Alex Shepherd

[Labour Training, September 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the matter of labour training adjustment boards and how important it is to retrain our workforce so that Canada can compete in the international environment. This is the best way to deal with structural unemployment.

Labour force adjustment boards are staffed by local stakeholders in the training process. Since many of these recipients are on unemployment insurance it is important there there be some form of co-operation between Canada Employment and the boards. This is the only sensible course since it will ensure proper program delivery.

Training must have both a local and a national component to ensure the portability of newly acquired skills. We need to work together to increase the technical skills of all our labour force from sea to sea to sea.

[Provincial Debt, September 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to a once great nation that is slowly dying in a sea of words, warring factions not unlike two great elk locked in mortal combat. When finished both are too spent to ward off the ever present wolves. The wolves are the growing jaws of debt, money borrowed not to support investment but rather to support unearned lifestyles.

I would like to talk about strictly provincial debt, nothing to do with the federal government. The highest is in Quebec where they owe $9,498 for every man, woman and child. Over 40 per cent of this is owed to foreigners. Other provinces are not far behind.

As we clash among ourselves, an artery here and an artery there becomes dismembered. These slashes are the ever spiralling interest rates which are borne from uncertainty.

For every Mary Smith and Jacques Tremblay, let us get on with the wolves at the door.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, June 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise in the House today to discuss Bill C-43. We cannot represent others if we cannot control ourselves. I think that is the essence of the bill. It is very important members of Parliament, parliamentary secretaries and cabinet ministers be able to control themselves.

The essence of the bill is basically to restore integrity to our system. We can all remember going through the last election that one of the big issues was respect for members of Parliament. Clearly members of Parliament were not well respected. They were held in contempt in some cases. Some of this issue has not gone away by the mere exercise of an election. There is still a great deal of mistrust out there. It is a very good move our Prime Minister is so concerned about the issue that he personally brought the bill to the House.

I would like to discuss two specific aspects of the bill into which it is basically divided. First are changes under the Lobbyists Registration Act and second is the establishment of conflict of interest guidelines.

Why would we need a lobbyist in the first place? Companies do have the right to have lobbyists. I know we talk about tier one and tier two lobbyists. Essentially companies would have the right to be represented to their governments.

I think the real essence of it is that this representation needs to be tempered. There must be a balance. What do I mean by a balance?

In my riding this week I dealt with a Mrs. Elizabeth Wardell of Bowmanville. She was trying to live on a disability income of $850 while at the same time paying $350 a month for drugs. She gets no support from our system.

I would like to argue that Mrs. Wardell has just as much right to consideration under drug patent legislation as the largest drug companies of this country. Indeed many of us may argue that she has more of a right. I will repeat again, influence must be tempered.

The most important views of this country are not those of Bay Street, James Street or Howe Street, but of Main Street, Main Street Canada. The new legislation will increase the visibility of the lobbying process.

I would like to refer to those areas of changes to the existing lobbying registration act. Lobbyists will now be required to disclose what departments and government agencies they will contact, disclose communication methods to be used and register the name of the departments and governmental agencies to be contacted.

In essence when all is said and done the ethics counsellor will be able to decide what areas these particular lobbyists are interested in focusing in government. This will give us a concept from where this kind of activity is coming from and where it is directed at government.

Many people have argued in the House that it does not have any teeth, that it is a waste of time and it is a media show. I have discovered that here are some of the teeth in the legislation. For those who do not adhere to this process there are fines of up $25,000, the role of the RCMP is being strengthened by increasing the limitation period for laying charges in summary proceedings from six months to two years. If lobbyists knowingly make false or misleading statements they could be liable to a fine of up to $100,000 and a prison term of two years.

These are very serious charges. These are very serious results of not abiding by this legislation. I think very clearly the government is very interested in cleaning up our act.

Through these changes I believe that we will start to temper the views of lobbyists and special interest groups but, more important, give government back to the people.

I would like to discuss a second aspect of this legislation which is conflict of interest. I am a chartered accountant. I have been enrolled in the Institute of Chartered Accountancy since 1974. We have a code of ethics. Most professional organizations have a code of ethics. If you break it you are out.

Why not in this House have a code of ethics? That would assume we are professionals. I will give a quick definition of professional. It is one who values the interest of their clients over those of their own personal interest.

In reality what conflict of interest guidelines and ethics counsellor are attempting to do is make the people of Canada our clients, to put the importance of our clients way above our own personal interests.

This is what the Prime Minister means when he is clear to the commitment of duty, but the interest of the electorate must come before those of ourselves.

I am sure many members of Parliament have had the same kind of problem from being a respected professional to going out and being a politician. I remember an incident at a spring fair in the last election. People would come up to me and say: "So, you are a crook too". Nobody has ever in my life referred to me as a crook. Because I had changed my cloak, if you will, and had suddenly become a "politician" aspiring to be a member of this House, I was thought of as a crook. In some ways that kind of spirit is still out there. We have to address the root causes of that. We have to set standards in this good House.

This section has teeth as well. I would like to refer to section 20 of the guidelines. This refers to parliamentary secretaries and cabinet ministers: "Guest hospitality, other benefits, including those described in section 21, that could influence public office holders in their judgement and performance of official duties and responsibilities shall be declined".

I just picked that out of interest. I wonder how many of our parliamentary secretaries and the cabinet ministers are going to be looking under their Christmas tree this year, wondering whether these things have to be returned based on this legislation. I think it is very real. It is a very real influence.

To bring the two aspects together, one being the conflict of interest aspect and the second being the reform to the Lobbyists Registration Act, the ethics counsellor basically has a number of functions. One is to develop a code of conduct in consultation with interested parties. A second is to have the powers to investigate possible breaches of the code of conduct.

The most important aspect of all is to make a public report as a result of this investigation. This will be done once a year. When I saw this I immediately thought of the Auditor General. I thought of the great opportunity for the opposition parties to make political hay from this. That is a possibility, a good possibility.

Imagine a government dedicated to integrity and changing the system that would invoke legislation of this kind which will only serve to possibly embarrass it. We can clearly see the strong commitment our party has to changing the integrity and the office of elected officials.

In conclusion, under these revised, specific codes of ethics, they will clean up our system. The only problem with these things is some people will say they do not go far enough, that we could have extended it more specifically to all members of Parliament.

The people who are exempted from this legislation are the opposition parties. There is no code of ethics for them. There is no commitment to a higher standard for them. There is no professional enrolment or engagement for them. Maybe they would like to bring forward their own code of ethics.

In any case, this is a tremendous move in the right direction for the people of Canada, empowering the people of Canada to bring back government and the voices of the people of Canada to this House.

[Education, June 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have discovered in my riding that our public school system is in desperate need of overhaul.

While education is a provincial jurisdiction, I believe that federal government funding of unemployment insurance and a portion of post-secondary education makes us partners with the provinces in working toward an improved educational environment.

Forced passing of students with poor reading and other academic skills is not in the best interests of Canada. Poor discipline has led to a situation where many teachers fear for their safety.

Different programs in different provinces are retarding our growth as one nation. We should immediately undertake a national forum on education in order to fulfil all government commitments to provide for an educated and motivated generation of new Canadians who will have to deal with the changes demanded by the 21st century.

[Petitions, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from my constituents to amend the laws of Canada to prohibit the importation, distribution, sale or manufacture of killer cards and to advise the producers of killer cards that their product, if destined for Canada, will be seized and destroyed.

I believe that the commercialization and glorification of violence in our society should be abhorred by all.

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would just like to reiterate that today we have been listening to 19th century nationalism almost continuously all day, and I apologize to some of our viewers. It is another round of constitutional negotiation which I am sure we could do without.

I would also like to mention that we are now dealing with things like the information highway. It is not important whether we connect states, member states of a country together, but we are going to connect households throughout this nation together. French speakers in Quebec and French speakers in the maritimes will be talking to each other. What is the logic of a nation state?

It gives me great pleasure to rise in my place today to discuss the future of Canada. Like so many others here this is why I came to the capital, to try to shape the direction of our great country as we enter the 21st century.

I have travelled in many parts of the world and I have taken the time not only to study these countries but also to observe my own country from their perspectives. I have recently returned from China where a party of parliamentarians went to support small and medium sized businesses there seeking new trading opportunities. In this rapidly evolving country over $250 million of new business occurred.

I note that the Reform Party which is sponsoring this motion elected not to send any representatives. I find this unfortunate because many western businesses could have benefited from its involvement. At any rate, this is part of the future for Canada, establishing new trading relationships and new friends throughout the world.

I got into a rather interesting discussion when I was there with one of its economists in the agricultural department. I have not the time to discuss the whole process, but the bottom line was that this country, one of the last remaining communist countries in the world, in pursuit of new social safety nets with respect to demographic shifts in its agrarian population elected not to study those of Canada. Why? Because it thought we were too socialistic.

I believe that Canada must enter into a new age of what I would like to call entrepreneurialism. This is not necessarily the pursuit of profit, but more the pursuit of measurable objectives for our society.

We must also redefine government's role in society. To quote the recent best selling book "Reinventing Government", I believe that it should be the purpose of government to steer and not to row. By this I mean that government should not have direct involvement in the economy, but rather state its objectives which are democratically arrived at and then create the economic climate in which these goals can be realized.

I believe that the public at large as well as government in specific need to rethink their general attitude. I do not have to mention all of the global challenges that we have witnessed in the short six months that this House has been in session. GATT, NAFTA, the information highway, to name only a few, all challenge Canada and Canadians to be better, to evolve a different spirit, to meet head on the challenges of the 21st century.

We must give government back to the people. We must change our civil service so it regards the public as its customers rather than something simply to be tolerated. Public Service 2000 and total quality management are starts but they are taking way too long to get out into the real world, that is to say to make a difference to the people in the street.

We must empower a new generation of civil servants who can take responsibility for making new changes, who are not governed by regulations and orders but rather who will be judged, remunerated and promoted based on their success in achieving goals rather than simply years of tenure.

We are talking about different facets of government that will compete for the most efficient delivery systems, where the inefficient systems are uprooted and adapt or disappear.

We are talking about a government that values investment where investment means education, training and skill development, increasing our grey matter if you will, but shuns income maintenance systems for other than those who are retired or have genuine need.

While talking about changes in attitude we must put a stop to the petty parochial nature of many of our provincial legislators. We must end barriers to interprovincial trade in the new Canada. We must realize that there are strengths in both centralization and decentralization.

The new Canada will allow that national education standards be established. At the same time local school boards will be freed to compete to see which can meet the objectives most effectively. Children and their parents should have the right to decide on their school which will add to the competitive nature of education.

Business will take a constructive role in educating students while in school. They will recognize that this is their major competitive edge in dealing in the global economy.

In the new Canada the medicare system will focus on preventive medicine rather than sickness. It will have physicians paid to keep people healthy rather than treating illness. At the same time it will be a society which recognizes the difference between need and want, where symptoms such as the common cold are not insurable coverage. Physicians will be paid not for the number of patients they see but rather remunerated based on the number of patients they do not see, that is to say on the wellness of the population.

We are talking about a justice system that will focus on the causes of crime rather than on incarceration and the support of penal institutions, a system that realizes that crime prevention is far less costly to administer than long term incarceration.

We are talking about a country that will realize that unemployment is a success of our system rather than a failure. It will reduce the hours of required employment, a shorter work week, a method of spreading unemployment equally throughout the country.

It will empower our native communities to take control of their own economic future and restore the pride of their once great nations.

It will realize that single mothers living in poverty is a disgrace of our system. It will create more day care to allow these people to re-educate and find employment in the new economy, empowering both themselves and their children. Even

day care centres will compete for the most efficient delivery of educational skills for our youth.

In agriculture we will develop more competitive marketing systems. We will adjust to changes in international trade. We will become more efficient in areas in which Canada has an advantage.

Mostly this will deal with the technology of feed additives, selective breeding and artificial insemination and the use of environmentally friendly farming practices. Most important, the new Canada will realize that to empower people is the ultimate tool, to allow people to control their own economy and destiny. This is the strength of a new entrepreneurial country.

May I interject to note that this is not the narrow hierarchical nationalism espoused by those in the Bloc Quebecois, a nationalism that wants to take our fellow Canadians down the pathway to the 19th century, where we keep the rural population sequestered as a source of cheap labour and food due to their inability to reach out and participate in the world.

I am not talking about the dominance of one society over another. Nothing could be further from the truth. I can remember when Toronto was a bastion of English elite. No more. The original English stock is a minority in the city and its society is better for it. There are signs in Greek, Italian and yes, French. These are some of the new pathways which Quebec and the rest of Canada must follow together. These are the pathways to a healthier standard of living and a content society.

I am not talking about dollars and cents. I believe that this new spirit of entrepreneurial government will also recognize the new emerging family values and place greater importance on well adjusted children.

In conclusion, I want to say that the current economic restructuring has forced us to rethink who we are and where we want to go, a new entrepreneurialism where everyone shares in the success and participation of a new society and a new Canada in the 21st century. This is our challenge to the way we do government and the way we deal with one another. This is the future for Canada and all Canadians from sea to sea to sea.

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a couple of questions of the hon. member.

First, she talked about post office closures. She and some other members talked today about the reductions in UI benefits and so forth as some kind of a failure of our federal system. At the same time she complained about the deficit. Her party complains about the deficit, that this is a tax on the backs of the people of Quebec.

I wonder how you can have it both ways. How can we try to control the deficit by some of these manoeuvres and at the same time be blamed for not dealing with the deficit problems. I find this a terrible inconsistency in their philosophy.

Second, I would like to pick up on one of their other members, the member for Abitibi, who talked about the empowerment of some of the local regional municipalities. Would she support a philosophy that paid regional transfer payments and rather than sending them to the province of Quebec actually sent them to the regional municipalities in Quebec.

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, talking about taking a lesson from history, I wonder how the hon. member's party would have existed in the early stages of our history when the government actually had to finance Canadian Pacific to build a railway across the country to link the country together to create the nation we live in today. It seems, if we had had a Reform Party representing the people out west, they would not have been part of Confederation in the first place. Incidentally that was a perfect example of the government getting a business going, turning it over to private hands and turning it into a success story.

All I hear from the Reform Party is about failures. Certainly every time we get involved in a business venture there is the possibility of risk, the possibility of failure.

I also want to focus on another aspect of regional development. In some of these areas the federal government through a process of transfer payments or whatever is sustaining people. We have people on welfare and on unemployment insurance.

I would like to direct a question to the Reform Party. If we have a choice between paying people to sit home and do nothing or trying to create worthwhile jobs and careers for people to get out of that situation, which is more preferable?

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Abitibi for his intervention. I was very interested in his discussion about transfers. I presume we are talking about transfer payments, all kinds of payments that go from the federal government into the local provincial jurisdictions.

I also listened with interest with respect to the empowerment of individuals within the province, in particular his province of Quebec. In view of that thought process I wonder if what he is suggesting is that with something like the equalization payment transfer system we should be transferring these moneys directly to the municipalities in the province of Quebec and not to the provincial government. Would that be his suggestion?

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am very saddened by the hon. member's comments. I think I actually heard him giving advice to the separatist element of the country of how they should properly separate. This follows more on the heels of what the Minister of Human Resources Development said about the problems with this great nation of ours. There are two parties in the House each with its own single focus which seems to be on separating us and making us different.

The hon. member went on with a history lesson. He tells me he is an economist but in fact, he must be a historian. He wants to take us back into the history of the country, a history which incidentally has never existed, a laissez faire economy in which government is not involved in the economy whatsoever. The government's only function is presumably to make postage stamps. This economy has never existed in the world. An Adam Smith economy has never existed. The reality is the great United States, that great capitalist country has all kinds of these programs.

The hon. member went on to talk about China, the new evolution and the new world. I note the Reform Party refused to send people to China. I was one of the ones who was honoured to

go and support some of our small and medium sized businesses. Some of them were from the west.

In talking to the people of China I was surprised to learn that in spite of their demand type of economy they were all working. There was no unemployment. I am not supporting a communist system, but I am saying that when I look back on the situation in Canada I realize we have one of the highest standards of living in the world.

If I took anything seriously from the member's comments, somehow we would be all destitute. I would like the hon. member to comment on some of those aspects of our economy.