Ed Harper

[Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act, June 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in the dying moments of the debate on Bill C-85.

I would consider this MP pension plan a political barometer. In the bill we have before us this government has an opportunity to establish its credibility, its sincerity. The message conveyed by the changes to be made to this pension plan is actually more important than the money involved. The message to the Canadian voters is: "Are you listening? Do you understand the problem? And will you lead by example in doing something about this gold plated pension plan?" Bill C-85 misses those marks by a country mile. It does not even come close.

First we will talk about listening, listening to the Canadian voters, listening to the people who are paying our salaries. It was mentioned earlier that no single issue had a higher profile when I was campaigning. It continues to enjoy a high profile at my town hall meetings and as I speak around the province of Ontario. It is a flash point with the voters in Ontario and certainly right across Canada.

This gold plated pension plan sends a message to the Canadian voters that we in this place do not understand what is going on in the real world. If the government has missed the message regarding Bill C-85, then what did it hear? Was there anything its members heard when they were campaigning and supposedly listening to the Canadian people?

I suggest that Bill C-85 reinforces the fact that the government was tuned out; it was not listening but only paying lip service to the voters and giving them the changes they have been looking for. We have the problems of ever-increasing taxes and

lower levels of service. That is the situation the Canadian people want to have addressed. We have high levels of unemployed and underemployed people. I know many of us hear about the young people who find jobs they are overqualified for but they are taking whatever they can get because of the desperate situation they are in.

Our people are concerned about unsafe streets and unsafe communities and they are worried about the deficit and the debt and our children's and grandchildren's future. They want a government that will do something to bring that overspending under control. This revision of the gold plated pension plan would indeed be leading by example in showing they understand the problem and they are prepared to deal with it.

The other message is the voters wanted to have a voice in Ottawa. I think with 205 new members in the House we had a great opportunity to respond to some fresh thinking, a new vision.

Let us examine the old ways. They have not been working, and that is obvious when we look at the level of debt. It is obvious when we look at the state of our country as far as being united.

I read the report of the Citizen's Forum on Canada's Future, better known as the Spicer commission. The commission went across Canada. It performed open soul surgery on 26 million Canadians to find out what the mood of the Canadian people was. The commission spoke to 400,000 Canadians, plus about another 300,000 elementary and secondary school children. Those are impressive numbers.

Chapter 9 of the Spicer commission report deals with responsible leadership in participatory democracy. That was one of the strongest messages the commission received when travelling across Canada. The message was Canadians have lost faith in the political process and in their political leaders. The report was issued in June 1991 and that mood was there in 1993 when we knocked on the doors seeking election to this place. At door after door the response I received was that I was another politician telling the people what they want to hear at the door, and then I would go to Ottawa and do exactly what I was told.

We had a terrible example of that very thing on Wednesday in this place. Government members were being told not to vote. They were in the House but were not to register, not express opinion. It was unbelievable. That is democracy. That is elected officials doing their job, representing the people who sent them here to Ottawa. Whether they were to vote yea or nay, to be denied that opportunity was unbelievable. I was shocked as I am sure Canadians from coast to coast were shocked at what took place. I see the government is laughing at that comment. That is the arrogance it displays for the voters. It could care less.

Pension reform was a critical message the government missed in getting to the Canadian people that it understands and wants to give the Canadian people a voice in Ottawa. We hear that the pension plan is all part of compensation, part of our pay package. It is the old trick of mixing apples with oranges; salaries and pension, gun control, law-abiding and criminals. We seem to have difficulty with the government in getting focused on what the real problem is.

All Canadians want and all we should expect is a fair salary and a fair pension. This idea of trying to justify a gold plated pension plan because we have a lead salary does not wash. We have to deal with one issue at a time, making sure everything we are paid is above board and visible to all Canadians. If it is fair there will not be any problem with that. The Canadian people will accept it. That is not what is happening in this bill.

The Ontario election was another strong message. MPP pensions were a big part of the common sense revolution platform. The common sense revolution identified that voters were fed up with pension plans far more generous than what is available in the private sector. The Tories responded to that and are eliminating their gold plated pension plan and introducing RRSPs, similar to what is available to Canadians from coast to coast.

It is a flash point with the voters. Ontario responded to it. Prince Edward Island has responded to it. Alberta has responded to it and Manitoba has responded it. I cannot believe this message still has not been understood in Ottawa.

Unbelievably this week few members in the House on the government side stood up and represented the people who sent them here, their constituents, the people who voted them into office.

I was so dismayed when I read the Prime Minister praised those members who hewed the party line and scorned those members who stood up and represented the people who sent them to this place; an unbelievable display for the democratic process to scorn those members who stood up and did what they were voted into office to do. Whether you agree with what they did or not, they had every right to do that. Instead of that they were criticized, threatened, taken off committees. They will not have their papers signed next time: "Buck your voters but do not buck me or you are gone".

We already know what happened. Three members were booted off their committees for doing what they were voted into office to do. We know what the message is. It was loud and clear right from the beginning and all Canadians were appalled at what happened here.

We should not have been surprised because we are dealing with a government and a Prime Minister who appointed 14 candidates. Do members know why those 14 candidates were appointed? I quote the Prime Minister when he was in my riding: "You cannot always trust the Canadian voter to appoint the best candidate". That says it all. That mistrust is still here and it was displayed this week.

A cabinet minister had a dollars for contracts dinner. It flies in the face of restoring integrity, honesty and open government and nothing is done to that minister. People who represent their ridings are scorned. A minister is accepting dollars for contracts, and that is all right. It is unbelievable the double standard that exists here. Canadians are watching what is happening here and they are appalled. There is a price to be paid and it is coming.

I wonder who the government is listening to. It is obviously not listening to the voters, to the polls. The polls are all showing this gold plated pension plan has to be changed. I do not think I have read anywhere in the media where there is any support for this plan.

Let me quote from these polls because I think they are very indicative. A poll done by Environics showed 86 per cent of Canadians, 86 per cent of Liberals, say the plan is too generous; 93 per cent of Canadians and 93 per cent of Liberals say fundamental MP pension reform must happen before social programs are touched; 88 per cent of Canadians and 85 per cent of Liberals say make the plan equal to the private plans; 93 per cent of Canadians and 91 per cent of Liberals say the MP plan should have the same limit on growth as the private sector plans; 91 per cent of Canadians and 89 per cent of Liberals say collection should start at 65.

Very clearly Liberals who were part of this poll were almost the same as Canadians from coast to coast. The government is not listening. I cannot recall an editorial supporting Bill C-85. The beauty was the Toronto Star and we all know where the Toronto Star is. It is quoted quite often. An editorial of February 13 with the headline Pension puffery'' statedOur politicians get some of the best pensions in the world. They only have to work six years to qualify and the generous payments adjusted for inflation can last a lifetime. That is why Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's impassioned defence of underpaid MPs in the House of Commons last week offends-in both substance and timing''.

We know where the Toronto Star is relative to the government. Even its paper is not supporting it. If it is not listening to the voters, not listening to the polls and not paying attention to the Toronto Star , to whom is it listening? Who is driving this agenda? I cannot believe this. There is something missing here.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustmentact, 1995, June 15th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the question from the hon. member suggested there may be 75 here who want to leave this place but I do not for a minute think that they represent the majority of the voters of the province of Quebec.

I suggest the majority of the voters in that province do not want to leave Canada. They want to be represented in this place by politicians who are going to keep Canada together, not tear it apart and that will be corrected in the next election.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustmentact, 1995, June 15th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the questions from the member. I want to start out with his first comment, simple solutions.

I suggest that the solutions are simple. What is lacking on the part of the government is the guts to do what is right.

There is nothing complex about the problems in the country today. What is desperately lacking is the courage and the guts it is going to take to do what is right and bring some fiscal sanity to the country.

I should take a moment to applaud the member. He is one of the few who had the courage to stand up and buck the party line last night. He had the courage to stand up and represent the people in his riding and I applaud him for that.

I will take him to task though for not watching his TV set and knowing that last night the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster said he has no problem with the reduction in the seats in Saskatchewan. It is not all about what is in it for me. He is looking at what is good for the country as a whole. We did put our money where our mouth is. Nobody hedged on that. The member stood up in the House last night and said yes, we will have to share the hurt right across the country.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustmentact, 1995, June 15th, 1995]

More people for the Prime Minister to whip into line, to do as they are told, to not represent the people in their ridings.

Let us get away from this charade. We are talking about doing something that is demanded by the voters and not something that is going to ensure the re-election of the people on the other side.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustmentact, 1995, June 15th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am really pleased that the hon. member opposite stopped shouting at her TV set and came down to face the real world. I wish more members would face the real world and stop sitting there yelling at TV sets. Those members are not listening and getting involved in the process.

The member's first question dealt with the ignorance of the public, that the public came to the meetings and did not know anything. That is a major mistake. The member is underestimating just how smart the voters are. The member does them a disservice when she makes remarks like that. She thinks that most people came to those meetings without knowing anything; the voters are mindless out there and need our direction, that we have to get into the system and help explain life to them. I suggest to the member opposite that they are a lot smarter than she ever gives them credit for being.

The system was not changed because of any hue and cry from the public. The system was changed because some self-serving politicians on that side of the House said: "It is going to hurt my chances of getting re-elected". That is what we are talking about here. The voters did not ask for this. The backbenchers on the government side did. Their kingdom was threatened. The member may not have said this but many did say: "This is a threat to my kingdom and I have to do something about it. Let us scrap this $5 million that we have wasted of the taxpayers' money and let us redo it all so that I can be looked after here and have a chance of getting re-elected".

I suggest to the House that regardless of where the boundaries are drawn, the member will not get re-elected because she is not listening to the Canadian voter.

Members talk about the number of voters and how they can represent only a certain number of voters. The boundaries can be adjusted to reduce the members of Parliament. I am not saying we have to stay with the same boundary lines. Changes can be made to accommodate shifts in the population. I used the example of Australia where it has double the voters. The United States has five times what we have here and it is not having any real problems. The argument for quantity just does not wash. Quality is what we need here, not quantity. More is not better.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustmentact, 1995, June 15th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be participating in this debate today on Bill C-69. Here we are talking about adding politicians to this place.

My colleague from Calgary Centre said it so well. If we went down the street and asked 10 voters if they would support having more politicians in this place, I am sure we would get 10 very resounding noes with comments like what planet are we living on or where have we been. Here we are and in fact we are debating exactly that which flies in the face of everything we have been hearing from the Canadian voter.

I wonder where our priorities are when we are spending time talking about legislation that is so self-serving. This legislation is all about: What are my chances of being re-elected? This is the we-me syndrome, what is in it for me. That is what this is all about: I want to protect my kingdom; how does it affect my riding; how does it affect my chances of being re-elected?

It does not have the concern about what is best for the hardpressed taxpayers of this country. It does not take into consideration what the taxpayers of this country indeed want. It is the we-me syndrome: I have got to look after myself, never mind what the voters of Canada want.

We are ignoring the deficit and the debt which was the number one issue when we campaigned. In the Ontario election the polls indicated it is still the number one issue. Instead of that, here we are debating adding more MPs. In fact, there is a good case to be made for the fact that more is not better because the deficit and the debt have been increasing. In the last year the debt has gone up by $100 million. Here we are debating this issue and we are looking at $550 billion of debt. We are going into the hole $1,036 per second and we sit here fiddling about boundary lines and adding more people which I suggest will add to this debt.

What about employment? What about creating jobs, the jobs which are so desperately needed? What about the criminal justice system, the system that is not working and a system which Canadians are demanding to be overhauled? What about our social

programs? The threat to those social programs is the deficit and debt and the interest payments on that debt.

What never ceases to amaze me is that bill after bill, debate after debate from the other side reinforces the fact that government members are just not listening to the Canadian people. Whether they are not listening or it is selective hearing, they are absolutely not responding to what Canadians are asking for and in fact are demanding. They do not understand the change which has taken place over the years. The politics of 30 years ago, which unfortunately is still directing the group across the aisle, do not work any more.

Canadians are going to have no part of it any more. The Canadian voters have said very loudly and very clearly: "We want politicians in Ottawa who are representing us. We want to have a voice in Ottawa because obviously what you people have been doing over the years has not worked. We are deeper in debt than we have ever been and we are getting fewer services for more dollars than ever before". The old style politics of we know best, we know what is best for the mindless masses just is not working any longer.

I want to congratulate those government members who have stood up and represented the people in their ridings. That was courageous. I was absolutely appalled when I heard what was supposedly said by the Prime Minister. I do not know his exact words. He complimented the ones who changed their position and stayed with the party. He said that it took courage not to buck him. What about the courage it took to buck the leader and vote with the people who sent them here to Ottawa? That is where the real courage was. Those people should have been complimented. They should understand that.

That is the message from the voters. They want politicians to represent them in Ottawa, not to listen to the party line. That is the curse of this place: Do what you are told. We saw that last night. I could not believe the display in this House. Members were being told not to vote: Party over people, do not stand up and vote, we have got the numbers. Those members are not going to be recorded in some of those votes. They were here but they did not stand up to vote yea or nay.

How can they justify that in their conscience? We are taking the salary. We are sent here to do a job. Here we are ignoring the voters and responding to one person, the whip. Do as you are told, fall into line or else.

There is a double standard here that I am sure has not escaped members on the other side. They are being disciplined and whipped into shape for doing what is right, for representing their voters. Then we have the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who violates this trust. He invites a group to a dinner and there are political pay-offs, but there is no reprimand, that is all right. It does not matter about the appearance of a possible conflict here. It is okay.

The double standard has to be very confusing to the other members of the government, and it certainly is confusing to the public and to the staff in the minister's department.

What we had here last night was a charade. As a member of the Reform Party, I was appalled at what I saw. With 205 new members elected to this place, the message was: "We want change". You can look at it as either 205 new members were voted in or 205 old members were thrown out. Either way, the message remains the same: "We want change".

Perhaps part of the problem over there is that the government thinks it won the election. Its members actually think they won the election. I would suggest that they did not win the election; the Conservatives lost the election. And the Canadian voters are still looking for a party that will represent them. Day after day they are not getting it. I suggest that the day of reckoning is coming in 1997, because those members who are not listening will be replaced with members who will.

What the voters have asked us to do is look at the old ways. "We do not care if that is the way you have been doing it for years. It has not worked. We want some change. We want some fresh thinking in this place. Do not kowtow to the party line. Listen to us. Listen to the common sense of the common people. The message is we want less government, we want more efficient government". That is not what this bill gives them, or even addresses.

The Reform Party on the other hand has a vision. We are looking ahead. We are listening to voters. We are going to question the old ways. I am very proud that we are. The windows and doors need to be opened. Let us look at the way we have been doing things. There has to be a better way because what we have been doing has not worked. The country has never been further apart as a complete country and we have never been deeper in debt. Very obviously, something is wrong. It is broke. It needs to be fixed. Let us get that message across.

There is a good argument to be made for quality, not quantity. There is absolutely no basis or justification for increasing the size of this House. Reform proposed a 10 per cent reduction in members. We said we can do this job with fewer people, and there is no doubt that we can. In our proposal, Ontario would lose some seats. I would suggest that Ontario is prepared to accept that, because the voters in Ontario know that we have too much government. We are overgoverned. They are quite prepared for less.

In going from 301 to 273 we could reduce the number of members by 28. I heard a figure of approximately $1 million to keep a member in this House. If that is right, we are looking at a saving of $28 million a year, a significant amount of money. And it works two ways: We will reduce the cost to the taxpayer, and I would suggest we will do a better job in running the business here.

More does not mean better. That has just been proved by the statistics that came out from StatsCanada today. Those stats have proved that more taxes mean fewer dollars in the pockets of the average family. In 1989 the average family income was $46,000, and because of this increased government and the increased taxes that has now dropped to $43,000. So the average family income has declined by $3,000. There is a very clear example that more means less and does not improve the situation. We are overgoverned.

You can look at Australia. It was mentioned earlier that Australia would double the number of voters per member for Canada. Germany has about two and a half times the voters per member, and just south of the border the United States has five times the voters per member. So you can certainly justify reducing the number of members we have in this House.

We just had an Ontario election in which one item in the common sense revolution was to reduce the size of the legislature. They wanted to take a 25 per cent reduction. That common sense revolution was overwhelmingly supported by the majority of people in Ontario based on that: less government, more efficient government. More does not mean better. We can do a better job.

In talking about the Ontario election, the common sense revolution would do away with MP pensions and let members look after their own pensions and get out of the taxpayers' pockets. We have not got that message here in Ottawa. We just changed the gold plated pension plan to a platinum. We did a little bit of scraping. But I suggest it is not going to sit well with the Canadian voter and it will be a major issue in the next federal election.

Reference was made to the gun control legislation that has been rammed through. You have to vote the party line and never mind what the people in your riding say. They say that in the red book they said they would do this. There is nothing in the red book about registration. The red book did talk about getting tough with the criminal use of firearms, but there is nothing in there about registration.

The voters in Ontario sent a very strong message, but it will be missed. All others have. I am sure this one will go right over the heads of the Liberals and they will continue to miss it. The voters of Ontario said they want a government that will listen, they want less government. But it has been ignored, and the Liberals will pay dearly for it in the next election.

There are some members opposite who have been listening to the voters. I would just like to quote some from the earlier debate. I will go back to Bill C-18, the debate we had in March 1994. I believe it was the solicitor general who said: "Since Confederation the number of seats in the House of Commons has increased steadily, from 181 in 1867 to the current level of 295. If new rules had not been adopted some years ago the number of members by now would be more than 340. This is something we should be considering". Amen. I think that is right on.

There was the member for Halton-Peel, and I quote from the debate: "If one looks at Australia, for example, there are about twice as many voters per member in that country. We are at the point where we have to make some changes. Either that or we are going to have to knock out one of the walls". Right on. This House is full. There is no more room.

The parliamentary secretary to the minister of public works: "In the 34th Parliament I had suggested that perhaps this Parliament should look at the possibility of significantly reducing the number of MPs. Would this not be an opportunity to see whether we could do with one-quarter or perhaps one-third fewer MPs?" What fresh thinking. Right on. There is some hope over there. There is a germ of common sense.

The Liberal member for Carleton-Gloucester, and I quote: "Is this room not getting a little crowded, and has our national and public debt not grown so much that we should act to curb their growth?" Right on again. At a saving of possibly $28 million a year, there could be substantial improvement in reducing our debt and deficit and at the same time doing a better job for the Canadian taxpayer.

Just to go back to the bill and looking at some of the amendments that have been proposed by the Senate, there are some that we can support, like the one that will reduce the allowable deviation from the provincial electoral quota from 25 per cent to 15 per cent. We proposed that and we can support it. It will help equalize the voting power between constituencies within a province.

We can support the requirement that the two non-judicial commission members be resident in the province for which the commission is established. That makes good, common sense.

There are some amendments in there that have been proposed by the Senate that we can support. However, in what we are debating here today, unfortunately we are wasting a lot of time and failing to deal with the real issues and the real problems the country is facing.

In closing, I heard the other day that the number of people who are watching this parliamentary channel has tripled in this 35th Parliament. I was really encouraged by that, because what it says is that the Canadian people are watching what is going on here. They are watching and they are listening. That is good news, because they are not just taking what is necessarily recorded in the press as being the gospel but they are watching what is being said and done here. They are watching those votes. They are watching those members who had the courage to stand up and represent the people in their ridings. They know the ones who were told to sit down and

do as they were told. I will tell you that is exactly not what the Canadian voters want from their elected members at this time.

I am encouraged when I discover that the viewing audience has tripled. I think the viewing audience is going to triple again as we get closer to the election and the Canadian voters realize what has been going on in this place.

The arrogance toward the voters perhaps can be partly explained by this leading in the polls. That is pretty heady stuff: We can do no wrong; look where we are in the polls.

I would suggest that is a very artificial number to base their popularity on. They should look to Ontario, because it was a very good indication of how wrong that can be. It was their own party that was leading in the polls in that province, in Ontario. When the rubber hit the road, when they got down to talking about the issues, it was just blown away. That is what it is all about today: it is the issues and who is best addressing those issues and who is listening to the voters.

I suggest to you that day after day we are seeing that this government is not listening. It is still the same old: "We know best. Listen to your leader. Do not worry about the voters". That is the tragedy for them. It is our salvation, because it is going to ensure a government that will be elected in 1997 that is truly listening to the people. I suggest that is going to be the Reform government.

[Petitions, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the final group of petitioners request that the Government of Canada not amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include the phrase sexual orientation. The petitioners are concerned about including the undefined phrase sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act. Refusing to define the statement leaves interpretation open to the courts, a very dangerous precedent to set.

Parliament has a responsibility to Canadians to ensure that legislation cannot be misinterpreted.

[Petitions, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition involves section 718.2 of Bill C-41. The petitioners are concerned that naming some groups in legislation will exclude other groups from protection and that sentencing based on the concept of hatred is very subjective and will undermine our justice system.

[Petitions, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is on the subject of the drunkenness defence. It concerns the use of a legal defence that has become known as the drunkenness defence.

The petitioners believe that in committing the act of choosing to consume alcohol the individual must accept all responsibility for his or her actions while under the influence.

[Petitions, June 15th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I wish to present four petitions on behalf of the citizens of Simcoe Centre. The first petition deals with the subject of state imposed bilingualism.

Given that the large majority of Canadians are opposed to the official languages policy imposed on them by the former Liberal government, the petitioners request that a referendum be held to either accept or reject this flawed policy.