Mac Harb

[Petitions, May 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition signed by many constituents on behalf of grandparents who want parliament to ask the government to amend the Divorce Act so that it will allow grandparents to have access to their grandchildren without having to go to court.

[Canadian Tulip Festival, May 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the world's largest tulip festival is taking place from May 14 to May 24.

Fifty years ago, Princess Juliana of the Netherlands, who had spent the war years in Ottawa, gave 100,000 tulips to the nation's capital, to thank Canada for liberating her country during World War II.

The numerous events that mark the Canadian Tulip Festival are aimed at promoting culture and entertaining the numerous visitors from all regions of Canada and from abroad.

The festivities will take place on more than 13 sites in the national capital region and will include various public shows.

The Government of Canada is proud to be associated with this event. I hope that all my fellow citizens in the region, and all those who will visit the national capital region in the coming weeks, will enjoy this blossoming of colours and shapes.

[Division No. 425, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I stand to speak against the amendments in Group No. 3. Each one is a frivolous amendment and does not help either the interests of the employees or the interests of the taxpayers as a whole.

I remind my colleagues that whenever there is a deficit in the pension plan, it is the responsibility of the government to make up for the shortfall. The government is guaranteeing that the pension fund will remain there for the employees in the public sector.

I do not understand what the fuss is all about. Even what we have before us is pure estimation that the liability of the government will be close to $96 billion over the next number of years, while the pension fund has been estimated at $126 billion. If there is a problem tomorrow, who is going to make up for the shortfall? Is the opposition going to write a cheque to pay for the shortfall?

After all, whose money is it anyway? Who has contributed to the pension fund in the first place? The employees put in up to about 7.5% and the government matches the balance. There is one thing for sure. If the percentage of contribution is 70:30, 60:40 or 50:50, right off the bat one would say if there is a surplus, that surplus should be shared equally by the employees and the employers. That is in theory if that is the case.

Here we have something completely different. We have a situation where the government is absolutely on the hook, no matter what, under any circumstances. If there is a shortfall, if there is a problem, the government will have to come up with the shortfall. It will have to ensure that every public servant is guaranteed to have his or her pension for as long as they are eligible.

That is sound, good economics. That is sound, good social policy on the part of the government to do what it is doing and frankly what it should have done a long time ago.

I agree with those in the community who are asking for clarification in terms of what it is we should do from here on in. That is exactly what Treasury Board is trying to do with this proposed legislation. It is trying to clarify things once and for all so there will be no grey area whatsoever. We know what we have at this point, we clear it out and we start down the road again. As a result of that, everyone will know what his or her responsibilities are. Everyone will know what his or her rights are. We will move forward.

To stand and say that the $30 billion belongs to the employees, I think is being unfair to the taxpayers of the country. They were the ones in the first place who put out the cash, including the employees of the government, including those who are eligible for the pension.

Frankly, if we were to look at the proposal by the minister he has been quite forthcoming and pragmatic in his approach in trying to deal with some of the issues that have not been dealt with over the years.

To say that we have something which in our estimate could be $30 billion and we have to jump in and put our hands on it is unfair. It is totally uncalled for. In fact this money, as the government is planning to do, should remain in the public coffers because it belongs to the public. The employees of Canada should be guaranteed security and a right to access their pensions, and they are. No one is taking anything away from them. It is the opposite. There have been a number of improvements.

The President of the Treasury Board has gone out of his way to accommodate those who are calling on the government to have a proper mechanism to equally and collectively manage the funds and the pension benefits. If someone were to say, “I will call for better management and administration of the public service pension fund, a joint administration of that”, we are quite open to it. What some colleagues on the opposite side of the House are asking for is absolutely ridiculous and no one in their right mind on either side of the House would go for it.

We are unnecessarily delaying the passage of the bill by putting amendments that have nothing to do with the facts. A good number of those amendments are based on fiction and on wild imagination that somewhere somehow this money belongs to someone. Yes it does. It belongs to us collectively as taxpayers. It also belongs to the public servants.

No one is saying it does not belong to the public servants, but it belongs to the public servants as taxpayers of the nation and not as individuals. As individuals they are entitled to their pensions no matter what. No one is going to take more than what they are entitled to and no one is going to take less than what they are entitled to.

To that extent I am at a loss to hear some of my colleagues calling for things that are unwarranted, uncalled for and asking the government to do things. It is irresponsible to ask for them.

The President of the Treasury Board is doing the absolutely responsible and right thing. I commend him for that. I would like to see the proposals he has implemented as quickly as possible so the representatives of the employees and the government can work together collectively in a partnership to better manage the pension funds for generations to come.

The House should reject unequivocally every one of the amendments in this package. Let us move on with the bill.

[Petitions, May 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition signed by many Canadians. The petitioners are asking parliament to amend the Divorce Act to include a provision, as supported by Bill C-340, that would allow the grandparent of a child to have access to the child and to ensure the well-being of the child without having to go to court.

[National Youth Week, May 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the first week of May is National Youth Week.

Youth across the country will be celebrating through various events and activities.

This initiative was launched by youth organizations in British Columbia. Canadians from coast to coast are welcome to join in. The festivities include art festivals, multicultural events, youth dances and educational workshops.

I would like to congratulate cities like Burnaby for taking the lead on this issue. I call on parliament to recognize the first week of every May as National Youth Week starting this year, starting this week, starting this day.

Our youths have every reason to take charge of their future making it full, happy and productive.

[Trade, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the business community just celebrated the fifth anniversary of the NAFTA.

Can the Minister for International Trade tell Canadians about the status of negotiations concerning a free trade agreement in the Americas?

[National Highway System, April 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian national highway system requires repairs and expansion.

Can the Minister of Transport tell Canadians what he is doing to provide leadership for a national solution to this ongoing problem?

[Petitions, April 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, grandparents, as a consequence of death, separation or divorce of their children are often denied access to their grandchildren by guardians. As a result, the petitioners request that parliament amend the Divorce Act to approve the provision as supported in Bill C-340 regarding the right of spousal parents, that is, grandparents, to have access to the children without having to go to court.

[Petitions, April 23rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, as a consequence of death, separation or divorce, grandparents sometimes have difficulty having access to their grandchildren by the guardian.

Many jurisdictions have allowed provisions where grandparents could have access to their grandchildren without having to go to court.

The petitioners want parliament to amend the Divorce Act to include the provision, as supported in Bill C-340, whereby grandparents do not have to go to court in order to have access to their grandchildren.

[Canada Book Day, April 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today is Canada Book Day and to mark the occasion Canadians are invited to celebrate books and the love of reading by participating in Canada Book Day activities.

Canada's vital cultural legacy is reflected in its literature. On this day Canadians are encouraged to buy books, attend readings, receptions, book giveaways, and participate in contests in celebration of our literature and the rich cultural heritage it represents.

Through its support of the book publishing industry the Government of Canada will strive to ensure the continued rejuvenation of Canadian literature and the continued enrichment of our country's social and economic life. The future of our book industry, however, lies primarily in the hands of all Canadians.

We therefore encourage Canadians everywhere to take part in Canada Book Day activities and to support this important national resource by rediscovering Canadian books. Information about activities in various communities can be found on line at www.canadabookday.com.