding redistribution.

I would like to congratulate the committee for its very thoughtful report. The conclusion of this report as far as I understand it is basically the result that we are going to create six new electoral ridings in Canada.

I had the honour to appear before this committee on June 24, 1994. The substance of my submission to the committee at that time was very similar to my thought process today. The bottom line is that the people of my riding and indeed the people of Canada do not want to see any further increase in representatives in Canada's federal House.

As we look out at industry today the buzzword is downsizing. Everyone is becoming more efficient, more effective. We are analysing the civil service, finding ways it could be more effective with the labour force it has. We have a freeze going on in the civil service to make it smaller and more effective. Today bigger is not necessarily better.

I refer to an old bad joke that Canadians often quip on the hustings: It is fortunate that Canadians do not get all the government they pay for. It is a bad joke, but it is a bad joke on the people of Canada, the taxpayers of Canada.

Today we have telecommunications and all kinds of communication media to access our ridings and the people of Canada. I have become a great user of the information highway, the Internet. I can go to my office this afternoon and broadcast a message across Canada. These are the kinds of efficiencies we have to bring to government and to the House of Commons.

I spend roughly 80 per cent of my staff's time in the riding dealing with roughly 10 per cent of the population base. Obviously members can increase their constituency size, the number of members and constituents they deal with, without an effective increase in the cost of operations.

I look at my own particular riding of Durham which takes in a number of other political jurisdictions. Along with myself, there is one senator. We have five MPPs in Queen's Park. We have a regional government of 32 members. We have 66 mayors and councillors. The question of course is: Is this type of governance giving us better representative democracy in Canada? What do other jurisdictions do?

As I mentioned in my submissions to the committee in June, a fair comparison would be that of our southern neighbour, the United States. In 1911, 84 years ago, almost 100 years ago, the United States capped its system of representative democracy with 435 representatives in Congress and 100 senators.

In Canada, we have one federal representative for every 75,000 people. In the United States, it is one for every 465,000 people. The U.S. manages its system much the way we manage ours. Every 10 years it has a census and it redistributes within the existing system. Some states get more representatives and some less, depending on their population growth.

If we continue our current arithmetical formula, obviously this House is going to extend out on to the Ottawa River. We have over half as many representatives as the United States, yet it has 10 times our population.

I read in the report on page four comments regarding a cap or reduction as not feasible at this time. On page five I read that to change the electoral process significantly would be highly disruptive at this time.

I thought that as members of Parliament we came here to make decisions and that was what we were being paid for. Maybe we are saying we cannot make decisions and we need more members to make them for us. I do not know if that is what we are trying to put across here. I do not believe the people of Canada want any further increase in representatives.

There are basically two issues of concern here. One has been represented by some of my Reform colleagues which is to reduce the actual numbers of federal members of Parliament. The second one is a proposal by the committee that is basically to increase the representation by six members.

I have a better solution that is somewhere in between. This is Canada's constant striving for compromise. I also recognize there is a problem as was mentioned in the committee report itself. A grandfather clause signed back in 1986 with a number of the provinces stated that reductions in the seats by provinces would not change beyond the 1986 level. It is clear that agreement has to be revisited and renegotiated. I am suggesting

that has to be renegotiated and revisited now, not some time in the future.

Six more members of Parliament, people have suggested to me, might cost as much as $6 million. That does not mean that members of Parliament get $1 million a piece, but when we start adding up the duplication in services, duplication in staff, et cetera, we find there is a tremendous increase in cost. My constituents and I are very supportive of reducing the cost of governance.

The problem basically has to do with mathematics. Unfortunately in this House we seem to have a lot of problems dealing with mathematics. In my office this morning I took the existing level of seats and the popular vote and reduced both the seats and the population base taking into account the senatorial floors of the existing provinces that are already at their senatorial floors. From that figure I also subtracted the 75 seats that are now represented by the province of Quebec. After this mathematical formula takes place, the 75 seats roughly equal the 25 per cent of the population base of Quebec as related to the total population of Canada.

The bottom line is a result like this: It would add one seat to the province of Alberta, two to the province of British Columbia, but would reduce by three for the province of Manitoba, increase by six to Ontario, and reduce by four to Saskatchewan. New Brunswick would have no change. Newfoundland would lose one seat. The Northwest Territories would remain unchanged, as it is already at its senatorial floor. Nova Scotia would lose one seat. Prince Edward Island would be unchanged. Quebec would be unchanged. Yukon would be unchanged. The sum total is 295 seats, what we have here today.

Looking at population statistics there is no deviation. Looking at the 1991 census there is no deviation in those provinces greater than 1 per cent of the total population of our country. In other words, it is representation by population which is basically what we are trying to achieve.

I have not dealt with the aspect of distribution within provincial boundaries, the differences between rural and urban areas. Presumably we can follow the guidelines of the report, using an electoral boundaries commission in concert with the provinces.

In conclusion, it is clear to me that the people of Canada do not want an increase in the number of members of Parliament at this time. It seems to me that we should possibly rethink this and go back to see whether we cannot renegotiate that grandfather clause.

I have found there are too many decision makers and not enough decisions being made. Let us refocus our attention to making this a reality today and not pass the decisions off on some future Parliament.

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I listened very intently to the member's dissertation. I am surprised in some real ways that the Reform Party has in a sense fallen into the trap of discussing a hypothetical case of the separation of the province of Quebec. What I do believe we should be doing is not being part of that program. What I would like to ask the member concerns some real issues that do occur and exist today in the province of Quebec.

Quebec has a massive per capita debt, a provincially formulated debt of over $9,400 for every man, woman and child in that province. Quebec's deficit is financed 40 per cent outside not only its borders but also the borders of Canada. Could the member reflect on what this debate is going to do and what it is going to cost the people of Quebec?

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would like to make a couple of comments on the member's dissertation.

I am very concerned about my fellow Canadians in Quebec. I am concerned when I look at their financial situation in Canada today. The government of that province does not seem to want to address the real problems facing the people of Quebec. I look at a province that has the highest per capita deficit on a provincial basis of all the provinces in Canada: $9,400 for every man, woman and child in the province of Quebec, a debt which is 40 per cent financed not only outside the borders of Quebec but outside the borders of Canada.

These people in the international trading environment are looking very closely at Quebec, at the debate that is going on here today. As the province of Quebec goes out to refinance its debt on the international marketplace it is going to find fewer and fewer people interested in investing in that province. I am very concerned that the average person in the province of Quebec is going to start watching their lifestyle and their standard of living decline.

I note also that the last election in the province of Quebec was basically on the matter of bring us good government. I am concerned with the premier of that province who was a finance minister during a period in time of Quebec's history that drove up the deficit higher than any other administration: 285 per cent during his administration of that system.

I simply want to ask: What is going on here, what is happening? The day after separation no new day, there will be no change. The reality is that we are talking about transferring powers from Ottawa to Quebec City. I do not know how that helps people in Chicoutimi.

The reality is that people want control of their own destinies. Our government has been spending a lot of time discussing social policy review and other areas that affect federal legislation and it is going to the people, it is talking to the people in the streets on how they want to control those aspects of their lives. Creating new embassies all around the world is a duplication of expenditure and a cost to the people of Quebec.

My colleague often talks about Canada as a hypothetical country. To me the state of Quebec is an illusion. People will not be any better off; they will be worse off.

We have some common things, the people of Quebec and the people of the rest of Canada, common things that unite us. One of the major ones is our proximity to the United States and the economic power that country wields on this side of North America.

I think it has always been in our best interest, as a united country and as a united people, to be part of a culture which is both French and English.

I would like to ask my colleague how she thinks things are going to be so magically different.

[Petitions, December 7th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I have a petition to present today from 227 members of my riding.

Basically the petition prays and requests that Parliament not amend the human rights act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or homosexuality, including amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase of sexual orientation.

[Income Tax Act, December 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her excellent presentation.

I wonder if she could make a comment in the area of accountability. Members of the Reform Party have been speaking about this quite aggressively. They presented one of their proposals to the finance committee last Friday.

I took the time to add the figures up. There are five sections in their program. The bottom line when we add up their $10 billion reduction program is it adds up to $9.035 billion. It is short $1 billion. It is a $10 billion program for deficit reduction by the Reform Party that is already short $1 billion.

I wonder if the hon. member would comment on a party that would propose that sort of accountability.

[Reform Party Of Canada, December 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have been observing the Reform Party for some time and things just did not add up about it.

Last Friday its members presented to the finance committee their plan to reduce government spending by $10 billion. On the suggestion of the member for Calgary Centre I undertook to read this document. The proposal for reductions is broken down into five parts: first, $70 million; second, zero; the third is $3.5 billion plus $.64 billion; four, $1 billion; and five is $2 billion plus $1.7 billion, plus an additional $.125 billion. This adds up to only $9.035 billion, a shortfall of $1 billion.

To ensure I was correct I had a chartered accountant, an economist, two students at Carleton University and one at Ottawa University check the figures. The results are the same. Members of the Reform Party cannot add and they do not add up to Canada either.

There is only one finance minister but it took their three finance critics to come up with this result.

[Executive Salaries, November 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to take part in the debate on a very worthwhile motion by the member for Winnipeg St. James. I am very much in favour of his motion.

The motion really addresses, even though it does not quite say so, the concept of transparency and the possibility that people should be remunerated based on their performance. I do not think there is anything particularly wrong with that. In the case of crown corporations the customers are the taxpayers of Canada.

I have been involved with the Lobbyists Registration Act. People are concerned about the accountability of government and people working with government and interrelating with the public in general. Basically the motion attempts to address that accountability.

The Ontario Securities Commission requires the reporting of salary ranges in publicly traded corporations. This is a jurisdictional problem as the previous member from the Bloc pointed out. One advantage of having federally chartered corporations respond in that way is that it will actually be spread across the country. We could have federally incorporated companies which operate mainly in Vancouver now coming under the guise of this legislation.

Another important aspect, although it was not really addressed in the member's motion, would be to deal with some of the problems of the securities exchange commissions in the country. I firmly believe there is a definite need for a national securities commission that would have a uniform standard of

securities legislation across the country. There are many people who believe that as well. It has an additional advantage in that it could possibly create new capital markets for small and medium sized businesses. That is an issue for another day.

We speak about transparency in corporations. The shareholders are very interested in what their executives are being paid. I can remember during some of the bad troughs of the last recession when our banks were having problems with Canary Wharf. I actually watched some of these institutions raise the salaries and remunerations of their executive officers, the very people who had made the decisions concerning that project. It was amazing to note at the same time that some foreign banks, especially some in the United States, were actually firing those people. It gives a different onus.

I am sure the people in the Royal Bank and others were very happy to receive at least the information. Although they might not have liked the results, they were certainly pleased to be in receipt of the information that these people had decided to give themselves a salary boost.

The transparency aspect in the recording of salary ranges is not a matter of simple curiosity. The reality is that when we expose them people start thinking the very thing we are thinking: "What is it that you did to earn that money?" Having crown corporations provide that information is nothing but good.

For instance, Canada Post was mentioned earlier in the debate. Why should its remuneration not be more directly linked to its actions as a crown corporation? In other words there should be a portion, if not dollar for dollar, of its remuneration directly related to customer satisfaction which is basically the people of Canada who use Canada Post services.

Today I attended an interesting interview. Some people from IBM were telling us how they run their corporation these days. Ten per cent of the remuneration of their employees is now based on a combination of five per cent on the profitability of the corporation and five per cent on customer satisfaction. They have a way of measuring customer satisfaction. We have to go more toward that in our governmental institutions.

I take the train to Ottawa quite often. I have often thought the executive officers of VIA Rail should possibly be paid, at least partially, based on the performance of that service. It seems that every time that train is late we should focus on the profitability of VIA Rail and customer satisfaction. Of course a lot of people would understand that these people may well have to pay money to work for VIA Rail today. If that focus were available, we may well get more efficiency in government as well as in our private sector.

I will conclude to allow other members to discuss the motion by raising the aspect of the civil service. I do not want to be getting into a position where I always seem to be bashing the civil service. Many civil servants do worthwhile jobs. I am very conscious of their concern for the Canadian citizen. I would, however, like to restore the word civil to the term civil servant. I looked it up in the dictionary on the way to the Chamber today and the word civil means belonging to the citizens, polite, obliging and not rude. Those are some of the things that we would address by making the remuneration more directly related to the citizens of the country.

I am very supportive of the motion of the member for Winnipeg St. James. It is quite appropriate that he brought it before the House tonight.

[Budgetary Policy, November 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his questions.

The reality is there are all kinds of factors and forces within our economy. Needless to say in the public sector there are public sector unions. They have signed contractual obligations with the Government of Canada and the Public Service Alliance is also involved with the provincial governments.

The bottom line is that some bummer contracts have been negotiated over the years. The government has been very judicious at trying to reduce the civil service by way of attrition. It is not working in the sense that it is not working nearly fast enough for what we need to do to make us more efficient.

We have to look at all aspects of government spending. This is very much on the government's agenda, that is not necessarily rolling back public sector wages but to negotiate with the unions a more effective and efficient civil service.