Dick Harris

[Division No. 33, December 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to group 6 and the motions that have been put forward regarding Bill C-2.

I think it is important to point out from the very beginning that it is no small surprise that we see so many motions that have been put forward to try and make something out of Bill C-2. In fact, the House will find that the number of motions is far above the average that we would normally see for a bill. The reason is that members opposite have seen so many flaws in Bill C-2 that we have had no option but to put forward a number of motions to try to make C-2, although it may be a sour pill to swallow, at least something that we do not choke on.

Group 6 has a number of motions to it. I will first deal with Motion No. 11.

This one being put forward by the fourth party basically wants to stop the government from having a golden lever that it can pull every time it needs more cash. We congratulate the fourth party on having the foresight, although we brought it up in committee. The fourth party made it into a motion.

I think it is very important that we do not let the government get away with having the option to raise contributions any time it simply wanted to. Therefore this motion would prevent that. We support Motion No. 11 put forward by the fourth party.

We also support Motion No. 13, which would basically take away the freezing of the year's basic exemption because, as members know, the Liberals snuck this one in and it could be used in fact as a form of taxation.

Without the ability to increase the YBE, as the cost of living went up, as inflation went up, the exemption on taxes that a Canadian would be able to have could not go up. Therefore they would find their disposable income shrinking even more than it has.

Let me point out that since these Liberals came to power in 1993, the average household disposable income has decreased by some $3,000 in this country. Who needs yet another mechanism to wrench disposable income dollars out of Canadians' pockets? The Liberals felt that they did but we certainly do not feel they should have that.

Motion No. 14 we oppose. This is confusing. The fourth party put forward Motion No. 13, which we support, preventing the freezing of the YBE. Yet its members only wanted to prevent it until the year 2006.

Life does go on in this country. It is bad enough that this bill has been put forward in the first place, where it is going to raise Canada pension premiums by an astounding, obscene 73% over the next few years. Members will find nowhere in this bill that that is all they are ever going to go up.

By supporting Motion No. 14 that would mean that the ability to not freeze the YBE would only continue to the year 2006. We cannot support that because the world is going to go on a lot longer than the year 2006. We will oppose that one.

One of the things that we have to touch on in this debate, and it deals with these motions, is that this band-aid approach to fixing the Canada pension plan, this quick fix that the Liberals put through, has no more merit than the manner in which the Liberals and the Tories before them have managed the Canada pension plan since the mid-1960s when it was introduced.

It has been badly managed. It does not even do justice to the lousy job that the Liberals and the Tories have done with the Canada pension plan. It is $600 billion in the hole in unfunded liability. To fix it, and this is not rocket science, they simply raise the premiums. That will fix everything.

By the way, they are going to build this fund and they are going to have some Liberal hacks running it unaccountable because there are clauses in here which, if they do not get changed, will make sure that the investment board of the Canada pension plan is not accountable to Parliament.

We are talking about over $100 billion in CPP funds. It is scary to think that the Liberals could have any type of influence over that kind of money. It is really scary to think that. The way they are going to fix it really has no more merit than the way they have managed it for the last 30-some years.

Let us not let the Tories off the hook. They stand up in this House so indignant about this bill. They slam the Liberals about how they have not presented. They had nine years to do something under the disaster of the Mulroney government from 1984 to 1993. Back when the unfunded liability was down around $400 billion or $375 billion the Tories could have done something. They could have taken the bull by the horns. They knew at that time that the CPP was broke or was headed for it.

At the very time the Canada pension plan was introduced in the mid-sixties, the Liberal government of the day knew it would not work because its own financial advisers told the government that. But that did not deter the Liberals at that time from pushing ahead with this plan that was doomed for failure. They pushed ahead, and now here we are 30-some years later, $560 billion in the hole in the CPP fund, and the Liberal answer to fixing it is to raise the premiums by 73% over the next few years. Let's get into the pockets of young Canadians who will be starting out in life to make their careers and raise their families. Let's just double their premiums and give them less when they want to retire.

I believe retirees now get about $12 for every dollar they put into the Canada pension plan. The Liberal government must hate that. Under its plan if someone in their twenties starts paying into this plan, by the time they retire the Liberals want to give them an astounding 57 cents for every dollar they contributed. The Liberals really hate a good deal. They must hate a good deal. They would be thrown in jail if they were to handle an investment like that in the private sector.

Now the Liberals see retired Canadians getting $12 for every $1 they put in, and that just is not Liberal philosophy. Canadians should not be getting fair treatment, so the Liberals will change the plan so Canadians get only 57 cents. Young people will be paying into that plan for 40 years.

I hope some of these motions get put into Bill C-2. If some of these motions were to pass the government would be brought to accountability kicking and screaming and we would be there pulling it. We will support some of the motions. We have some of our own that we hope some other members will support, members from the third, fourth and fifth parties.

I stand as a member of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in this House of Commons, this House of Parliament in the country of Canada, and I say let us not let the Liberal government get away with this odious piece of legislation. Let us fix it, as the Liberals and the Tories had a chance to—

[Privilege, November 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in regard to a leaked report of the Standing Committee on Finance. Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 877 states:

No act done at any committee should be divulged before it has been reported to the House. Upon this principle the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, on April 21, 1937, resolved “That the evidence taken by any select committee of this House and the documents presented to such committee and which have not been reported to the House, ought not to be published by any member of such committee or by any other person”. The publication of proceedings of committees conducted with closed doors or of reports of committees before they are available to Members will, however, constitute a breach of privilege.

Today in an article written by Rob Carrick of the Globe and Mail , a portion of the contents of the finance committee's pre-budget report was revealed. The first two paragraphs state:

The foreign content on RRSPs and registered pension funds should rise to 30 per cent from the current 20 per cent, the House of Commons finance committee says. The limit should be raised by two percentage points annually for five years, the committee says in a pre-budget report to Finance Minister Paul Martin that will be released Monday.

This morning at the finance committee members of the government admitted they had talked to the press concerning some issues in the matter of the work of the committee in preparing this report.

Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada on page 188 states:

A prima facie case of privilege in the parliamentary sense is one where the evidence on its face as outlined by the member is sufficiently strong for the House to be asked to send it to a committee to investigate whether the privileges of the House have been breached or a contempt has occurred and report to the House.

The evidence regarding this alleged leak of the pre-budget finance report is more than sufficiently strong. The article in the Globe and Mail would have us believe that the journalists either had access to the report or was told in detail of the report.

We are getting a little tired of the lack of respect this government gives this House and, in particular, those matters concerning finance and the Department of Finance.

Need I remind this House that only recently there was a complaint in this House concerning the government with respect to the setting up of the CPP board before the bill to authorize the board was passed by Parliament. The Speaker commented on this on November 6, 1997 on page 1006 of Hansard . He said:

This dismissive view of the legislative process, repeated often enough, makes a mockery of our parliamentary conventions and practices. That it is the Department of Finance that is complained of once again has not gone unnoticed.

Once again, it is the same group of people making a mockery of our parliamentary conventions. They view Parliament as a nuisance. They have little respect for Parliament and it is time we take them to task.

Mr. Speaker, if you rule this to be a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Canada Post, November 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian businesses are looking at this time of the month as their biggest accounts receivable time.

They have payrolls to meet and they cannot meet them. It is easy to see that minister never had to meet a payroll in his life. This strike is costing millions of dollars a day to Canadian businesses.

When is he going to do something? When is he going to recognize that this nation crippling strike is causing extreme havoc and it is his responsibility to fix it? When is he going to do it?

[Canada Post, November 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, ever since this postal strike began all we have been hearing from the minister is wait and see, let the process work.

Let us look at what that policy has done. It has got us seven months of failed bargaining. We have a nation-crippling postal strike on our hands. We have a Canada Post which refuses to budge on its offer. We now have a loose cannon postal president threatening civil disobedience.

This wait and see attitude is not working. When is he going to take his head out of the dead letter chute and see the problems this is causing?

[Supply, November 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I make no apologies to stand in this House and say that I am unable to speak French. I make no apology for that. I am a Canadian and I love this country. If anyone should apologize it should be this separatist member who sits there and refuses to acknowledge that Canadian flag, refuses to sing the national anthem of this country in this House and day after day preaches the breaking up of this country. If anyone should apologize it should be that separatist member there.

[Supply, November 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had been listening I pointed out that given the dismal failure of the Liberals and the Tories and the NDP who joined with them over the last 30 years in trying to bring this country together, and they have failed, they have lost the trust of Canadians and they have to start to earn that again.

That first step starts with involving the people of Canada in this process which they have never done in the past.

I would point out that during the failed Charlottetown accord the Liberal joined with the Tories and the NDP to try to sell that Charlottetown accord to the Canadian people, a process getting to that accord that did not involve the Canadian people. Sure, there was a dog and pony show going across the country with hand selected witnesses to give their input, but the average Canadian was left out and that is why they voted against the Charlottetown accord.

[Supply, November 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate on the resolution. We in the Chamber are talking about something that is a priority or should be a priority to the House of Commons, the unity of our country.

I listened to members of the Bloc, the separatists. I have listed to Liberal members. I have listened to members of the Tory party. One thing became very clear to me. There is a tremendous difference in the approach and the definition the Reform Party gives to the word unity and the approach and the definition the Tories, the Liberals and the separatists give to the word unity. For the three parties, the Tories, the Liberals and the separatists, the word unity is all about politics and political power.

The difference between them and us is that the word unity means bringing our country together, a united Canada, where the people of Canada have a say in the future of this country. It is not about politics. It is not about the Tory politics where under the regime of Brian Mulroney he brought separatists into his party simply for political power. It is not about the politics of the Bloc members who have, through their snake oil salesmen, convinced so many people in Quebec that there is some sort of a nirvana out there if they can form their own nation. It is not about the politics of the Liberal Party seeking to re-establish its political roots it lost in Quebec.

To us it is about unity and uniting this country, uniting the grassroots of this country into a belief that this country can be better strengthened by the unity of all peoples under one flag, one nation, one people. That is the difference.

I laugh at the suggestions of the Tory party. I laugh at the suggestions of the Bloc and the Liberal Party. Their arguments are just beyond belief because we know the agenda behind their arguments.

Unity should be the number one priority of this Parliament. We in the Reform Party do endorse the initiatives that have come out of the Calgary declaration. In particular, we endorse the philosophy and belief in that Calgary declaration process that the most important people and the most important factor in this whole unity debate is the input that comes from the ordinary Canadian citizens who love this country. That is one of the things that has been left out of this discussion for over 30 years. The Liberals have left it out and the Tories have left it out. They prefer to make their master plan for this country in the backrooms with their political strategists. That is what is wrong and why the Meech Lake accord failed and the Charlottetown accord failed. They never went to the people and consulted them.

That is the difference between what the Calgary declaration is attempting to do and the failed attempts of the Mulroney Tories and the failed attempts of the Liberals who joined together under the Charlottetown accord saying this was a great plan for our country. That is why it has failed. The NDP also supported that. It failed because they did not go to the people first and find out what the people thought.

There is an idea that this idea by the Reform Party of bringing the people of Canada into this debate is nonsense, this idea from the Tories, the Liberals and the Bloc. I shudder to think that if we left it up to the old line parties to come up with a master plan the people once more would not be invited to participate.

We are seeking to develop a plan that has some credibility and that can only be accomplished when we go to the people. The political parties that sat in this House in the past have no credibility when it comes to designing a unity plan. We have seen this over the last 30 years. They have failed. They prefer to carry on the family fight between Quebec Liberals and separatists and the Tories and the separatists for political power within the province of Quebec, seeing who can outdo each other, not caring one whit for the unity of this country but more for the political power they could get out of the appeasement policies.

The important thing about the Calgary declaration that we want to establish in this debate is that it was initiated outside of Ottawa. It was initiated by the premiers and the territorial leaders. It was a plan that would involve the people of Canada and bring them into this consensus gathering as to how we are going to get this country together. It is time for Canadians to show the politicians how Canada should work, not the politicians to tell the Canadian people how this unity thing should work.

I call on all Canadians in this debate, as we will today, to make their opinions known, to attend the unity meetings across the country. This is something the Tories did not allow under Brian Mulroney, something they did not allow under the Charlottetown accord and something the separatists would never even consider.

They would prefer to have their slick talking leaders carry on this dream of a wonderful nation that can survive and exist without the rest of Canada, which they know is a lie.

The Calgary declaration is not a done deal. It is merely a start of a process that can possibly lead to a solution to our unity crisis. Therefore there are important interests that we want to consider.

First of all, we want to consider the fundamental policy, the fundamental belief that all Canadians are equal. No one should have special status in this country. Why? This just creates problems. It has created problems for 30 years and we see it in the House today, as the Quebec Liberals and the separatists banter back and forth.

We see it as the Tories join in the conversation. They do not recognize equality in this country. While all province may be diverse in their characteristics, they should have equal status in this country.

We cannot have one province holding a position that is higher than the other provinces. I do not care which province they are talking about, whether it is my home province of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan or Quebec. No status that is not equal, it cannot happen.

Equality is the cornerstone of getting to this position of unity in this country. No one wants to live in a second class province. No Canadian should have rights that are not enjoyed by other Canadians and no equality simply increases regional resentment and national division.

Without equality we cannot have a collective, united feeling about our country. While the Tories, the Liberals and the separatists would prefer to talk about what is best on a regional type basis, the Reform Party wants to talk about equality where all regions in the country, all provinces and all people live together on an equal basis under that wonderful Canadian flag that adorns this House.

Equality also means an end to domineering federalism. We in the Reform Party have talked about devolution of powers, getting rid of this big central government which dictates to the provinces in areas where it should not even be involved.

Yes, we talk about passing powers down to the province of Quebec that it should handle itself. At the same time, we talk about passing those same powers down to the other provinces.

I cannot believe that the separatists here, when we are talking about the transfer of powers into areas the federal government should not be in, on to their province, would not be in favour of that. Yet they are not because it does not fit with the big lie that they have been telling the people of Quebec.

I would ask that all parliamentarians in this House forget about the politics they have been playing for the last 30 years. Forget about that and start thinking about what is best for this country.

The Liberal members opposite laugh when we talk about unity. It does not fit into their philosophy. They are more interested in politics, as I stated earlier. I ask the members to support this resolution and let us begin another step toward the unity of this country.

[Canada Pension Plan, November 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is wrong not once but twice in his response.

I will deal with the investment fund. The fact is that the legislation shows that the CPP Investment Board will hire its own private auditor for the board. The auditor general will not be involved in that audit.

I will ask the Minister of Finance again. If the auditor general says that he can do it and it would be more efficient and cost effective, why will the Minister of Finance not allow public scrutiny of the CPP Investment Board? What is he trying to hide?

[Canada Pension Plan, November 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the poor member for Calgary—Nose Hill never ever suggested a 25% increase. That is a fabrication by the Minister of Finance. In the same way, he is trying to fabricate a very private audit of the CPP investment board although the auditor general has said that his department should do that audit.

Why does the Minister of Finance not want the auditor general, Canada's auditor general, to be the watch dog over this huge CPP investment fund? What is he trying to hide?

[Scouting, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this morning the governor general and the chief scout of Canada conferred scouting's highest awards on 20 members of the scout family of Canada.

I know my colleagues on both sides of the House will join me in congratulating the recipients of these awards. As the member of Prince George—Bulkley Valley I want to pay special tribute to my constituent Tyler Douglas Edward Mauro, age 11, who was awarded the Jack Cornwell decoration.

This award is given to individuals who have undergone great suffering in a heroic manner. Well done, Tyler. You have shown great courage and determination in the face of physical challenges. You have truly lived up to the Scout promise and the Scout law.