Jason Kenney

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 13th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to rise to debate Bill C-37 at third reading. It is a matter of great concern to me and has been for some time.

I want to mention that the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands suggested during his remarks that the bill represented a carcass which is being dug up for the third time by a dog. He asked me to correct the record on his behalf and suggest that it was a herd of pigs which was digging up this carcass for the third time, or hogs as the case may be.

This is a serious matter and it rests with a very basic principle that ought to govern our affairs, the simple principle of fairness.

It is fairly well known in these environs that I have a long, outspoken record on this issue as former president of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. The hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough earlier suggested that in fact it was the reform party that was responsible for making issues, such as extraordinarily generous parliamentary perks and pensions, issues in the past. No. I think that citizens advocacy organizations, such as the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, can take the lion's share of the credit for having amplified public concern about the double standard to which parliamentarians here and in the provincial legislatures had begun to treat themselves through the 1980s.

Let us just revisit the history because we have heard various comments from various shrill members of the regional fringe party to my extreme left, the fifth party. We have heard all sorts of huing and crying this evening about the parliamentary pension plan. In that process, I have not heard a single word of contrition or humility from that party which was reduced to two seats, in large part because of the overstuffed attitude and arrogance of its former government, which was typified by its unrelenting defence of a then platinum-plated pension plan that provided pensions of $6.50 for every dollar provided by the parliamentarian.

Those members seemed to have remembered everything but to have learned nothing from their experience in government. One of the things they seem to have forgotten is that Canadians were disgusted with the party that refused to accept the simple principle of fairness. I have heard them stand in this place all night long and criticize this party and Canadians for wanting a fair pension plan that operates on a self-funding, dollar for dollar, actuarially sound basis.

The history of this is that before the early 1970s there was no pension remuneration for members of parliament. I hear some defenders of the status quo ante often say that if we do not provide super rich benefits far in addition to what one could expect in the private sector, that we will not be able to attract high calibre parliamentarians.

I think most Canadians would suspect that before the days of great largesse, in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, before the gold-plated pension plan was introduced, we had some pretty sound public servants working in this Chamber on behalf of Canadians. To suggest that these benefits, at the levels introduced in the 1980s, are necessary to attract talent, I think is rather specious. In fact, there seems to be a direct inverse relationship between the generosity of pension benefits and the quality of members of parliament.

It was in the early 1980s that the then Liberal government introduced a pension plan with a 5% accrual rate at its maximum generosity. It was shortly thereafter that we had nearly 200 Tory members of parliament in this place, supposedly attracted by that generous benefit, who decided to double the country's national debt, double federal spending, increase taxes 72 times and help bring about the longest and most painful recession in post-depression history. Boy, did we not get our money's worth by juicing up those benefits to attract those Tories to this place, benefits for which they still shamelessly apologize?

I am proud to say that members of the former Reform Party stood on principle in the lead-up to the 1993 election and thereafter by the principle of fairness when they said, as we do today in the Canadian Alliance, that members of parliament and public servants ought not to be given access to benefits, pensions or remuneration that is any more generous than what is available to ordinary working Canadians. That is a very simple principle. It ought not to be difficult to understand but it seems to be for the regional party on my extreme left.

I want to point out that what the Canadian Alliance policy stands for is to allow an independent commission to determine the compensation for members of parliament so that it removes us from this intolerable conflict in which we are placed every time a bill such as this is brought before the House of Commons.

In fact, we see that virtually every province has undergone a major overhaul of their compensation packages for MLAs, MPPs, MNAs and so forth. For instance, the provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, British Columbia, Ontario and, I believe, New Brunswick have all trashed their old, gold-plated, unfunded, actuarially unsound, taxpayer subsidized pension plans and replaced them with what our party has long advocated, which is a simple dollar for dollar, actuarially sound, money purchase style pension plan, the kind of plan available to all Canadians.

What does the current plan do that this legislation maintains? It creates and perpetuates a defined benefit pension plan that provides for benefits far in excess of what the MP contributions plus matching government contributions could possibly fund. It is a recipe for an unfunded, future liability, otherwise known as a taxpayer IOU, an IOU which will be picked up by future taxpayers. How does it do this? It does this because it has in it a 4% benefit accrual rate.

The members of the regional party on my left do not seem to understand how this pension operates. In fact, I heard the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough completely disingenuously and shamelessly suggest that the one time severance package brought in in the last legislation was somehow comparable to the generous benefits under the current pension plan before us this evening. That is totally facetious and completely inaccurate.

This is a 4% benefit accrual rate. What does that mean? That is a technical term, so let me explain it. The Income Tax Act of Canada has certain limits for what constitute registered pension plans. Registered pension plans are those to which contributions by employers and employees are tax deductible. There is a certain maximum that the Income Tax Act creates in terms of the generosity for registered pension plans. The maximum benefit accrual rate under the Income Tax Act is 2%. This is a 4% plan. In other words, the benefits are twice as rich as the income tax allows.

The Tories love it. We hear them rushing to the defence of that system. Fortunately, because of the efforts of my colleagues in this party and the Reform Party in the last parliament, the benefits were slightly modified from a 5% accrual rate to a 4% accrual rate and certain other peripheral changes occurred, such as an increase of the age of vesting to 55 and a certain restriction on the practice known as double dipping.

By and large, this plan is not an actuarially sound plan. It is a plan that is available to fewer than 2% of Canadians. In fact, it is so extraordinarily generous that the government in this legislation must actually go outside of the Income Tax Act to top up the contributions that are not tax deductible. This is essentially twice as generous as the average defined benefit plan available to Canadians in the private sector.

[Petitions, June 5th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise to present several petitions. The first petition contains some 50 signatures from residents of Windsor, Ontario and St. John's, Newfoundland. The petitioners pray that the government will appeal its recent amendments to the Canada-U.S. tax treaty which negatively affect social security recipients who are residents of Canada. It is an unfair tax grab on seniors.

I am also pleased to table four petitions with some 800 signatures from Canadians from five provinces. The petitioners call on the federal government to end the discrimination in the tax code against single income families with children and to correct the inequities in the federal tax code so that there is equitable treatment of all families with children.

I would also like to table two petitions, containing some 400 signatures, mainly from Albertans. The petitioners call on the federal government to reduce the tax burden on the Canadian economy and on Canadian families through a tax cut of at least 25% over the next three years.

[Human Resources Development, May 17th, 2000]

That is just great, Mr. Speaker. But what the minister does not tell us is the audit says that according to one network administrator, the main method of finding out about changes to an employee's network access “is at the employee's going away or promotion party”. Unfortunately not all network administrators are invited to these parties, particularly in larger offices.

Why is the government giving out access codes to confidential information for Canadians at bureaucrats' parties?

[Human Resources Development, May 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, once again we hear from the HRD minister all sorts of happy talk about the systematic compromise of Canadians' private information.

We have just received an access to information request from the department on an internal audit of HRD which says that because of a breakdown in its system it allows the user to compromise their system and/or engage in fraudulent activities.

This is what an internal audit in her own department shows. What assurance can she give Canadians that the system is going to protect confidentiality?

[Petitions, April 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise as well to table about 100 signatures from Alberta and Ontario objecting to Bill C-23, adding to the tens of thousands of others that have been tabled which ask that the government withdraw the legislation and protect the institution of marriage.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in debate on this bill at report stage. I regret the use of time allocation, closure and all of the usual heavy-handed, undemocratic tactics employed by the government, as this has been my first opportunity to attempt to articulate the overwhelming consensus of my constituents on this matter.

I believe it would be accurate to say that I have received more unsolicited constituent feedback on this issue than on any other issue in my time in this place. I find it very disturbing that the government has become so inured to using the hammer of the closure motion that members like myself have effectively been unable to substantially address this bill and our constituents' concerns.

The treatment of this bill by the government, the House leader and the cabinet reflects, more than perhaps anything else I have experienced in this place, the growing arrogance and abuse of parliamentary power by the government, which I honestly find disturbing.

I would like to say on behalf of my constituents that hundreds of working people have written to me, faxed me and e-mailed me, as their representative, opposing Bill C-23. Notwithstanding what members opposite say, these people are not bigots. They are not advocates of discrimination and intolerance. They are normal working Canadians. I know that members opposite have heard from like-minded constituents.

Perhaps the member for Parkdale—High Park regards as intolerant the members of her constituency who oppose the effective diminishment of the legal recognition of marriage. I do not. I think that her constituents and mine, who have serious heartfelt and conscientious objections to this legislation, are tolerant Canadians. They ought to be heard. If there is anyone intolerant, it is those who stand in this place to castigate Canadians who sincerely believe that there ought to be in law a preferential option given to marriage as the cradle of the family and the family as the cradle of human life.

I would like to register my serious dismay with the kind of inflammatory rhetoric employed by some members of the government and other opposition parties in characterizing as intolerant those Canadians who, in good conscience, object to this incredibly significant piece of legislation.

Why do Canadians raise those objections? They actually believe that the institution of marriage is central to any civilized and healthy society. I find it utterly remarkable that in the year 2000 members have to stand in parliament to articulate the reasons for which marriage ought to be given a preferential option in law. It truly is remarkable. It is a very basic natural fact that children are born and raised in the context of heterosexual relationships. Is that an intolerant statement? No, it is a statement of natural fact.

It may be that non-heterosexual couples would like to have that capacity, but nature has not so graced them. Every civilization throughout history has recognized that the procreative capacity, what the philosophers would call a radical capacity to procreate, is something that is of great importance and ought to be protected and promoted.

We can go back to the beginning of political philosophy and read Plato's musings about taking children from families, putting them in government run day care camps and trying to create the perfect human being. The effort to remove children from the cradle of the family has been the nightmarish vision of utopians throughout history. Civilized societies, societies which understand there is a basic ontological nature of the human person which dictates that children of human beings are best raised in a stable two-parent heterosexual family, know that special privileges, special legal protections and special legal obligations must be accorded to those who enter the very solemn legal and contractual obligation of marriage.

What Bill C-23 seeks to do is to take that very solemn legal privilege and obligation and turn it on its head, essentially saying that any two people who have the desire to live together in a conjugal relationship will, for all intents and purposes, be given precisely the same advantages, rights and privileges as married heterosexual couples without the attendant responsibilities. In fact, the Minister of Justice even admitted at committee that the only place where marriage is really an operative term in federal legislation, which would not apply to the same sex beneficiaries contemplated in Bill C-23, is in the Divorce Act.

What we are doing is taking these unique legal privileges, this preferential option for the family, and giving that to anyone, regardless of their capacity or lack thereof to procreate children and raise the next generation. In so doing, we are diminishing the distinctive legal, cultural and social value of the marital relationship, but we continue, and quite appropriately, to impose legal obligations on married couples through the Divorce Act, obligations which do not adhere to the same sex couples who will receive these marital benefits under the bill. It seems to me that this is a radical piece of legislation which undermines an institution central to any civilized society.

The Minister of Justice, under the enormous pressure of public opinion, even from her own caucus, decided that something had to be done to cloak this bill in the appearance of being somehow defensive of the institution of marriage, because, after all, due to the diligent work of my colleague from Calgary Centre, the House passed a motion on June 8 of last year declaring that the government should take “all necessary steps” to preserve the definition of marriage as “the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”. That shocking, intolerant, discriminatory motion passed by a vote of 216 to 55, with the entire federal cabinet voting in favour.

The Minister of Justice was required by political pressure, by all those millions of intolerant, bigoted Canadians that we keep hearing about from some members of the government, to do something to protect the institution of marriage. Therefore, she had her officials in the Department of Justice, which we all know is a haven of defence of the natural family, insert in the preamble to the bill some meaningless, rhetorical reference to the definition of marriage.

At committee it has been absolutely evident that the preambular definition of marriage included in this enormous, sweeping omnibus bill has effectively no meaning in law. It will not be used as a reference by the courts. It will not apply as a definition in the various statutes amended by this bill. It is a meaningless, token gesture that the Minister of Justice is giving to some of her backbenchers, who can then go back to their constituents and disingenuously claim that they stood in the House and voted for the traditional definition of marriage.

I put those members who intend to use that Trojan horse on notice that we will not allow them to mislead their constituents should they intend to do so at the next election. We will remind their constituents who stood in the House, took the responsibility and defended with their vote the basic institution of civil society, marriage, that little platoon of society to which Edmund Burke referred, upon which our culture depends.

I implore my colleagues opposite, do not let this be a whipped vote. Do not let it be a partisan vote. Let it be a vote of representation of our constituents, a vote that speaks for the value of marriage and family in our society. Do not be cowed by the voices of intolerance. Vote for the amendments to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

[National Revenue, April 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the revenue minister's spokesman, Michel Cléroux, says that there are exceptions in a few cases that allow them to communicate or release information. This contradicts what the minister has just said. He said that he was co-operating with the RCMP, but then he said that there are confidentiality restrictions.

What is it? Why will he not co-operate with the RCMP and allow it to have access to these files so we can get to the bottom of this?

[National Revenue, April 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday the government said it could not release documents to the RCMP about the Montreal animation company CINAR because of confidentiality laws. However, according to a spokesman for the revenue minister, the Customs and Revenue Agency has the discretionary power to waive this restriction.

I have a very simple question for the revenue minister. Will he allow the RCMP to obtain access to the CINAR documents?

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am not addressing grants for the severely disabled. I worked for organizations raising money for the severely disabled. I believe that the severely disabled, more than any other constituents in society, deserve our public support. They are the most vulnerable and, in most cases, do not have the capacity to find gainful employment.

However, that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the targeted wage subsidies and the transitional jobs fund that have been misadministered. I doubt very much that the huge increase in the number of approvals for the targeted wage subsidies in April 1997, one month before the federal writ was dropped, was done for reasons of compassion for the disabled. I rather suspect it was done for reasons of partisan necessity on the part of Liberal candidates.

I concur with the member that there ought to be programs to assist the disabled, but I do not think that has anything to do with the explosive numbers of so-called job creation grants announced concurrent with the federal election. Those are two entirely separate issues and we ought not to confuse them.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I concur with my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst in that our principal concern today is the misadministration of these programs. That is the focus of this motion, which is why we will be supporting it.

The member asked if I and my party oppose programs of this nature in principle. I believe, having studied the case experience of governments across the world, that a dollar left in the hands of an entrepreneur, an investor, a small business person or working family is more effective in creating wealth, jobs and a higher standard of living than a dollar transferred through the enormous federal bureaucracy and distributed through so-called job creation schemes.

I agree that there ought to be an effective program for job creation, particularly in economically disadvantaged regions. I think that the most effective program would be significant tax relief which would increase the incentives for people to invest, take risks, work and save.

Although we may have a philosophical difference with the member for Acadie—Bathurst on that point, we do have an agreement with respect to the need to review and completely overhaul the misadministration of programs, such as the one we are discussing today.