Ed Harper

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 9th, 1995]

Shame. I would like to see that statement made to a group of taxpayers. "Why worry about our gold plated pension plan? It is only a little bit of money in the whole scheme of things. Surely you do not begrudge us a little bit of extra debt".

They talk about what members of Parliament do after they get booted out of office. Some of them are unemployable. Based on the job they do here I think they should be unemployable. Canadian taxpayers should not be funding a lavish lifestyle for MPs. I want to hear MPs tell that to the thousands of Canadians who are unemployed or under employed because they have lost a job through no fault of their own. They were not booted out by the voters. I have difficulty finding any great sympathy for MPs.

Then I hear some talking about the great sacrifice they have made to serve the Canadian people. No one held a gun to their heads and made them run for office. We sought the nomination. We went out and campaigned. Now we hear the rhetoric about the great sacrifice they made on behalf of the Canadian people. The only members of Parliament who might even have a hint of credibility in that area are those who were nominated. The nominated candidates of the government may have some justification for remarks like that but certainly none of the elected members would.

The red ink book promised reform and all we have in the bill is window dressing. I recall the comments of the former leader of the opposition, who is now the Prime Minister, during the election campaign. He challenged the government: "Recall the House. We will deal with the pension plan right away". It was a burning issue with the Canadian people. How times change. Once elected to office, it is no longer a burning issue. Eighteen months later we get around to dealing with the pension plan but it all window dressing. It is a minor tune-up when a major tune-up is required.

The money and perks are not the incentive for members of Parliament to run for office. Anyone who is here because of the money and the perks is here for the wrong reasons. I suggest there are not many members of Parliament on either side of the House who are here for that reason.

Canadians would agree there must be a pension but it must be a fair pension. The Canadian people are fair. They want the pension to be adequate and they want fairness to be part of it.

With the gold plated pension plan members are staying in office because they see the gravy train and they want to get aboard. That is the wrong incentive for people here. As a matter of fact, it suggests that perhaps we should be looking at the possibility of term limitations to remove the carrot.

As the Liberals have a habit of doing, we are mixing apples and oranges. They have demonstrated a penchant for it in the gun control bill. They are mixing the criminals with the law abiding. What are we doing with this bill? We are mixing pensions with salaries. They are two different issues and should be dealt with separately. There is absolutely no basis to combine them. We are here talking about pensions and we keep hearing about the salaries of hockey players. That has nothing to do with the debate today.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak today on Bill C-85, an attempt to reform the MP pension plan. Before I do I would like to address a couple of comments of the member for St. Boniface who attempted to make such an eloquent defence of the indefensible.

This really has not been much of a debate. Very few have come to defend this so-called reform of the MP pension plan, although he did make a feeble effort. He talks about being fair. I wonder who we are attempting to be fair to here. I suggest it is about time we were fair to the taxpayers who have been paying the bill for all of these years for this gold plated pension plan.

He also talks about what the provincial governments are doing in their pension plans. He forgot to mention the promise of Liberal Party in Ontario to scrap its pension plan and put in

something that is more in line with the private sector, as has already happened in Alberta and will happen in P.E.I. Those provincial governments have got the message that these gold plated pension plans have to go. The federal government has not got the message yet.

It is obvious from this bill that the members of the government still do not understand that what we are talking about here is integrity, credibility, and getting a handle on the deficit and debt by showing leadership by example.

The President of the Treasury Board said during his opening remarks that the pension debate has been discussed here for 10 years. For the same 10 years it has been cussed in the rest of Canada. The voters have been upset with it and have been growing more upset. I can assure all members of the government that Bill C-85 will not end the discussion or the cussing. It will continue because the bill does not address the problems. I can assure the House this will be an issue in the next federal election because we will be there to make sure it is.

When we had some limited debate, Liberal comments were that the amount of money is small when it is taken in the context of the total debt.

[Petitions, May 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the final petition I wish to present is on behalf of the constituents who wish to halt the early release from prison of Robert Paul Thompson.

The petitioners are concerned about making our streets safer for our citizens. They are opposed to the current practice of early release of violent offenders prior to serving the full extent of their sentences. The petitioners pray that our streets will be made safer for law-abiding citizens and the families of the victims of convicted murderers.

[Petitions, May 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition concerns the use of a legal defence that has become known as the drunk defence.

The petitioners believe that in committing the act of choosing to consume alcohol, the individual must accept all responsibilities for their actions while under the influence.

[Petitions, May 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is on the subject of abortion.

The petitioners request that Parliament reconsider amendments to the Criminal Code so as to extend protection to the unborn child.

[Petitions, May 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present four petitions today.

The first group of petitioners requests 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 this 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.

[Point Of Order, May 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, following question period, my colleague for Kindersley-Lloydminister rose on a point of order about the issue of sexual abuse of children on a reserve in Quebec.

When my colleague raised the point yesterday he was referring to the derisive and flippant reaction of government members to a question dealing with the serious issue of sexual abuse. However, the Speaker's ruling interpreted our point of order as being critical of the parliamentary secretary's use of language.

On behalf of my colleague, I want to assure the House that at no time we were referring to the fact that the parliamentary secretary was speaking in Inuktitut. We recognize his right to express himself in his native language.

We feel that the Speaker's interpretation-

[Pearson International Airport, May 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, there will come a point when the entire Pearson mess will crash and Canadians will be left to pick up the pieces of the wreckage. It is a sad day in Canadian history when patronage heaven decides to clear the stench over Pearson with Tory and Liberal hacks investigating a patronage affair.

Accusations fly between the two while the airport remains in a holding pattern. Canada's most important piece of infrastructure continues to deteriorate.

Reformers called for an impartial judicial inquiry over a year ago. Canadian taxpayers, as always, are stuck with the cheque and they want some answers. Instead, a year has passed and the Liberal government provides Canadians with a partial, patronage based inquiry without a single elected official, members of the family compact investigating members of the family compact.

Canadians deserve better government than this. It is time to rebuild; it is time to reform. We must not delay the development of Pearson, the crown jewel of our transportation system.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, May 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-43, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act. It is a very important bill dealing with a very major problem we have.

It is important we do all we can to restore the trust that has been lost between the voters and the politicians in Ottawa representing them. When I think about this bill it brings to mind the experiences I had when I was campaigning for the election. I was absolutely shocked at the number of people with the same response: "Here is another politician at the door telling me what I want to here now; however, you will go to Ottawa and do as you're told". I encountered that distrust and cynicism at far too many doors. It was a disheartening experience.

The bill is a small step in the right direction to do something about that. To reinforce what I am saying about the lack of trust and the cynicism I want to quote from the royal commission on electoral reform and party financing, 1992. It dealt with political cynicism in Canada. Seventy per cent of the people contacted responded: "I do not think the government cares much about what people like me think". Seventy-nine per cent responded: "Generally those elected to Parliament soon lose touch with the people". Eight-two per cent said: "Most candidates in federal elections make campaign promises they have no intention of fulfilling". And 64 per cent said that most members of Parliament make a lot of money misusing public office. Those are serious observations by the people we are here to represent. It is a very serious challenge, which we must do something about.

The mood of the voters was understandable. I understood where they were coming from as I went door to door. What was being said then has just been highlighted in the recent book, On the Take . That cynicism, to a large degree, was justified in the minds of the public. We are all tarred by that brush. We are dealing with a minority that does the things that were alleged, but it is a problem we all face and must address because we all pay the price.

It was evident that the government understood the problem, because in the red book it did talk the talk. Unfortunately, it has been words up to this point and not enough action. Page 94 deals with public trust:

Nine years of Conservative government have brought our political process into disrepute. A Liberal government will restore public trust and confidence in government. We will regulate the activities of lobbyists by appointing an Ethics Counsellor. We will reform the pension plan of members of Parliament. We will give more power to individual MPs by providing more free votes and more authority for parliamentary committees.

I suggest that has not been happening. The government apparently understood the problem but is somewhat reluctant to deal with it. Some half steps have been taken, but it has not gone nearly far enough.

If we look at members of Parliament from the voters' perspective, whether it is real or perceived, and certainly some of it is perceived, they look at us while they are paying higher taxes and receiving fewer services. There are more people unemployed and indeed under-employed. There are a lot of young people who have skills far beyond what jobs they are forced to take because of the economy. There is an increase in crime, particularly among our young offenders. Our social programs are threatened and there has been some deterioration in them. They had no voice in Ottawa. I believe that was manifested in the GST, where that most unpopular tax was rammed down the throats of the Canadian people without them having a say.

All of this resulted in 205 new members being elected to the 35th Parliament. That was a very strong message from the voters that they were very unhappy with what had been going on here

and they wanted major change. They wanted the windows and doors open to find out more about what goes on in this place.

Those 205 new members represent a great challenge. It is a great opportunity for us to bring about the changes that are needed in order to restore that trust. If we want trust we have to give trust. Things like freer votes, recall and referendum, and Bill C-43 all lead toward that. We saw what happened to freer votes in Bill C-68. Those Liberal members who had the courage to stand up and vote by the wishes of their constituents were stepped on rather heavily and removed from committees; so much for freer votes, as was indicated in the red book.

With respect to recall, we saw what happened very early in the life of this Parliament, when a member was thrown out of the government. He was not good enough for the government, but there was no opportunity for the people of that riding to do something about the member.

There is no place for the referendum. There is still no voice for the Canadian people in this Parliament. I think the comment from the Prime Minister was that he found the referendum revolting. I do not think that comment would sit well with Canadian people, given their current mood.

As I said, Bill C-43 is a small step in the right direction. In dealing with Bill C-43, I return to the royal commission on electoral reform, particularly that 64 per cent of the respondents said that most members of Parliament make a lot of money misusing public office. It is a terrible mood that is prevailing out there, and we have to do all we can to change that.

The Canadian people want a more open and transparent process. This bill has got off to a bad start, because it is not going far enough.

The Pearson mess has been mentioned a couple of times already this morning. The Pearson situation is a very good example of lobbyists and the lack of an open process. That situation continues to deteriorate. If we review that situation, we had a government that forced that through during the campaign, which was wrong as far as the Canadian people were concerned. Then the Liberals cancelled that program without having due regard for the cost of that cancellation and indeed whether the Pearson deal that had been struck was a good one.

In looking at that deal, one of the things they did in shutting the doors was appoint a Liberal to do the investigation. Without questioning whether Mr. Nixon is qualified or not, that was a very poor choice, given the mood of the voters. It smacked of trying to hide things from the Canadian people.

Now we find that renegotiating or taking a look at that contract was not even an option. It has been made clear that indeed it was a process that was started with a bias, and that did not change. We have no idea of what might be the eventual cost to the taxpayers. The report was accepted by the government without one ounce of proof as to whether in fact there had been any wrongdoing. People's names were dragged through the mud. They were being denied the opportunity to have their day in court. Here again this is happening behind closed doors. The Canadian people want a more open process.

When we talk about infrastructure, the Pearson airport is Canada's most important infrastructure and it continues to deteriorate. Jobs could have been created in overhauling those terminals. Indeed jobs are going to be lost in Ontario and all across Canada because that airport is continuing to deteriorate.

One of the things that really bothered me on that Pearson deal was the comments that were coming from the other side about the sleaze, the corruption, and how rotten a deal it was. Yet the government was prepared to pay $30 million to this sleaze. If these people are half as bad as the government is making them out to be, why would they get one nickel of taxpayers' dollars?

We were demanding that an open and public inquiry be held. That was denied over a year ago, and reluctantly it is being agreed to now. It is unfortunately too late, because now we are going to have the Liberal hacks and the Conservative hacks in the Senate deciding who is the worst in this whole affair.

A problem with Bill C-43 is that the lobbyists should be identified by activities and not by employers. Another item is there is a definition in the bill that the lobbyist activity should be significant. How do we measure significant? If we go back to the Pearson deal, there was enough potential money to be made on that deal that you could be in once and out and be set for life. The word significant would not have applied in the case of the Pearson deal. The bill ignores the anti-avoidance schemes that are there.

The appointment of the ethics counsellor is another broken promise. On page 95 of the red book we were going to get an ethnics counsellor who would report directly to Parliament. Another broken promise. Another golden opportunity to restore the confidence of the Canadian people has been lost. Having him report through the registrar general is like having the auditor general report through the finance minister.

Remind all members we have an opportunity, with 205 new members, to do something to restore that level of trust and lost confidence. Let us not lose it. Bill C-43 is a small step. We can open it up so that it is a much larger step, taking us down the road to a much better and more open Parliament.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, May 3rd, 1995]

Three tiers.