Ed Harper

[Petitions, September 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is requesting that the Government of Canada not amend the Human Rights Act to include the phrase sexual orientation. The petitioners are concerned about the undefined phrase sexual orientation. There is a legitimate concern that such a broad term could include all kinds of sexual behaviour.

[Petitions, September 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present two petitions today. The first one is a petition on behalf of the constituents of Simcoe Centre on the issue of euthanasia.

The petitioners request that current laws regarding active euthanasia be enforced.

[Infrastructure, September 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here at all levels is reallocating borrowed funds.

How in the name of infrastructure can you spend borrowed tax dollars on bocce courts in Toronto, the World Canoe Championship in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia or the removal of overhead electrical wires for a movie in Shelburne, Nova Scotia? The list goes on.

Will the minister take immediate action to ensure that no more borrowed tax dollars fund projects of questionable value to Canada's infrastructures?

[Infrastructure, September 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, our research indicates that as of September 19 the three levels of government have committed almost $1 billion of borrowed taxpayers' dollars to projects which are outside the red ink book definition of infrastructure. How can the minister justify this breaking of red ink book promises?

[Canadian Unity, September 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding effort of Mr. Michael Szelag from Hamilton Ontario to promote Canadian unity.

Mike started out in St. John's, Newfoundland on August 9 this year for a 33 day, 7,000 kilometre bicycle ride to Victoria, B.C. During his travels Mike presented for signature a proclamation to Canada to the mayors of each city he passed through. He was enthusiastically received without exception. He commented that his reception in Quebec was outstanding.

The proclamation reads:

Our desire is strong Our commitment is strong Our understanding is the result of experience Our contribution will continue Our goodwill will lead us Our faith will guide us We will remain one people

I am sure members will join with me in a tribute to Mike for his tremendous contribution to Canadian unity.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, September 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the point I was developing in the first part of my presentation on Bill C-22 was the fact that what we were doing here actually flies in the face of what we should be doing to help restore the trust and confidence that have been lost between the politician and the voter. I had just completed dealing with the fact that the 30 day review of the Pearson contract was done by a well identified Liberal. Without getting into the question of how competent that individual is, the fact that it was done by somebody so well connected with the party just flew in the face of what needed to be an open and honest evaluation of that contract.

The next step in Bill C-22 was that there was a well identified Liberal appointed to review the compensation package. Again this flies in the face of what the public told us during the election campaign, that it wanted something done differently here and it did not want a continuation of the old politics. This again flew in the face of that.

If it was going to be done it had to be done by a non-partisan, somebody completely removed from the political arena in order to restore the confidence that in fact what was happening here was in the best interests of the taxpayers.

The bill is unprecedented in that it denies the right of companies involved to the due process of law. Again in the minds of the public this raises questions. Why is that in there? Are we trying to hide something? It comes back to the question of trust in the system.

We tried during the committee stage to open up and give these people an opportunity to come in and defend their position, the people whose names and reputations had been called into question, but this was denied.

To my thinking there is no other option available now than to go through the courts in order to clear the air so that taxpayers will indeed know the truth about the original deal but, more important, will know the justification for the spending of any tax dollars.

In all fairness those whose names and reputations have been brought into question must be given their day in court. There is a saying that those who steal my money steal nothing, but those who steal my good name steal all.

Do not let this happen. Put yourself in their position and ask if this is fair. As upset as we all were at the apparent deceit and abuse of the process in the original deal, two wrongs will not make it right. The minister said in introducing this bill that he wanted to be fair and reasonable to all concerned. Let us do that. Let us be fair and reasonable to the taxpayers as well as the accused.

It is ironic that all this debate and delay is holding up an infrastructure project that is a major part of Toronto and Ontario if indeed not Canada. Here we have this major piece of infrastructure continuing to deteriorate while this debate goes on.

This project alone was worth almost a billion dollars, representing about one-half of the total federal commitment to infrastructure with the potential for thousands of jobs immediately and yet to this day it is still not happening.

With so much support on the other side, who is speaking out for Toronto and Ontario? Not only are we talking about jobs now, we are talking about jobs that are indirectly tied to Pearson. The first impression created by a fast, efficient, safe airport plays a major role in decisions affecting where to locate and expand new industry.

Pearson operations generate some $2 billion in personal income, $4 billion in business revenues and $700 million dollars in tax revenues and we are allowing this gem to deteriorate daily. It makes no sense.

There is no reason why negotiations should not proceed as quickly as possible. Pearson Development Corporation has said in writing that it will do nothing to block expansion. Local airport authority discussion need not have been delayed.

We cannot delay any further. Far too much is at stake. If this government is serious about job creation now and in the future, there is no better way to demonstrate that commitment than immediate action on Pearson.

This government's lack of confidence in our courts to be fair and reasonable is as frightening as the cynicism I spoke of earlier between the voters and the politicians.

There will never be a better time for this government to show its commitment to more open and honest government as was promised in the red book than to turn this whole situation over to the courts.

[Child Poverty, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to the motion to recommit to eliminating child poverty in Canada by the year 2000.

What is poverty? The Oxford Dictionary definition is: Being poor, not having means to procure comforts or necessities of life, in deficiency, in want.

Distinction must be made between basic financial deficiency for which there may be economic solutions, and social deficiency where individuals are deficient in relation to others, emotionally or otherwise, and the deficiency is more than just simple finances.

Socially each individual may find themselves poor in some aspect of their life in relation to others, a situation which can never be helped. The purpose of government social programs is not to make people equal in every way.

There is however, potential for government to find solutions to long term financial hardship by reducing taxes, reducing debt and reducing spending. It must be clearly understood that there is a world of difference between poverty, which is a situation where the basic needs of life are not being met, and the situation in Canada where we have a portion of population living with low incomes relative to the majority.

These low income Canadians would be considered well off as an income group if compared to the citizens of most other countries in the world. However, because it is more common for us to compare ourselves to our neighbours to the south rather than to people in Brazil or Morocco, it is this comparison that forms the argument for the anti-poverty lobby in Canada.

There is at this time no existing fiscal definition of poverty. In Canada this is a general measure of low income that is widely misused by various advocacy groups as poverty line and it is called the low income cutoff of Statistics Canada.

Statistics Canada has publicly and consistently stated that the low income cutoff is not a measure of poverty. Based on the premise that any family with an income less than the low income cutoff is in poverty, the child poverty lobby has falsely concluded that over 1.2 million children, that is one in five, must be living in poverty.

Barbara Greene, the chairman of the House subcommittee on poverty in the 34th Parliament studying the issue, stated that the goal of eliminating child poverty is impossible to attain because the low income cutoff measure is a relative measure.

Because the low income cutoff is a relative measure we will never be able to eliminate poverty if it is defined this way because we will always have a similar percentage of Canadian families statistically described as low income.

As an example of how weak a substitute the term "poverty" is for low income consider that 18 per cent of the low income cutoff population owns their own home mortgage free.

There are some generalizations that can be made from studies done on low income earners. Low income can be attributed to youth, unemployed persons, recent immigrants, single parents and native communities. The first three groups, youth, unemployed and recent immigrants, will undoubtedly increase their average earnings over time as their employment opportunities improve with their skills and experience.

Single parents will clearly be helped by the reversal in family policy proposed by the Reform Party as family will be promoted through the tax system and the cycle of welfare dependency will be broken through the reform of social programs.

Native communities will benefit from Reform's commitment to abolishing the department of Indian affairs and a move to full participation in Canadian society.

I have described the confusion and have shown the distinction between real fiscal poverty and low income in Canada. Regardless of whether one accepts the premise that real poverty, meaning lack of food, clothing and shelter, is not a reality in Canada, we are debating the question of child poverty.

It is possible that some children have faced such desperate situations through no fault of their own, as a child is a dependent. As such, a child is not expected to have an income or provide for its own needs. Canadian law recognizes this fact and makes provision for this fact in the Criminal Code of Canada. Section 215 states that everyone is under a legal duty as a parent to provide necessities of life for a child under the age of 16. According to Canadian law failing to provide these necessities is not child poverty, but child abuse and neglect.

Child poverty advocates claim that they just want to help the hungry children but are there really 1.2 million hungry Canadian children as the advocates imply? Is there evidence of such a major crisis? Realistically there are children who are living in broken families and low income families but this does not mean that the basic physical needs of these children cannot or are not being met.

In Canada the generous welfare system already in place is more than sufficient for parents to meet the basic physical needs of their children regardless of employment or family status. The government can never meet all the needs of children. How could government ever provide love and affection? Government can, however, provide a non-intrusive economic climate in which families can grow and prosper.

Reformers believe that the state has no business attempting to raise the nation's children and that full responsibility for children must reside with their parent or legal guardian. The only time the state must intervene is in situations of clear neglect or abuse. Should parents find themselves in situations in which it is difficult for them to provide the necessities the responsibility to do so should remain with the parents. These parents may in these situations request help, first from relatives, but failing family support, private social service agencies and then as a last resort governmental agencies.

There may well be isolated cases of individual suffering on the part of some children due to neglect or abusive parents just as there are cases of child sexual abuse, infanticide and child pornography. This is of great concern to all Canadians. Reformers believe that the proper enforcement of existing law and the promotion of family values in society are the most effective ways to deal with this sort of tragedy.

Health researchers and others have correctly pointed out that statistically there are problems those in low income situations are more likely to have compared to those of higher incomes: problems such as greater school dropout rates, more domestic violence and higher health concerns. It is clear that these problems do not occur as a result of low income but as a result of family breakdown, illegitimacy, structural unemployment and a loosening of societal values.

However the child poverty lobby believes that low income itself is the problem. Low income or poverty, as they call it, is not a disease that people catch. It is a situation that is the result of other factors.

The child poverty lobby has proposed some solutions to the situation of low income earners. They want more day care, more welfare and more state intrusion in the lives of families. However studies by Dr. Doug Allen of Simon Fraser University show that 80 per cent of low income families do not collect welfare. Clearly for the large majority of low income families, more social programs are not the solution.

The Reform Party recognizes that low income is not the problem itself, but rather one symptom of a much deeper problem in our society. Broken families, divorce, illegitimacy and unemployment are many of the factors that lead to low income status. These problems have quickly increased during the past 30 years due to intrusive policies of Liberal and Progressive Conservative governments.

These are the tax policies that discriminate against stay-at-home parents or discriminate based on family type. These are welfare programs that provide disincentives for people to find work and that encourage and sustain illegitimacy. These are policies that fail to punish crime, especially youth crime, adequately and a massive debt that has led to structural unemployment in our economy.

What do we propose as the solution? We believe government must get out of the day care business. We believe in a tax policy that does not discriminate based on the type of family one has. We believe in a non-intrusive system of social programs that helps the truly needy. We believe in a tax policy that continues to recognize the costs associated with raising children. We believe in spending cuts in all areas to deal with the debt and the deficit. We believe long term tax relief must be achieved so that families may have more freedom to make their own choices.

Reformers are interested in promoting healthy Canadian families and in helping the truly needy. We do not believe more social programs are the solution to society's problems. We do believe in the promotion of the family as the best possible solution to the majority of Canada's social dysfunction.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, September 28th, 1994]

Not to cancel the deal with no regard for potential costs or the delay at Pearson airport, or due process. Let the record be straight, that was not what the Liberals were elected to office to do.

The decision was made to cancel a project of this magnitude on the basis of a hurried 30-day investigation. The decision was made to cancel a project of this magnitude, in 30 days, without any input from the people involved.

It smacks of a knee-jerk reaction to try to show a government in action, without due regard for the taxpayers of this country. They are the ones who are going to end up paying the bill that we are looking at here.

Unfortunately the solution to this problem has the potential to cost the taxpayers some hard-earned tax dollars that will further increase our deficit. And they are mostly wasted tax dollars because it will do nothing to improve Pearson.

I say mostly because I believe that by going through the courts and opening up this whole mess to the public, we will be doing something to restore some of the trust that has been lost between voters and all politicians. To me anything we can do to remove the cynicism that has developed between the voter and the politician is something at which we should seriously look. That is what we are talking about here.

A major part of the dilemma the government is facing in the debate is the "trust us" to do what is fair and reasonable behind closed doors. The message during the campaign, the message I was getting and I am sure many members were getting was that the trust that had once there had been lost and needed to be regained. We have to re-establish that trust. This bill does not do that.

Members may or may not agree with that, but the fact there were 205 new members elected to the House of Commons says to me very clearly that the voters were not happy with the old politics and wanted some changes in this place. There is no better way to achieve that goal than to open up this process to full disclosure. Let us review the facts that brought us to this point.

First of all, we have a deal that was negotiated by the previous Conservative government behind closed doors. It was signed during the election campaign in the full knowledge that it was going to be reviewed. It was not just a Conservative deal, it is a deal that involved friends on both sides, Liberals and Conservatives.

Second, we had a shady deal and now we have a shady review. Without questioning the abilities of Mr. Nixon who was asked to do the review, if we really believed in restoring the voters' trust and confidence in politicians, whoever was going to do this

review absolutely had to be non-partisan. It had to be done by somebody who was completely removed from involvement in the political arena. That was not the case here and that flawed review did nothing to restore the trust and confidence I am talking about.

Third, the review raises many questions about the process and puts into question the names and reputations of many people and firms. An implication is that perhaps the law has been broken.

In spite of this damning report this bill does nothing about giving those involved whose names and reputations have been put into question the opportunity to remove that cloud. Yet it does say that in spite of this secret and perhaps unlawful deal they will pay some compensation to these people. They are going to give them some money, but they are going to do it behind closed doors.

If this deal is only half as bad as the Nixon report suggested, not one penny of taxpayers' money should be approved for payout.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, September 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again to speak on Bill C-22.

Before I begin my main remarks I would like to correct a statement made earlier in the House today by the minister. I think the words the minister used were that the Liberals were elected to cancel this deal. I do not think that is quite accurate. I think they were elected to review the deal. That is what they were saying during the campaign, not to cancel the deal but to review it.

[Petitions, September 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is requesting the Government of Canada not to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include the phrase sexual orientation. The petitioners are concerned about including the phrase sexual orientation. Refusing to define the statement leaves the interpretation open to the courts, a very dangerous precedent to set.