Leon Benoit

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks why Canadians should believe me now. The answer is that I am trustworthy. I make a point of speaking the truth. I would like the member to say so if he doubts that. That is my answer. I do not know what he was referring to beyond that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will only take a couple of minutes. I think we have had all the fun we can probably stand for one night. I should like to correct some misconceptions that have been said tonight.

The first one was corrected by my colleagues. I am referring to the allegation by the fifth party, the Conservative Party, that Reform MPs and now Canadian Alliance MPs have always been against an MP pension plan. That is just simply not the case. What we have been against is a pension plan that is unfair and is out of line with what Canadians expect from us.

The second one is that the bill is about the Canadian Alliance forcing the government into allowing Canadian Alliance members back into the pension plan. That is what one of the Conservative Party members said. That is so absurd we should think about it again. He said that the Canadian Alliance House leader somehow put pressure on the government House leader to bring in a pension bill to allow members of the Canadian Alliance party to get back into the pension.

If we are that powerful as the official opposition, imagine what we will do when we are in government a year from now. I would like to know why the Conservative members, the few who are left, are not rushing to join us given that kind of power. That was an interesting comment by the member from the Conservative Party.

The third thing is members of the Conservative Party have said that some kind of dealing went on which allowed the bill to go ahead with unanimous consent and that there would not be a debate or a vote.

Any member of the House can deny unanimous consent. There are still about 17 members in the Conservative Party. Where were they to deny unanimous consent? If they were doing their jobs, they would have denied unanimous consent. They went along with it too, because all that unanimous consent did was to allow the legislation to come to the House two days earlier than normal.

With full debate, we could debate it for the next 10 days if we chose to. That is what is allowed here. For the Conservative Party members to suggest that there was conniving which took place to allow this to go ahead and that they were tricked, I do not know what they are saying really. The fact is that any member of the Conservative Party could have denied unanimous consent to allow the bill to go ahead two days earlier than normal.

When the Canadian Alliance forms the government, we will change this plan. We will change it based on the recommendations of an independent commission. We supported the Blais commission recommendations. An independent commission is needed to set the pay and benefits of members of parliament. That is what will happen when we form the government, I believe a year from now. Because that has not been allowed to happen in this situation, I will vote against the bill at third reading, as I did at second reading.

There has been a lot said about the bill. I think we have had full debate on it. There is still a lot I could say about it but I think it has been said. I will leave my comments at that.

I agree with others who have said that our constituents will judge each one of us on this issue. I welcome that.

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

Madam Speaker, the member of the Conservative Party brought forward the issue of recall in a way that he seems to think is somewhat threatening to us.

I would ask the member for Prince Albert directly, if this government were to bring in a bill tomorrow on recall, would he support that bill?

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

Madam Speaker, tonight we have heard members of the Conservative Party talk about the two times the Reform Party reversed its position on issues. One was to do with Stornoway and the other one, according to them, dealt with taking a car for the leader of the party. They have dwelt on that and they have brought that up again and again yet in 1984 their party ran on balancing the budget and lowering taxes. I remember it well because I voted for them in 1984. They reversed their position on those issues.

Would the member lay it out before the people of Canada as to how important she sees the issues are of taking a car and living in Stornoway as compared to the issues that her party reversed their position on? That was the issue of balancing the budget. When they left they had a $42 billion deficit that year. They ran on reducing the debt, but they more than tripled the debt in their nine years in office. They ran on lowering taxes but they increased taxes more than 100 times in the nine years they were in office.

I would like the member to clearly lay out for the Canadian public how she sees the importance of the Stornoway and the car issues compared to the importance of the issues they reversed their positions on, which was the issue of running a $42 billion deficit, the issue of tripling the debt during their nine years in power, and the issue of raising taxes which they did over 100 times. Would she very clearly lay out how she feels the importance of these issues relate?

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

That is really classy, Elsie.

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

You should have had your House leader talk to you about that.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to answer the question. The question was regarding Reform Party policy. It says in the blue book:

The Reform Party supports the provision of pensions for MPs only if those pensions are no more generous than the private sector norms and meet all requirements for a registered plan under the Income Tax Act.

The member for Prince George—Peace River asked specifically for the member's comments on this Reform policy. The member sounded like he was opposing it. Could I get an answer on that, please?

[People Smuggling, June 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the new slave trade being carried out by people smuggling rings is a heinous and despicable crime. People are forced into lives of prostitution, into the drug trade and into sweatshops. It is critical that people smuggling is dealt with firmly and quickly.

Let us have a look at the government's record on this issue. Ten months after the first boat arrived less than 25% of the cases have been finalized. More than 50% of the 600 who came by boat are still in detention. More than 25% of the 600 have just disappeared. These 600 people are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to people who come to Canada with the aid of people smugglers.

The government has failed the victims of this new slave trade. What a blotch on Canadian history. The government has a lot to answer for when it comes to its inaction on the serious problem of people smuggling and the new slave trade.

[Motions For Papers, June 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that Motion No. P-30 be transferred for debate.

[Petitions, June 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present today from people from the Lakeland constituency regarding child pornography and the fact that the British Columbia Court of Appeal on June 30, 1999 refused to reinstate subsection 163.1(4) of the criminal code regarding child pornography.

The petitioners therefore request that parliament use, if necessary, the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to reinstate subsection 163.1(4) of the criminal code so that child pornography will not be legal in this country.