Jim Abbott

[Supply, November 22nd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I note my colleague said in his address that over 400 days ago the Prime Minister had said he was going to make a change to the MPs pension plan. By way of comment I draw to the attention of the House that he cancelled a multibillion contract on helicopters just like that. He cancelled the Pearson airport deal which was in the hundreds of millions of dollars just like that.

I wonder if the member has any idea why in the world the Prime Minister would not have done something about the MPs pension plan when it is the number one item on the hit parade. The people in my constituency tell me and other members in my party tell me that when they get to their constituencies it is the number one issue that stands between them and their constituents in spite of the fact that our party is attempting to do something about it.

I find it absolutely amazing that there are only 52 members in this House of Commons who find that to be true. I wonder if that is possible.

[Petitions, October 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from members of my constituency wherein they say the majority of Canadians respect the sanctity of human life and human life at the preborn state is not protected in Canadian society. They pray that Parliament act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.

[Gun Control, October 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to registration the minister will know about project gun runner. Of the 17 guns purchased on the black market, only one came from a break-in. The rest were smuggled into Canada.

I have even heard it said that the minister said that 70 per cent of all criminal acts involving guns are committed with smuggled, illegal firearms.

I ask the minister again, why is he prepared to commit millions of dollars to a bogus registration program that would just harass law-abiding gun owners?

[Gun Control, October 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, underground dealers buy guns through street dealers in Detroit, bringing them back by the dozens every time they cross the border and then they sell them at immense profits at after hours clubs in Toronto.

On Monday this week the revenue minister assured this House that everything was under control; except the Hamilton Spectator says that 98 per cent of the guns that are seized are seized from unsuspecting U.S. citizens coming into Canada.

Why is the justice minister considering useless, ill conceived, unnecessary gun registration programs when guns continue to flow over the border?

[Bankruptcy Act, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is one that I really want to speak in favour of. As a business person prior to coming into this Chamber, I am very much aware of the fact that the success of any enterprise can only broaden on the basis of the input of the people who are working for that enterprise.

Very frequently in small enterprises we have the entrepreneur who goes to the wall in terms of his own personal finances, the entrepreneur who puts absolutely everything on the line and probably pours an inordinate number of hours into the work. Then the entrepreneur, his wife, his immediate family or relatives might get one or two more people working. At some point we have employees coming into this growing business.

I will make up a word picture to have a look at what is happening. The entrepreneur has $50,000, for the sake of discussion, that he can bring to the table. Perhaps he collapses some RRSPs or whatever the case may be. He decides he is going to go into the pizza business. He suddenly uncovers the fact that he is going to require at least $150,000 worth of equipment in order to just be in the basic pizza business. If he is going to actually get into a restaurant, the number is going to go way up from that point.

Where is he going to go and where is he going to get the money? Let us step aside for a second and talk about the large enterprise, not perhaps as large as General Motors, but a larger enterprise that might have 100 or 200 people working for it that is in business at the moment. It is not infrequent that at this particular point in time that entrepreneur who perhaps has been in business longer, where there are now millions of dollars actually invested in the firm, will still have his house tied down with the bank as security.

I say I want to speak in favour of this because I am sympathetic toward the motivation. After all is said and done, employees are simply an extension of the business owner, of the entrepreneur, of the corporate culture. When a business is reaching a point of downsizing and things are closing in, those employees can make the difference of whether that enterprise will work or not.

With this kind of protection they might be more inclined-after all we do have to look after ourselves in the business world-to give of themselves and be more sympathetic and actually make this enterprise continue to work. If they do not have any protection it is conceivable that either the larger or the smaller business could miss a pay day or two. We are looking at the pension side of things. It is entirely possible that by continuing to work the employee is actually working to his or her own personal detriment.

If we want to have them completely on side and in the back of their minds they are working to their own detriment, is it not better to have this legislation in place?

I repeat, I want to speak in favour of this bill, but I cannot. The reason why I will not speak in favour of this bill is because the biggest single problem, particularly for small business in Canada today, is working capital or equity or just the wherewithal to get the job done.

At the moment it is not infrequent that businesses are faced with a situation of triple or quadruple security. The first thing the bank is going to say is: "We want your inventory". If that happens to be men's socks or widgets, flanges, gaskets or car parts, it does not make any difference. The bank says: "We want security over your inventory". It will not apply any value. It will not actually give any value. It just wants it.

Second it says: "We want your accounts receivable". That makes sense because in business terms we have converted an asset to a negotiable security, as it were. This is an account payable. If it is 60 days or under it is a current asset. This is something that the bank by assignment can actually make use of. However it is not at all infrequent for the bank to say: "We are only going to give 75, 65, 50 per cent of the value of your 60 day's accounts receivable". This is the reality small business is faced with.

We come back to our little pizza shop owner. The bank will also say; "By the way, we also want to have some way of attaching a mortgage to your equipment". Everything is absolutely tied down.

I suggest to the hon. member who proposed this bill, and there is no question in my mind that it was proposed in good faith, that if he actually speaks to the small business people in his constituency he will find that everything is completely tied down. Can he imagine that the bank or the lending institution of the business person's choice is now going to be told: "Oh, for every employee that I get, I will be guaranteeing up to $9,000 for that employee that you will not be able to touch".

That will be first charge. You will not be able to get to your pizza oven. You will not be able to get to your metal press. You will not be able to get to anything until that $9,000 per employee is satisfied. I suggest to the member that we would be shutting down the ability of small and medium sized businesses to get the cash they require to do business on an ongoing basis.

I want to vote in favour of this. I understand the motivation of the member in proposing it. I want to support the employees because they deserve support. I want to support them because they are the lifeblood, the reason why a business is going to succeed. I want to vote in favour of it but I will not because without the ability to have access to adequate funding, in putting employees first the business will not exist and the employees will not even have a job to go to.

It is with regret that I must say I will be voting against the member's bill.

[Supply, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first off I think it would be very helpful if we had from the member some kind of a definition of double dipping. However, I absolutely outright reject his comment about the fact that the issue is double dipping.

The issue is not double dipping. The issue is the fact that there are 52 more people who are going to be coming to the trough and this is the barrier. This is the problem.

[Supply, October 25th, 1994]

Not so.

[Supply, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is always helpful at the beginning of a speech to bring us back to the starting point. I would like to re-read the motion of the member for St. Albert:

That this House requests the government to table a clear detailed plan to show how and when it intends to balance the budget including a clear statement of its vision of the role of the government in the economy in order for the people of Canada to debate the plan and vision.

I would like particularly to draw the attention of the members to the phrase, only seven words, "its vision of the role of the government". I have a vision of the role of the government, possibly in the same way that we have the role of management in any organization or the way a team works. We have leaders on a team.

I would like to suggest that we think back. I guess I am showing my age when I talk about Bobby Hull and Bobby Orr or people like that. We saw them as leaders and as showing leadership. When they were virtually physically disabled they were out on the ice. They were showing leadership. They were working at a deficit but they were showing leadership.

We heard a very interesting story from a member opposite. I apologize that I did not catch the name of the gentleman she was talking about in a member's statement this week. I believe it was the chairman of the board of Algoma Steel who has the personal opportunity to take $400,000 through a bonus system as chairman. He is entitled to have $400,000. He is turning it back. He is not taking the $400,000 because he recognizes that if he is going to show leadership, if Algoma Steel is going to go ahead, then he must exhibit selfless leadership.

I suggest that the vision of the role of government in my mind is that of showing leadership. I believe that every member of the House from the Prime Minister to the independent has a direct responsibility to show leadership.

How does this fit together with what we are presently undertaking under the direction of the Liberals? Take, for example, the human resources review committee that will be going out and around the countryside. Members of the committee will be discussing issues like unemployment insurance, welfare and how we are going to be helping our children with their university educations. They are going to be listening to witnesses from organizations like this who are very concerned.

I have in my hand a note from one of my constituents. In part it reads as follows: "Numerous Canadians have lost their jobs over the last year. In most circumstances those who are terminated, laid off or fired do not remain on payroll". Seems reasonable.

"Canadians assumed when they put their x in the box one year ago today, October 25, that those members who they booted out of the House would be off the payroll. Not so. Canadians will be delighted no doubt to learn that in the 365 days since they terminated their MPs the public purse has shelled out for their former MPs' pensions, travel expenses, retraining, moving and severance. Add it up.

I am confident that those Canadians who are lined up at the UI office awaiting their miserable little UI cheques for years of hard work in companies that have folded due to previous governments' mismanagement will be comforted in knowing that the members of the government who put them in that line-up are still on the public dole of another kind".

This is the kind of hostility there is among the Canadian people. I make no excuse for it. I simply report it.

If all members of the House are really forthcoming they will agree with me that they have been approached by people in their constituencies; in their constituency office or accosted on the street or in the supermarket with sentiments of exactly that same kind.

It is the number one issue in my constituency. I have spoken about the Young Offenders Act. I have spoken about the deficit and the debt. But number one on the hit parade is the MPs' pensions.

I find it quite amazing that the vast majority of the people in the House, with the turnover of over 200 members being here for the very first time, are supporting what is the number one impediment, the number one wall between members of Parliament and the public. The public sees this whole thing as being completely unfair.

The member for Yellowhead rose in the House and also sent out a press release just the other day and I read in part: "The Yellowhead MP laid into the Prime Minister and his Liberal government today for turning a blind eye to the fast approaching national trough day.

On November 21, 52 current members of Parliament will qualify to dip into the lucrative MP pension fund once they no longer occupy a seat in the House. These pension payouts are estimated to cost the Canadian taxpayers $53 million. Among the 52 MPs who will sidle up to the pension trough once they are out of office are-". I am sure the Speaker would prefer that I do not go ahead and name people like the leader of the Bloc.

It goes on: "`Canadians find it absolutely unacceptable that the Prime Minister says he is dedicated to spending cuts when he continues to allow this kind of taxpayers' abuse', the member said to a round of cheers from his Reform colleagues in the House".

I am rather curious. I absolutely believe it is a barrier between good government, in other words people believing in the members of Parliament, people believing in this place of power and authority in our country. If the number one impediment is simply the long awaited reforms that the Reform Party has been demanding about the MPs' pensions, why in the world would the Prime Minister not have come forward before this point, particularly in light of the fact that the National Citizens Coalition is going to be launching an MP trough day campaign. There are going to be billboards all over the place.

As the human resources committee goes around led by its chairman discussing issues like UI, welfare and how we are going to be funding university education, what kind of response is that chairman expecting when he sits in front of students who are going to be at an exceptional disadvantage perhaps as a result of the changes that are going to have to happen? What kind of response does the chairman expect from the public for his committee when he sits in front of people who are the disadvantaged and are presently on welfare when that member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso is going to be drawing $1.5 million by the time he is 75 years of age? I wonder how the university students will feel about that.

This is a critical, crucial issue to the entire vision of where the government should be going and how the government should be showing leadership. Therefore, I call on the Prime Minister and the members of his caucus tomorrow in caucus to demand of the Prime Minister that this issue once and for all be finally put to rest.

[Social Security Program, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the member will know that I have a question.

I was interested in the response to my question about universality from the colleague who just preceded him. She said, and I think I wrote it down correctly: "We have to target to those in need", which of course has been the position of the Reform Party all the way through.

One thing has been really instructive. It perhaps sounds like I am trying to redo the election of a year ago, but it seems that this position that we have to target to those in need has been coming forward from the Liberal members seems to be unique to the members of the Liberal Party who have been elected to this House. During the course of the election I did not hear that.

When I said we have to target to those in need, what I heard from our political adversaries, some of whom happen to belong to that party, was: "Oh, you are out to destroy the social programs. Oh my goodness, what is going to happen now? We believe in the sanctification of the concept of universality".

I would like to ask this member exactly the same question. Perhaps I could ask him if he too would like to reflect back approximately a year ago, 364 days I believe, the anniversary of the election being tomorrow. I wonder if during the course of the election we could find anywhere in any of his speeches or his public pronouncements where he got up on a soap box and said: "I, a Liberal candidate in this election, say we have to target our social programs to those in need" or if he was like some of the other people who I was in contest with who were saying: "No, no, we can't do that. It must be universality". Has this member changed his position from the election?

[Social Security Program, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member was in the House when I last asked this question about universality so she will know where I am coming from.

It must be said again and again that the Reform Party stands for ensuring that our country has the ability to be able to take care of those in our society who are most in need, the kind of people the member was just talking about.

However, with the greatest of respect to the other Liberal members who have responded to this question, I have yet to get what I consider to be a straight answer to the question.

Perhaps we could rephrase the question with respect to universality and say this. If we define universality as being programs that are not only available to all members of Canadian society, but that in fact just automatically come out to members of Canadian society, and if we recognize the problems, the difficulties that we have developed in Canada as a result of this process, and the fact that we are going to have to target to make sure that people who have the most need, whether it is old age security, health care, education, or whatever the process is, maybe we could define it and come down to something more precise.

Specifically, which programs would the member want to ensure remain under this universality blanket in its broadest sense? That way, rather than just a simple yes or no we can have a sense on where the member would see this going on the basis of the input that she has had from her constituents.