36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 12
CONTENTS
Tuesday, October 7, 1997
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1000
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WAYS AND MEANS
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Notice of Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FIREARMS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-236. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1005
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NEGOTIATION OF TERMS OF SEPARATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-237. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Darrel Stinson |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-238. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CONSUMER PACKAGING AND LABELLING ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-239. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DEBT SERVICING AND REDUCTION ACCOUNT ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-240. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
1010
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-241. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Health
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | National Unity
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Darrel Stinson |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Human Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Brent St. Denis |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1015
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
1020
1025
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1030
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1035
1040
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
1045
1050
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1055
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1100
1105
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1110
1115
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Iftody |
1120
1125
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1130
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
1135
1140
1145
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
1150
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Harvard |
1155
1200
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
1205
1210
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reg Alcock |
1215
1220
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
1225
1230
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
1235
1240
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
1245
1250
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jerry Pickard |
1255
1300
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1305
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1310
1315
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on motion deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-2. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jerry Pickard |
1320
1325
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
1330
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
1335
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1340
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Larry McCormick |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
1345
1350
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
1355
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REPORT OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HOMECOMING '98
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL FAMILY
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1400
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DENTURISTS
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOUNDATION FOR INNOVATION
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FIRE PREVENTION
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMUNITIES IN BLOOM
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe Jordan |
1405
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SMALL BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC '97
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PARISH OF SAINT-RÉMI DE LAC-AUX-SABLES
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réjean Lefebvre |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LAND MINES
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Paddy Torsney |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
1410
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ACADIAN ARTISTS
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC BY-ELECTIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Harvey |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANDU MOX
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
1415
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
1420
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1425
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
1430
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
1435
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AUDITOR GENERAL
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert D. Nault |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
1440
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert D. Nault |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AUDITOR GENERAL
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Odina Desrochers |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Odina Desrochers |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1445
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AIRPORTS
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INCOME TAXES
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH CARE
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1450
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Matthews |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Gilbert Normand |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Matthews |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert D. Nault |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH CARE
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Dromisky |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1455
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT SERVICES
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TOBACCO ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANSPORTATION
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1500
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FRANK MCKENNA
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1505
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVILEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Legislative Counsel
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roger Gallaway |
1510
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1515
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1520
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1525
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-2. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe Jordan |
1530
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
1535
1540
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1545
1550
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Larry McCormick |
1555
1600
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
1605
1610
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Susan Whelan |
1615
1620
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
1625
1630
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Brent St. Denis |
1635
1640
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
1645
1650
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Richardson |
1655
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
1700
1705
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment to the amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
1710
1715
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1720
1725
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charles Hubbard |
1730
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
1735
1740
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-2—Notice of Motion for Time Allocation
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Resumption of second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-2. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Cullen |
1745
1750
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1755
1800
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judi Longfield |
1805
1810
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1815
1820
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Hec Clouthier |
1825
1830
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Children
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
1835
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Post-Secondary Education
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
1840
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert D. Nault |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Foreign Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1845
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 12
![](/web/20061116193753im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, October 7, 1997
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1000
[English]
WAYS AND MEANS
NOTICE OF MOTION
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 83(1) I wish to table a notice of a ways and means
motion respecting the imposition of duties, of customs and other
taxes to provide relief against the imposition of certain duties
and taxes and to provide for other related matters.
At the same time, I would ask that an order of the day be
designated for consideration of a motion.
* * *
FIREARMS ACT
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-236, an act to repeal the Firearms Act
and to make certain amendments to the Criminal Code.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to table my private member's bill
to repeal the Firearms Act and to require that persons convicted
of using a firearm to commit a crime must serve five years in
prison; and that the sentence is increased to ten years if the
firearm is actually fired.
This bill is important because the Canadian people want a
serious crackdown on the unlawful use of firearms rather than
legislation which aims primarily at law-abiding gun owners.
1005
(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
NEGOTIATION OF TERMS OF SEPARATION ACT
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-237, an act to provide for a national
referendum to authorize the Government of Canada to negotiate
terms of separation with a province that has voted for separation
from Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table my private member's bill
entitled the negotiation of terms of separation act. This
legislation provides the principles to determine whether a
provincial vote to separate is valid and would require partition
of any provincial electoral areas not voting to leave Canada. It
would require a clear statement on a separation ballot of what a
yes vote truly means. If Parliament agreed that such a vote was
valid, then the Government of Canada would be required to hold a
binding national referendum to authorize it to negotiate terms of
separation.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-238, an act to establish principles of
responsible fiscal management and to require regular publication
of information by the Minister of Finance to demonstrate the
government's adherence to those principles.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce this bill.
It is quite lengthy and sets out requirements for the Minister of
Finance to state his intentions over the next few years to
forecast the finances of the country and to give reasons on a
yearly basis as to why he is not meeting his targets.
In addition, it requires the publishing at least three months
before the start of each fiscal year of a complete budget policy
statement using standard accounting practices so that all the
obligations of government are listed.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CONSUMER PACKAGING AND LABELLING ACT
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-239, an act to amend the Consumer Packaging and
Labelling Act (recombinant hormones).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is directed toward the ethical
and health components of new technology. Genetic engineering is
evident with bovine growth hormone. This bill would make certain
that those individuals who wish to have the choice to use or not
use milk produced in this way would have the product labelled.
The bill has larger implications in terms of genetic technology
in general. It will also look at labelling of other foods that
are genetically engineered.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
DEBT SERVICING AND REDUCTION ACCOUNT ACT
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-240, an act to amend the Debt Servicing and
Reduction Account Act (gifts to the crown).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill would put an end to a process
that has been taking place over the years. There has always been
a debt reduction and servicing account where people could make
gifts to the crown, supposedly to reduce the debt.
But the government has always had access to that account and
could play this sort of shell game where it pays off a bit of the
debt and then borrows the money back again.
1010
My bill would make sure that any money given specifically to the
crown to pay down the debt would have to stay in trust until such
time as there were surpluses, then it could be used to pay down
the debt.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
IMMIGRATION ACT
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-241, an act to amend the Immigration Act (right
of landing fee).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce my private
member's bill in the House today. This bill amends the
Immigration Act to prevent the assessment of the right of landing
fee on immigrants in addition to the application fee. This will
prevent economic discrimination against immigrants from low
income countries which may be caused by such fees.
Canada is a land of immigrants and the current right of landing
fee placed on people coming to Canada in addition to their
application fee is discriminatory and regressive.
This practice goes against our history and against our vision of
our country. Almost everyone can trace their roots back to
immigrants and even today immigrants continue to play an
important role in Canada's development.
This bill is a step in returning Canada back to its vision
regarding immigrants. This bill was introduced in the second
session of the 35th Parliament and I hope that members of the
House will seriously consider the bill's intent and purpose.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
HEALTH
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition from my
constituents who point out that they are opposed to the potential
legislation on dietary supplements that would significantly and
very negatively impact on the health and well-being of thousands
of Canadians, especially the elderly and the chronically ill.
NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I wish to table a petition from citizens across Canada who are
concerned about national unity.
They ask that Parliament confirm that Canada's boundaries can
only be resolved either by a free vote of all Canadians or
through amending the Constitution by means of the amending
formula.
This is one of the most critical issues facing our country and I
hope the government will give serious consideration to these
constructive suggestions.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present petitions today from hundreds of
people from the St. Joseph Island and Desbarats area of my
riding.
The petitioners are concerned with the court decision in Ontario
last year overturning a conviction of a women who went topless in
public. They ask that the federal government do something about
this matter.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I suggest
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1015
[English]
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
Bill C-4. On the order: Government Orders
September 25, 1997—The Minister responsible for the Canadian
Wheat Board—Second reading and reference to the Standing
Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food of Bill C-4, an act to
amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make consequential
amendments to other acts.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.)
moved:
That Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and
to make consequential amendments to other acts, be referred
forthwith to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to open the debate on the
proposed new law to change the Canadian Wheat Board, and to bring
about the biggest changes in western grain marketing in more than
half a century. At the outset I want to thank the government
House leader for ensuring that this new legislation, Bill C-4, is
before the House of Commons at a very early stage in this new
Parliament. It is getting prompt, priority attention which is
important to prairie farmers.
I noticed one urban news reporter complaining the other day that
Bill C-4 had “suddenly” been introduced in the House. It may
have escaped that reporter's attention that amendments to the
Canadian Wheat Board Act have been under consideration for more
than two years. The consultations and analyses have been both
exhaustive and exhausting, probably the most comprehensive in
history. The whole process has been thoroughly public and
transparent.
We promised to move quickly in this new Parliament to make the
Canadian Wheat Board more democratic, more accountable and more
flexible and to place more decision-making authority in the hands
of grain producers than ever before in history. Bill C-4 fulfils
that undertaking.
The Canadian Wheat Board is a $6 billion enterprise doing
business in 70 countries worldwide. It ranks among the top 10
Canadian exporters. It is the country's biggest single earner of
foreign exchange. Once Bill C-4 is enacted, farmers will be in
the driver's seat like never before.
Throughout its history the Canadian Wheat Board has been
governed by a small group of up to five commissioners, all
appointed by the Government of Canada without any requirement
that anybody be consulted and legally responsible only to the
Government of Canada. But in today's dynamic and changing
marketplace, producers have made it clear that they want the
Canadian Wheat Board to be more accountable to them. They want
more control, and that is what Bill C-4 will provide.
Under the new law for the first time in history, the CWB will be
run by a duly constituted board of directors. There will be 15
directors in total and two-thirds of them, 10 directors, will be
elected directly by prairie farmers. That is a solid controlling
majority. If Parliament is able to deal with this bill promptly,
the elections to select these new directors can be held before
another crop is planted.
The law will provide that all of the powers of the Canadian
Wheat Board are vested in the hands of its directors. Because
two-thirds of them will be elected, they will be directly
accountable through the democratic process for how they manage
the CWB's multibillion dollar business.
In addition to their general power to run all the affairs of the
CWB and in response to specific recommendations from farmers, the
directors will have the explicit authority to choose their own
chairperson, to set the salaries of the directors, the
chairperson and the president, to conduct regular performance
appraisals on the president and to recommend his or her dismissal
if thought necessary.
Contrary to erroneous assertions of some of the wheat board's
more strident critics, like that gaggle of political drifters who
make up the so-called Saskatchewan Party in my home province,
neither the CWB nor the government will retain any power to fire
any elected director.
To ensure that farmers are well served, the directors will be
entitled to full disclosure of all facts and figures about CWB
operations, including but not limited to audited financial
statements. They will be able to examine the prices at which
grain is sold, the price premiums achieved, all operating costs
and whether the CWB is truly efficient.
Through its elected directors the CWB will gain the benefit of
the practical expertise of real producers. If they are not
satisfied with how the CWB deals with farmers or its sales
strategy or the way it does business, they will have the
authority to change things as they see fit democratically.
One group that has been particularly outrageous in its attacks
on the Canadian Wheat Board is the National Citizens' Coalition,
a funny bunch that would not know a bushel of barley from a
handful of rice.
It alleges, wrongly, that this new legislation would give the
directors and the officers of the CWB free rein to ignore and
break the law. That is patently false. If you have any doubt,
just read the bill.
1020
The directors and officers of the CWB will be under an explicit
obligation to act honestly and in good faith, exercising all
reasonable care, diligence and skill. If they fail in that duty
they will expose themselves to legal liability. They will carry
a very heavy fiduciary responsibility.
The provisions in Bill C-4 on this point are virtually identical
to provisions that appear in the Canada Business Corporations Act
which applies to all federally incorporated private sector
companies in the country.
Despite the structural changes in governance and accountability,
the Government of Canada will continue to provide the Canadian
Wheat Board with very substantial financial guarantees, covering
not only the initial payment set at the beginning of each pooling
period and the CWB's credit sales program, but also all of its
general business borrowings.
Since the CWB is a multibillion dollar enterprise, the amounts
outstanding under these guarantees are often very large.
Historically, because of the wheat board's strong performance,
the federal guarantees have been called on in only rare and
isolated circumstances, but the Government of Canada is on the
hook if something suddenly goes wrong.
For this reason the government will continue to have a window on
Canadian Wheat Board affairs, in addition to that line of
accountability directly to western farmers.
Such a window is also necessary because any Canadian exporter of
wheat or barley, whether on the prairies or elsewhere, requires a
Canadian Wheat Board export permit. Consequently, the government
will select a minority of the CWB's directors, five in total,
including the president.
Please note that under the new law the choice of president
requires consultation in advance with the other directors. The
directors as a whole will have the right to set the president's
salary, to appraise the president's performance and to recommend
dismissal if necessary. Farmers will always hold a two to one
majority among the directors over all.
To enhance the Canadian Wheat Board's flexibility, to give
farmers more choice in how they are paid for their grain and to
speed up cash flows to producers, Bill C-4 will enable the
Canadian Wheat Board to make cash purchases of wheat and/or
barley, increase initial payments quickly whenever market
conditions warrant, close and pay out pool accounts at any time,
provide an early pool cash-out option, fully use modern risk
management tools, issue negotiable producer certificates, offset
storage costs, facilitate deliveries to condo storage systems and
receive grain through on-farm mobile elevators.
This new law will also empower producers to determine
democratically what is and what is not under the Canadian Wheat
Board's marketing jurisdiction. If farmers want to exclude some
type of grain, in whole or in part, from the Canadian Wheat
Board's current single desk system, that can be done, subject to
three clear conditions. First, the CWB's directors must recommend
it. Second, the Canadian Grain Commission must approve an
identity preservation system to protect quality standards. Third,
if the proposed exclusion is significant there must be a vote
among producers to approve it.
Conversely, if farmers want to include rye or flax or canola
within the Canadian Wheat Board's mandate, that too can be done,
again subject to three very clear conditions. First, the farm
organization which represents the producers of that commodity
must make a formal written request for the inclusion. Second,
the CWB's directors must recommend it. Third, there must be a
vote among farmers to approve it.
These provisions are balanced and fair both ways, for either
exclusions or inclusions, and in either case the authority is
vested where it belongs, not in politicians but in the hands of
farmers themselves.
Virtually every marketing innovation which farmers have debated
over the past several years will be possible under this new law.
In a nutshell, that is what Bill C-4 is all about, empowering
producers, enshrining democratic authority which has never
existed before, providing new accountability, new flexibility and
responsiveness, and positioning farmers to shape the kind of
wheat board they want for the future.
1025
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-4,
an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and other acts. In
doing so I have two purposes.
The first is to draw the attention of hon. members, in
particular members from urban ridings, to the importance of
agricultural reform. Second, to express my disappointment that
the bill before us is such a pale and timid imitation of what is
required to prepare the Canadian Wheat Board and to equip
Canadian grain growers to succeed in the 21st century.
There was a time when a majority of the members of the House had
rural and agricultural backgrounds. That is now not the case.
There was a time when at least two or three of the leaders in the
House would have come from farm backgrounds. That is now not the
case. In fact, of the five party leaders in the House, I am the
only one that actually grew up on a farm. I trust hon. members
will forgive me if I engage for a moment in a little nostalgia
before turning to the subject matter of the bill.
My grandfather on my father's side homesteaded in Saskatchewan
at the turn of the century. He broke prairie sod with oxen south
of Rosetown, Saskatchewan. With his three sons he went through
the technological transformation of the agricultural industry,
from ploughing with oxen, to ploughing with horses, to the old
days of steam machines, to the days of gasoline and diesel
tractors. He also went through the economic and political
transformation of the agricultural economy, from the homesteading
days of unregulated markets through the period of exploitation by
the railways and the grain companies, to the agricultural reform
period of the twenties and the thirties. That established the
pools, ultimately resulting in the creation of the Canadian Wheat
Board and the foundations of the current grain handling,
production and marketing systems.
My father entered politics in Alberta during the depression.
Throughout the years that he was a cabinet minister and the
premier of Alberta we operated a dairy farm east of the city of
Edmonton. We operated a farm that milked about 70 cows. We went
through the evolution of supply management and the transformation
from hand milking to mechanical milking, from stanchion barns to
loafing barns with milking parlours, all the time subject to the
cost-price squeeze that has become characteristic of trying to
operate a family farm.
I recount this to say that almost all of us, no matter what we
now do, if we go back far enough, will find family roots in the
agriculture industry. I am also reminded that no matter how far
away we may now be from the farm, if we are still in the habit of
eating three times a day, we have a vested interest in the state
of agriculture and in agricultural reform.
Therefore, I hope that when bills like this are brought before
us and when agriculture questions are asked in the House, members
from urban ridings, like me, will not simply turn glassy eyed and
ignore what is being proposed or what is said. I trust that we
will continue to give agriculture and members from predominantly
rural communities the attention that their traditions, industries
and concerns deserve in this country.
I would like to turn to the subject of the reform of the
Canadian Wheat Board. No federal political party holds more
grassroots, public political meetings in the west than Reform,
meetings at which this subject has been discussed at length for
years. If I can briefly survey what we have found over the last
number of years it can be summed up in three positions.
First, there are those who would abolish the wheat board. There
are those who favour doing away completely with the Canadian
Wheat Board. They point out that the whole world is moving
toward a more market driven free trade in the agricultural and
food product sector. They maintain that the trend cannot be
arrested nor should it be arrested and that in that environment
the Canadian Wheat Board is a monopolistic anachronism. This is
not the position of the Reform Party but we are aware that that
position exists among some producers.
Second, there are those who want to keep the Canadian Wheat
Board essentially as it is or as it was. Many of these are older
producers who remember the exploitation of farmers by the grain
companies and the railways in the early days of the west. Many
of these are producers who are uncomfortable in having to deal
with the complex and ever-changing market forces of the
international grain trade.
They believe the future prosperity of the grain farmer lies in
the direction of following marketing principles that have served
well in the past.
1030
It is not the position of the official opposition that the
Canadian Wheat Board should remain as it is or as it was. We are
convinced that many of the old marketing principles, however
valid they might have been in the past, are no longer a reliable
guide to capturing the markets of the future.
There is a third option and this is the option favoured by the
official opposition and by an increasing number of producers.
That option is to fundamentally reform the Canadian Wheat Board
to make it more market sensitive and more accountable: more
sensitive to a freer, more diverse, more competitive market and
trading environment, and more accountable not to the government
and the minister but to the consumers and producers it is
intended to serve. This is the position of the Reform Party and
the opposition.
When we look at the bill we see a feeble attempt to appear to be
reforming the Canadian Wheat Board without any real or
substantive changes required to make real reform a reality. Only
a government and a minister hopelessly committed to the status
quo would regard the tinkering in the bill as substantive change,
to use the words of the minister. The minister tries to make a
silk purse out of a sow's ear, a feat beyond the competence of
this minister.
My colleague, the member for Prince George—Peace River, and
other Reform members, will discuss the defects of the bill in
detail and will present some real reform alternatives. The
bottom line of our analysis is that Bill C-4 fails to improve the
market sensitivity of the Canadian Wheat Board and fails to
substantially improve the marketing options open to producers.
The bottom line of our analysis is that it fails to
significantly improve the accountability of Canadian Wheat Board
producers in the manner that is being demanded by producers and
required for the 21st century.
Because of the importance of grain marketing to Canada,
especially in the west, I urge all members to give the bill the
attention it deserves and to take counsel from the members among
us speaking particularly from rural and agricultural ridings.
For the foregoing reasons which will be expanded by my
colleagues, I urge members to defeat the bill, to send it back to
the minister and the department, and to demand a real Canadian
Wheat Board reform act suitable for preparing the board and the
producers it serves to cope with the demands of the 21st century.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to speak this morning on Bill C-4, formerly C-72.
Thanks to the lack of foresight by the government during the 35th
Parliament, we have to partially repeat the work the hon. members
had done in this House on Bill C-72.
First of all, it must be made perfectly clear that the
Canadian Wheat Board we are today trying to modernize, to update
for the year 2000 and beyond, affects the grain producers of Quebec
only very slightly. In reality, the Canadian Wheat Board is
important in four provinces: Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and
part of British Columbia.
Unlike the Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois will vote in
favour of Bill C-4, because we find it a reasonable attempt to
modernize the Canadian Wheat Board, its board of directors in
particular.
Thanks to the contributions by the Bloc Quebecois members
sitting on the Agriculture and Agri-Food Committee, we have managed
to get the number of directors elected by the grain producers
themselves raised to 10. Before that, the good old federal
government, with all of its great foresight, and particularly with
its great generosity, was the one making the appointments.
Obviously, we always tried to select the best, but the best is
usually an acquaintance or a friend, someone who has done us a
favour in the past.
1035
For example, the government has just appointed Mr. Justice
Michel Bastarache, a colleague of the Prime Minister, the former
chairman of the yes committee in the 1992 referendum on the
Charlottetown accord and a great friend of this country's
federalists. Our fine Prime Minister, the member for
Saint-Maurice, propelled this judge into a seat on the supreme
court and it will be this judge who decides on Quebec's right to
sovereignty.
In the riding next to mine, the very beautiful riding of
Beauce, the member, Gilles Bernier, was an independent. In order
to free this riding for a Liberal member, Mr. Bernier was also
given an appointment. Although he had no previous experience, the
government appointed him ambassador to Haiti.
When I was relatively young, the Trudeau government appointed
the Créditiste member for the riding of Richmond—Arthabaska, my
friend Lionel beaudoin, to the Canadian Wheat Board. A byelection
was then called, and Alain Tardif was elected, and sat in the House
until 1984, when the Conservative Party arrived in force. Funnily
enough, he too was appointed a judge, but with the tax court.
You can see how it works. Where is the usual process for
appointing people to the important jobs?
From now on, only five members of the board of directors of
the Canadian Wheat Board will be appointed by the Governor General
in Council, the ten others will be elected democratically by the
grain growers as a whole. The majority of the board of directors
will be elected—a significant change—and under the control of
the producers themselves.
Four appointments will be made by the Governor General in
Council, that is friends once more. They will not be members of
the Reform Party, but certainly friends of the Liberal régime will
be sitting on the board.
An hon. member: Fundraisers.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Fundraisers perhaps, as we saw in Quebec in
March and in previous months.
A major difference—and I want to say a word about it—concerns
the appointment of the president. The governor in council will have to
consult the 14 other directors already sitting on the board in order to
appoint number 15, who will become the president.
We in the agriculture committee managed, thanks—and I say it in
all humility—to my intervention and also to the support of my friend
and colleague, the hon. member for Malpeque, to include in the bill a
provision whereby the remuneration is fixed by resolution of the board.
So, if a nitwit is appointed, board directors will have the power
to decide that this person's salary will be one dollar per year.
This way, the nitwit will not hang around for too long and will quickly
give up his position. The board of directors will also have the power to
include or exclude certain grain categories.
1040
Let us take the case of canola, for example. Canola is currently
not covered by the Canadian Wheat Board. Of course, should canola
producers wish to join the Canadian Wheat Board, three very specific
rules will apply. However, the most important decision, the biggest
hurdle, will be to obtain a mandate from registered canola producers. A
vote will be held, but it will not be by show of hands, since some
people can then move quickly and vote two or three times. There will
only be one vote per producer.
If a majority vote yes and the other two conditions, which I will
deal with later, are met, then all canola growers will have to join the
Canadian Wheat Board.
That is not what some members of the official opposition were
hoping for, which is for producers to join the Canadian Wheat Board one
year because it suits them, and leave the next year, because they were
able to sell their grain on their own. In other words, producers will
not be allowed to join the commission when prices are down and then to
opt out when prices go up. Either you're in or you're out. Either all
producers join the Canadian Wheat Board or they're out.
In closing, I would like, of course, to congratulate the new
Minister of Agriculture on his appointment. For once, the Prime Minister
brought in someone who knows agriculture well.
I find it unfortunate however that the responsibility for the Canadian
Wheat Board was given to another minister, who no longer heads the
Department of Agriculture. Like all members of this House, I think this
is most unfortunate. Even among government members there is discontent.
What is the rationale? When the current minister was agriculture
minister, he was naturally put in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Like the Canadian Dairy Commission, the wheat board falls under
Agriculture Canada, not under External Affairs or Justice. This decision
is fraught with consequences the Prime Minister will have to live with
for years to come.
To conclude, members of the Bloc Quebecois will support this
government initiative, which they believe is a step forward. It may be
a small step, but a step in the right direction nonetheless in
modernizing the Canadian Wheat Board.
[English]
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased today to be able to speak to Bill C-4, the amendments to
the Canadian Wheat Board.
I am proud to serve the area of Palliser. It is an area of
Saskatchewan that includes all of Moose Jaw, a portion of Regina
and a good swath of farming country that surrounds those two fine
cities.
The constituency of Palliser is named in honour of a former
British army captain, Captain John Palliser, who was sent out 140
years ago in 1857 on an expedition to southern Saskatchewan to
see whether the climate was hospitable for agriculture. Captain
Palliser became famous, or perhaps infamous, for saying that the
region was “unfit for human abode”.
Captain Palliser was wrong. There have been developments in
agricultural technology that he could not possibly have foreseen.
The Regina plains he found so inhospitable that many years ago
have now become one of the best grain growing regions in the
world.
The climate can be as harsh as he described it, but people in
Palliser and throughout the prairies have used the tools of
community and co-operation to overcome the obstacles of climate
and distance.
The Canadian Wheat Board is one of those tools of co-operation.
It has served western farmers well since 1935 and they made it
clear in the barley plebiscite last February that they want to
keep the Canadian Wheat Board as a single desk seller for their
grain.
1045
The minister in charge of the wheat board introduced amendments
to the act in December of last year. Those amendments were sent
quickly to the agriculture committee. In fact our caucus at that
time in the 35th Parliament believed that the reference to
committee was too hasty. We did not understand the minister's
great hurry and we thought there should have been more
opportunity for debate in the House prior to the referral. Len
Taylor, our former agriculture critic from The
Battlefords—Meadow Lake, made known his and our party's
unhappiness with the government's procedure at that time.
I note that in Bill C-4 the minister is once again making the
same speedy reference to committee and again we are concerned
about that. We feel that members of the House would have valuable
contributions to make in the debate prior to the legislation
being referred to committee. We do not understand the minister's
undue haste.
In any event, today the wheat board legislation is back before
the House as Bill C-4. Our caucus has looked carefully at the
bill and we are pleased to see that it makes some important
concessions based on amendments proposed by the agriculture
committee that I referred to earlier. I want to review the most
important of those changes and to indicate where our caucus can
support them and where we feel further amendments are required.
Most important, Bill C-4 contains an inclusion clause. That
means that grains can now be added or included as opposed to what
was in Bill C-72 when they could only be deleted or excluded.
This is a major change and a concession on the minister's behalf.
It was the wise course to take and the right thing to have done.
We do however have some concerns about how the process to
achieve the inclusion of a new grain would be triggered. It is
not clear to us which farm organizations would have the right to
ask for such an inclusion. I flag this for the minister to
suggest that we do have questions and that we may have
suggestions to offer.
Second there are also some welcomed changes in governance. Bill
C-4 stipulates as the minister said that 10 of the 15 members of
the board of directors are to be elected by farmers with the
minister naming the remaining five. The directors will now
choose their own chair rather than leave that power with the
minister. These are improvements over Bill C-72 but we do not
believe that they go far enough yet. We have no problem with the
government naming some members to the board of directors.
The government will continue after all to guarantee the wheat
board's initial price on grain purchased from farmers. Our
caucus insisted that the government continue these financial
guarantees and we are pleased that they have been maintained. If
the government is going to have considerable financial exposure,
then it is only reasonable that it have some window into the
board's operations.
However under Bill C-4 the minister maintains the authority to
choose the president of the board of directors, a person who will
double as the wheat board's chief executive officer. Our caucus
opposes this. We believe this gives the government too much
control over a board of directors that should really be
accountable ultimately to the farmers and it gives the government
too much control over the day to day operations of the wheat
board itself.
In contrast to the proposal, we believe that the board of
directors should have the authority to choose the president and
chief executive officer and we urge the minister to make this
amendment. We believe that the federal government will have
enough influence by its appointment of one-third of the 15
members of the board of directors.
There are those who insist that the government should have no
participation on the board of directors. Too often these are the
same people who would like to sever all connections before the
government and the board. This is a cynical exercise using the
rhetoric of democracy as a tool to do away with the wheat board
itself.
We believe that the minister has addressed an important issue on
the inclusion of grains and has made some improvements on the
issue of governance. However there is a third area of concern to
us in which the minister has made no concession and that is in
the area of cash purchases of grain.
For decades the Canadian Wheat Board has earned the confidence
of farmers because they knew that they would all be treated
equitably in the purchase of their grain. The board bought grain
from farmers at similar prices and under similar conditions. This
practice known as price pooling has been the bedrock on which the
Canadian Wheat Board was built.
Both Bill C-72 and now Bill C-4 the son of C-72, would give the
board the ability to buy grains from anyone, anywhere at any
time. This in effect undermines the principle of price pooling.
We believe that it would also undermine the farmers' confidence
in the board and thereby diminish the board's credibility and
effectiveness.
The minister argues that these arrangements would allow the
board to adapt more quickly to market developments especially
when the board needs a certain grain quickly and supplies are not
immediately forthcoming. While there is logic in this reasoning,
we fear that the board could in the search for short term
flexibility undermine its longer term credibility with farmers.
At the very least we would want the legislation to be quite
specific as to when the board could resort to cash buying.
1050
We in this caucus believe that it is time to end the uncertainty
which has surrounded the Canadian Wheat Board. This uncertainty
has been foisted onto the board and onto western farmers by the
actions of some of our trading competitors, but what is even more
damaging are the activities of that vocal minority of farmers who
would do away with the board altogether.
Although the Leader of the Opposition did not refer to what his
party is going to propose, undoubtedly it will be a form of dual
marketing. We suggest that dual marketing is no more a solution
in the agricultural area than two tier health care is in the
medicare field.
Despite our lingering concerns about this government's longer
term trade agenda, we believe it is best to get on with Bill C-4.
This bill makes some important concessions and improvements from
its previous incarnation based on amendments proposed by the
agriculture committee in the last Parliament. Our caucus
supports Bill C-4 in principle but we reserve the option of
making further amendments to this legislation in committee.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
is the first time I have had the opportunity to speak in the
House for an extended period of time so I would like to
congratulate you and the other members of the Speaker's chair. I
sit beside you and we have a good working relationship. I expect
that will continue.
I would also like to thank the electorate of Brandon—Souris for
putting me in this wonderful position in the House and for being
able to speak today on Bill C-4 on their behalf.
I would like to begin debate on the bill which is now before us
with the prophetic words of one hon. member of Parliament. He
was a member of the Progressive Conservative Party and
represented my riding over 40 years ago. He was the Hon. Walter
Dinsdale. His words on the subject matter outlined in Bill C-4
are very relevant for someone who spoke on the issue 40 years
ago:
Wheat is still the economic lodestar of the prairies—. Wheat
made possible the building of Canada's first transcontinental
railway, and I sometimes think the construction of the CPR was
the last major effort on the part of this dominion government
relative to the prairies.
It was also the rapid development of our wheat economy that made
possible the great waves of immigration in the early years of
this century and opened up that part of Canada to popular
settlement.
Important as the wheat trade undoubtedly is, it nevertheless
leaves our prairie economy in a particularly vulnerable position
because it means that we are tied to a one-product economy. When
disturbances inevitably occur in world economy and are reflected
in our internal economy, it is the agricultural industry that is
the first to suffer.
In this regard I would like to add, Mr. Speaker, that the wheat
board has been particularly effective in smoothing out extreme
swings in the economic cycle. The only difficulty with the wheat
board is that it has tended to become used as an instrument of
political manipulation, and wheat policies have been adapted to
the welfare of the party in power.
I would add, though, that marketing boards do not necessarily
increase the price to the producer. They merely iron out some of
the wilder fluctuations. In the final analysis it is demand that
determines price.
It is ironic reciting these words on an issue which was brought
to the attention of the then Liberal government over 40 years ago
by a Progressive Conservative member of Parliament. Is it not
funny that 40 years later the current Liberal government
continues to put a deaf ear to the concerns of western members of
Parliament. It is sad how little things have changed around
here. It is really sad for the producers who have to deal with a
federal government which is so adamant on preventing change when
it concerns the interests of farmers across western Canada.
I appreciate the fact that the government in power has a very
difficult issue facing it today. I have spoken to many
stakeholders across the country and I can say that they have very
divergent needs. Some say to get rid of the board entirely and
we recognize who those people are. There is also the range on
the other side which says to leave it exactly the way it is, the
status quo with no changes whatsoever. We recognize where that
comes from.
There is in the middle however a number of stakeholders, a
number of producers, who would like to see change, some of them
within the Canadian Wheat Board system and some of them on a
voluntary basis, so they would have the right to choose in which
fashion they would market their grains.
1055
The government today had an opportunity to embrace change going
into the 21st century. It had an opportunity to show leadership
with respect to marketing western Canadian grains. In fact with
Bill C-4 before us right now, it has failed to show that
leadership. The government has tinkered with the existing
Canadian Wheat Board.
I am not naive enough politically to believe that we on this
side of the House are going to change the direction of
government. In saying that, when I came to this House I said to
my constituents that I wanted to bring positive criticism,
constructive criticism to the government. I would like to in the
next little while show some of that positive criticism.
The first issue I would like to deal with in Bill C-4 before us
today is that of the inclusion clause. I had the opportunity to
actually speak to the commissioners of the Canadian Wheat Board.
When I asked the question why must there be an inclusion clause
to include canola, flax, rye and oats, the answer I received was
if there is going to be an exclusion clause, then we should have
an inclusion clause.
Never did they speak to the ability to market better. Never did
they speak that it would be better for the producers. Never did
they speak to the fact that it was the best way to market in the
world today. They simply said because there is exclusion, there
should be inclusion. This is not good enough. The majority of
shareholders and stakeholders in agriculture do not want
inclusion of those crops.
On the board of directors, it is a very good move considering
the legislation that is before us. There should well be an
elected board of directors. I agree with that. Of the 15 board
of directors who have been identified, all 15 should be elected
by the producers, not appointed by government.
They are going to say “but the government has an involvement in
this financially”. In the Ontario Wheat Board right now, the
government has involvement financially. All 10 board of
directors are elected by producers and not appointed by
government. There should be an elected board of directors, not
one that is appointed by government.
In saying that as well, the CEO form of governance is great. I
do not believe nor have I ever believed in management by
committee or by commissions. I believe the CEO form of governance
is a good direction this government has taken. In saying that, I
also believe that the CEO should be appointed by the board of
directors, not by government.
If the CEO is given the proper opportunity and the proper vision
to plan for where we are going in the 21st century, I believe it
is a step in the right direction. Give the chief executive
officer the opportunity to put his or her positions forward on
the basis of the board, not on the basis of politics.
The last thing I would like to speak to right now is that of
accountability. The Canadian Wheat Board in the opinion of the
stakeholders has not been accountable to the producers. It is a
closed shop. They do not have the opportunity of getting the
information that we would like to see.
The Canadian Wheat Board along with CSIS are the two
organizations that are not affected by the access to information
legislation. That is not right. There has to be transparency.
There has to be openness and there has to be accountability by
the Canadian Wheat Board to the people that they serve, the
producers of western Canada. That accountability can come with a
chief executive officer who is appointed by an elected board, and
with the elected board.
In closing, there are improvements within the existing Bill C-4
over previous legislation on the Canadian Wheat Board. What I
would like to see are those changes I talked about previously as
well as the possibility and the opportunity of perhaps some
voluntary co-operation of producers with the Canadian Wheat
Board, an opt in and an opt out opportunity for producers. This
has not been talked about. It has not been discussed.
Trust me, when it gets to committee I am sure there will be
plenty of time to debate these very, very positive and
constructive criticisms of this bill.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House
today and make some comments on Bill C-4.
I am pleased to speak in support of the motion to refer Bill C-4
to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food.
1100
I congratulate my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources
and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, for the
work he has done in the process of developing the bill over the
last number of years.
For 62 years the Canadian Wheat Board has been one of the
cornerstones of our nation's success in agriculture and
agri-food. Changes in Bill C-4 build on that success by
providing for a more modern Canadian Wheat Board, one that is
more accountable to farmers, more flexible and more responsive.
Farmers will have a direct role in shaping the operations and
directions of the corporation. They will have more power to take
on the very real challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.
Throughout the preparation and debate on the legislation we have
done everything possible to ensure that everybody with an
interest in this complex issue has a had a full and fair
opportunity to voice an opinion.
In July 1995 my predecessor as Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-food established the western grain marketing panel to
conduct a comprehensive examination of western grain marketing
issues. One year later after extensive consultations, including
15 town hall meetings and 12 days of public hearings across the
prairies, the panel completed its report and submitted it to the
minister.
The minister distributed a summary of the report's
recommendations to all farmers in western Canada and invited
their feedback. In one way or another more than 12,000
individuals and organizations responded to the panel's
recommendations.
In December 1996 Bill C-72 was tabled in the House of Commons.
In February 1997 the Standing Committee on Agriculture and
Agri-food, which I chaired at that time, held a series of
meetings across western Canada. We visited Winnipeg, Regina,
Saskatoon, Calgary and Grande Prairie. We heard from more than
40 groups and a similar number of individual farmers during those
committee hearings.
As a result of those hearings we made more than 20 amendments to
the bill before we reported it back to the House in April 1997. I
am pleased to note that the amendments were retained in the new
bill. The system does work.
Over the course of the past summer the minister responsible for
the wheat board continued to conduct informal consultations with
the grains industry officials to hear views on the legislation.
In early September he requested views from farm organizations on
the appropriate principles to govern the election of the
directors. It is therefore no exaggeration to say that the
future of the Canadian Wheat Board has been exhaustively
discussed and debated.
The purpose of the amendments is to respond to some of the major
concerns raised during the debate and to ensure that the CWB is
well positioned to continue as a reliable, responsive single desk
seller of Canadian wheat and barley in the years ahead.
Our objective is to build on the proven strengths of our
existing marketing system while enhancing its accountability,
improving its responsiveness to changing producer needs and
opportunities, providing more flexibility and faster cashflows,
and minimizing future complications in international trade.
We are taking action on all of the points raised by the panel
with regard to the accountability of the Canadian Wheat Board.
As the minister responsible for the wheat board has explained,
under the legislation the current commissioner structure of
management would be replaced by a part-time 15 member board of
directors.
It would be comprised of ten producer elected representatives
and five government appointees including a full-time president.
Both the chief executive officer and the full-time president
would be responsible for the day to day operations of the board.
The CWB status as an agent of the crown and crown corporation
would end when the new board of directors assumes office. The
Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee would be terminated when
deemed appropriate by the minister responsible for the wheat
board but not before the end of its current mandate at the end of
1998.
The changes in the bill would also allow the Canadian Wheat
Board to offer farmers more options in terms of pricing and
timing of payment for their grain and provide it with greater
flexibility in the way it acquires grain. At the same time the
amendments leave intact the basic principles of single desk
selling.
1105
The legislation also includes provisions for adding additional
grains to the marketing mandate of the Canadian Wheat Board. I
want opposition members to listen to the process that has to take
place. In such a case the request would first have to come from
a recognized commodity group and the board of directors would
have to recommend the inclusion. Then a vote on the inclusion by
the producers of that grain would also have to be held. There
are a number of steps. After that the changes to the marketing
mandate of the Canadian Wheat Board could then be made through an
order in council.
The amendments in the bill would also give the board of
directors the power to exclude specific types, classes or
varieties of wheat or barley from exclusive Canadian Wheat Board
jurisdiction in the domestic or export market. This authority
would be exercised only upon the recommendation of the board of
directors. There would have to be assurances from the Canadian
Grain Commission that the necessary quality control measures were
in place to avoid co-mingling of grains.
If the board of directors considers the exclusion to be a
significant change, a vote of the producers would also have to be
held. Again a number of steps would have to take place.
A Canadian Wheat Board governed by a board of directors
comprised of a majority of producer elected members would improve
accountability to and communications with producers. It would
also result in an increased sense of producer ownership of their
marketing organization.
While the self-sufficiency of the Canadian Wheat Board would
increase, the government would still have an important role to
play in supporting it. For example, the government would
continue to provide financial backing for initial payments,
borrowing, and for such programs as the credit grain sales
program. The changes would provide the board with more
flexibility in the acquisition and the pricing of wheat and
barley enabling it to operate more efficiently, increase returns
to farmers and reduce the risk to government.
As I have discussed the bill responds to views expressed by
numerous stakeholders. It is important to note, however, that
the amendments do not constitute the full response of the
Government of Canada to the concerns of the Canadian grain
producers and the recommendations of the western grain panel. We
are also pursuing many other avenues to address other issues that
they brought forward related to grain marketing and
transportation.
For example, last November our government introduced legislation
to modernize the Canada Labour Code. Among other things those
amendments stipulate that while grain handlers and their
employees will retain the right to strike and lockout, in the
event of a work stoppage involving other parties in port related
activities, services affecting grain shipments must be
maintained.
On another important issue, specifically the efficiency of our
transportation system, the Minister of Transport, the minister
responsible for the wheat board and I met this summer on July 25
with key members of the grain industry in Winnipeg. As as result
of that meeting the grain transportation industry has developed
and put in place a monitoring program and a contingency plan to
ensure efficiency in the movement of grain.
Through Bill C-4 and other actions the Government of Canada is
demonstrating it is listening to the concerns of Canadian grain
producers. It is taking action to address those concerns. It is
laying the foundation for continuing growth and prosperity in the
grain sector and Canada's rural communities.
I call upon all the members of the House to lend their support
to the amendments contained in the legislation.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I wish I could say at the outset that it is a pleasure
to rise today to address Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian
Wheat Board Act, but the simple truth of the matter is that it is
not. A vast majority of western Canadian grain farmers whom the
bill will affect and I hoped the minister and his government
would have listened to them.
Just to digress for a moment, I noted during the brief remarks
of the hon. minister of agriculture a moment ago he referred to
some 20 amendments the agriculture committee had made that were
ultimately incorporated into the bill before the House today,
Bill C-4.
It is important for people watching the debate today to realize
that those amendments are very superficial. With the possible
exception of the so-called inclusion clause, there is not a lot
of substance to those amendments.
They do not go nearly far enough to address the real concerns
being echoed across the prairies by Canada's western grain
farmers.
1110
As with the bill's predecessor, Bill C-72, the minister has
accomplished the near impossible by alienating everyone. Where
is the support for what he is about to do? If this is the way to
proceed and the majority of grain producers support his latest
retread legislation, why are they not applauding him? One has to
speculate the point of consultations, submissions and hearings
undertaken by the minister and his government over the the past
year if in the final analysis they do not intend to listen to and
incorporate those ideas.
I note the western grain marketing panel and all the debate that
took place, as the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food just
mentioned, on Bill C-72 both in Ottawa and during the travelling
show across the prairies. Where are the substantive arguments
put forward by the farm groups and farmers that appeared before
that panel? We do not see them in the legislation.
The simple truth is that farmers will not substantially benefit
from the legislation, and the Liberals know it. The government
is intent on forging ahead despite the cries of the vast majority
of producers that it simply does not address their needs.
Part of the government's strategy is to bring forward the bill
for 180 minutes of debate with 10 minute speeches and no
questions and comments. We in the opposition ranks cannot do an
adequate job of discussing such a comprehensive piece of
legislation in a 10 minute speech.
In the few moments I have left I will touch briefly on a number
of points. I certainly applaud the intervention of the
Progressive Conservative member. It is interesting to note that
he and his party have picked up on the lead that Reform took on
Bill C-72 in the last parliament. They are now basically in line
with some of the main points we are raising.
The bill does not include anything that would take the Canadian
Wheat Board toward being a voluntary organization. We see a real
demand by producers for freedom to choose. We do not see any
real options in the bill. That has to be one of its most
fundamental flaws.
The minister may bring about the total demise of the Canadian
Wheat Board with the legislation. With its all or nothing
inclusion and exclusion clauses, a future board of directors
could gradually exclude grades and types of grain until
eventually the wheat board would be just a shell that does not
market anything.
Farmers may divide on their support for the Canadian Wheat
Board. Other speakers have referred to the two extremes. The
bulk of farmers are in the middle. Between 75% and 80% of
farmers want to see some change which ranges from minor change to
very substantive change. I have found the majority of farmers
are opposed to the contingency fund. They view it as simply
another tax being imposed upon them by the government. In a
situation where it is mandatory to belong to the Canadian Wheat
Board this contingency fund is another tax at a time when farmers
cannot afford any more input costs.
Another perplexing part of the legislation is the question of
how elected directors will ultimately be held accountable, as my
hon. colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party noted.
Like CSIS this organization is highly secretive, ultra secret.
It does not have to adhere to access to information and it cannot
be audited by the auditor general of the country. We think those
are major flaws. Again this was an opportunity for the government
to address very real concerns, to open up the board and make it
more accountable.
I would ask all hon. members and people viewing this debate to
answer this question. Can they imagine any other corporation,
club, or charity to which they belong answering questions
concerning decisions made at an annual general meeting by saying
“I can't answer that” or “If I told you that I would have to
kill you”. It is absolutely ridiculous.
1115
We have to open up the Canadian Wheat Board. Farmers are
demanding it. For the minister responsible for the Canadian
Wheat Board to suggest that this bill is going to make it more
accountable is actually ludicrous.
Fourth, yet another anomaly contained in this legislation is the
issue of the legal liability for directors, officers and
employees of the Canadian Wheat Board. If directors act honestly
and in good faith, as it states they must in this legislation,
then why do they require protection from criminal activities? If
they have shown that they have complied with clause 3.12, then
could they not simply prove that in a court of law as other
Canadians are required to do without having this other clause
3.13 which basically exempts them?
I also note that one of probably twenty changes that the
minister was bragging about a while ago is the deletion of the
term “employees”. Yet we find that other persons are also
covered under that clause. In view of that the clause stating
“person or persons acting at the request of the corporation”
would certainly include the employees, at least I think it would.
Finally, there are a lot of concerns across western Canada about
the timely and efficient movement of grain to market. This was
an opportunity for the government to include in the bill or some
other bill the removal of the Canadian Wheat Board from the
present position it has across the country with transportation.
I support that we should be looking at ways in which we can
decrease the bureaucracy inherent in the grain transportation
sector. One of those ways would be to have the board take an at
port position.
I have one underlying question. Is this the best the Liberals
could come up with? Earlier the minister took great pains to
justify his rush to get this recycled bill back through the
House. He said that extensive consultations had already taken
place regarding the legislation. He is correct on that point,
but obviously, as I said earlier in my presentation, the simple
fact is that he is not listening. He is not responding to the
very real needs of producers.
Those producers are crying out for fundamental change and some
freedom to choose. In a free and democratic country like Canada
it is absolutely ridiculous that we still have this mandatory
monopoly left over from the second world war.
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak in this debate on the motion to refer Bill C-4
to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
The changes to the Canadian Wheat Board that are proposed in
Bill C-4 have been designed to respond to the wishes of western
Canadian grain farmers. Some western grain producers and producer
groups have been asking for more flexibility in the marketing of
wheat and barley. The question arises, would Bill C-4 allow
aspects of a dual market or voluntary marketing through the
Canadian Wheat Board? The short answer is yes, subject to the
democratic will of the farmers themselves.
The tool, Bill C-4, would enable the Canadian Wheat Board to
provide additional marketing options to farmers while maintaining
the integrity of pooling and single desk selling.
However, the board of directors, two-thirds of whom will be
elected by farmers, would also be empowered to recommend changes
that would result in a marketing system with some of the features
of a dual market, if that is what producers want.
1120
Part IV of the current Canadian Wheat Board Act provides the
Canadian Wheat Board with single desk control over the export of
wheat and barley, while part III deals with the acquisition of
grain from producers, pooling and initial payment.
Part IV also provides for monopoly control over interprovincial
trade of wheat and barley which has, of course, long since been
removed for domestic feed grain. As members can see, producers
currently have three options for selling their feed wheat and
feed barley. They can sell it to the Canadian Wheat Board. They
can sell it to the private trade. Or they can sell it directly
to a domestic customer. None of this will change if Bill C-4 is
passed. In fact, it has been made more explicit to remove all
doubt.
Right now the option of selling to the Canadian Wheat Board, the
private trade or directly to the final customer exists, but only
for domestic feed grain. However, under the exclusion clause in
the new legislation it will be possible for this option to be
extended to “any kind, type, class or grade of wheat and
barley.” This clause provides for the exclusion by regulation of
any kind, type, class or grade of wheat or barley from the
provisions of part IV of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. But it
would still allow the Canadian Wheat Board to continue its
activities under part III. This would mean that the Canadian
Wheat Board would still be able to purchase the grain from
producers and at the same time operate a pool.
For such an exclusion to occur three conditions have to be met.
First, a new farmer controlled board of directors would have to
recommend it. Second, the Canadian Grain Commission would have
to approve an identity preservation system to safeguard quality.
Third, a producer vote would have to be held if the board of
directors decided the exclusion is indeed significant. If all
three conditions were met, the minister would recommend the
exclusion and the governor in council would pass the legislation.
Balancing the exclusion clause is an inclusion clause. This
clause allows for the extensions of part III or part IV or both
to grains not currently covered by the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
I should point out that this inclusion clause is confined to
crops that fall within the definition of grain now in the
Canadian Wheat Board Act, that is oats, flax, rye and canola.
It is subject to the commodity organization which best
represents the producers of that grain asking for it. And of
course, the Canadian Wheat Board directors, as I said, those who
were duly elected, would have to agree and farmers would have to
approve it by a democratic vote.
Suppose that all these three conditions were fulfilled and
suppose that the Canadian Wheat Board Act were thus extended so
that part III applied to rye, but not part IV. Remember, part III
refers to pooling while part IV refers to single desk selling.
Extending part III but not part IV would create a situation as I
have described under the exclusion clause, that is, farmers would
be able to sell rye not only to the Canadian Wheat Board but to
others. If the decision is to extend both parts III and IV, this
would result in both pooling and single desk selling.
Another provision of Bill C-4 would allow for cash purchasing.
The Canadian Wheat Board would have the flexibility to purchase
grain at a price other than the initial payment. If this were
used extensively for a particular grain such as feed barley, the
result could be that prices for feed barley in Canada would
differ from prices in the United States only by actual transfer
costs. In such circumstances, licences to export feed barley to
the U.S. would likely be granted with no charge for buy back,
although there might well be conditions imposed to ensure that
such feed barley exports would not adversely affect the Canadian
Wheat Board malt barley exports to the U.S.
This situation would be somewhat comparable to a dual market or
voluntary marketing through the Canadian Wheat Board.
Finally, part VI of the Canadian Wheat Board Act allows
marketing plans for voluntary pools to be established for grains,
varieties, grades or classes that are not required to be marketed
through the Canadian Wheat Board.
1125
Such a marketing plan can only be set up after an association of
producers or an association or firm engaged in the processing and
marketing of grain submits a proposal for the establishment of a
marketing plan to the minister and is approved by the governor in
council. Such a marketing plan would include guaranteed initial
payments, however, the guarantee would only cover a maximum of
90% of any losses incurred.
The provision for marketing plans is in the current act but it
has never been used. If it were it would result in a voluntary
pool for grain covered by the marketing plan. Under this
provision the administrator of the plan must be designated. It
is conceivable that after it becomes a mixed enterprise the
Canadian Wheat Board might qualify to be an administrator.
In conclusion, there are several ways that a dual market or
voluntary marketing through the Canadian Wheat Board, or similar
results, could be achieved under Bill C-4. All of them would
require as a minimum that the producer controlled board of
directors take a conscious decision to do so. In most cases
farmers would carry the ultimate authority through a democratic
producer vote. It comes down to producers deciding what
producers want. They will elect the majority of the board of
directors and they will vote on inclusion or significant
exclusions of crops.
Like many other aspects of the legislation these tools are
enabling. They put power in the hands of producers, allowing
them to shape the Canadian Wheat Board to the needs of Canadian
farmers.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Madam Speaker, as a member of
the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, I am very honoured
to take part in the House of Commons debate on Bill C-4 to amend the
Canadian Wheat Board Act.
I would like to begin by saying that, strictly from the standpoint
of principle, the Bloc Quebecois supports Bill C-4, with a few
reservations that I will mention.
First of all, it is good to see the decision making power of the
Canadian Wheat Board put in the hands of farmers, who represent ten of
the 15 members on the board of directors.
In addition to making them accountable, their presence means the
Canadian Wheat Board is more plugged in to what they actually
experience.
The level of trust and agreement between people in the same
profession is very high. Quebec farmers are no exception to the rule
and want to see their colleagues in the west benefit from this new
arrangement of the Canadian Wheat Board.
The fact that elected producers form the majority on the CWB will
leave the Board less vulnerable to challenges regarding international
trade rules from our trade partners.
Quebec, which prides itself on promoting orderly and harmonious
marketing of agricultural products, can only be glad that the Canadian
Wheat Board has greater flexibility in marketing its products.
There are, of course, major advantages to streamlining the Canadian
Wheat Board's operating method and making it more functional. However,
with billion dollar transactions involved, what mechanisms will be
introduced to ensure good risk management?
In addition, Quebec taxpayers are not ready to see their tax
dollars go toward making up the Canadian Wheat Board's deficits. It will
be recalled that these deficits were in the several hundreds of millions
of dollars in 1991. Business is business. This is a marketing agency
that must be able to assume its deficits in the long term if there are
annual losses.
Let us hope that the reserve fund does enough to allay that
concern.
1130
It is worth pointing out that Quebec wheat purchasers, that is
the mills and the bakeries, have appreciated the consistent quality
of the products delivered under the auspices of the Canadian Wheat
Board, and they hope those same quality standards will be
maintained in future under Bill C-4. There are provisions for
implementation of quality control.
A reading of the bill raises some questions. This is a bill
for western Canada, since 95% of the volume administered by the CWB
comes from the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and
parts of Ontario and British Columbia, that is the region
designated in Bill C-4.
The Bloc Quebecois must, however, look after the agricultural
interests of Quebec, both its present and its future interests.
A reading of clauses 24 through 26, which indicate that the
CWB may, under certain conditions, recommend that certain types of
grains be excluded from or added to the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Canadian Wheat Board, leaves one confused. The bill states
that the minister may not make the recommendation for exclusion
unless the board of directors so recommends and the Canadian Grain
Commission has approved a procedure for identifying the grain in
question, so as to preserve its identity.
If the board is of the opinion that the exemption is significant,
the producers will also have to vote on this.
First of all, who are these producers? How will they vote?
And most of all, can they be from outside the designated region?
In this connection, Quebec is justified in asking questions, since
it has to go through the Canadian Wheat Board if it wants to
export. What if Quebec were to become an exporter of any of these
products?
The federal government retains considerable control over the
board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board. Let us hope that
opening it up to the producers is something real, and not just
caving in to community pressures.
Bill C-4 contains a good 60 references to the minister. The
federal government is, therefore, maintaining considerable control
over the Canadian Wheat Board. For example, the federal government
is the one to decide how farmers will be elected to the board of
directors.
The president of the board of directors is appointed by the
governor in council on the recommendation of the minister. Why can
the elected directors elect the president of the board but not the
president of the commission? The president holds office for the
period of time set by the federal government. The government is
also requiring the Canadian Wheat Board to prepare a corporate plan
annually, under clause 19. Obviously, the Minister of Finance must
approve the plan.
With this right of review, the Minister of Finance retains
control. How much autonomy will the Canadian Wheat Board have? On
the one hand, the government allows farmers to speak when it can no
longer stand the pressure from the farming community. On the
other, the government is keeping the decisions affecting them
centralized. You wonder who really has their hand on the tiller.
We in the Bloc Quebecois will be on the watch.
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to
speak on Bill C-4, the amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board
Act.
1135
In essence this bill is a further refinement of the previous
Bill C-72 of the last Parliament on which the agriculture
committee held extensive hearings across the Canadian Wheat Board
area. This new bill encompasses much of what we heard from the
farm community during those hearings and tries to establish a
balance between the various views within the farm community.
I hold strong views on the Canadian Wheat Board and personally
maintain that commissioners appointed for their expertise and
marketing still makes a lot of sense but I am, based on views put
forward by the farm community during those hearings, willing to
accept the approach of the board of directors and the kind of
flexibility that Bill C-4 encompasses.
I would express to those strong Canadian Wheat Board supporters
that they will have to be extremely vigilant in the election
process because big money from the merchants of grain with allies
like we have just heard from the Reform Party is really out to
destroy the Canadian Wheat Board over time.
I suggest that those strong supporters of the wheat board be
very vigilant in terms of seeing that people are elected to that
board who are pro-wheat board supporters, as we have shown can
happen through the Canadian Wheat Board advisory process through
which the majority of pro-board supporters were elected.
The Canadian Wheat Board has shown itself to be a model, an
institution second to none in marketing intelligence and ability
through its operating structure to maximize returns back to
primary producers.
The three pillars of single desk selling, pooling of returns and
government guarantees are essential for the Canadian Wheat Board
to maximize those returns back to primary producers. Those
pillars remain under this legislation.
The role of the Canadian Wheat Board is to sell western Canadian
wheat and barley in the international marketplace at the very
best possible price. All proceeds from sales less the marketing
costs are then passed back to farmers.
With annual revenues of more than $5.8 billion, the Canadian
Wheat Board is one of the country's largest exporters and one of
the world's largest grain trading organizations. That is very
different from the private grain companies that often work on
exploitation of primary producers, the kind of system that Reform
members opposite seem to support. The wheat board works on
farmers' behalf.
Since its founding in 1935, the Canadian Wheat Board has been
able to return premiums to farmers through pooling and single
desk selling. Its status as a single desk seller of western
Canadian wheat and barley exports has given strength and market
power to prairie farmers.
Today instead of competing against one another, Canada's 110,000
wheat and barley farmers sell as one and can therefore command a
higher price for their product.
Single desk selling also enables the Canadian Wheat Board to
take a unique approach to market development. It is both product
and consumer oriented in nature, resulting in long term
relationships and a better consumer understanding of Canadian
grain. Longer term marketing relationships are to the benefit of
farmers and all of Canada.
Through the Canadian Wheat Board all sales are deposited in one
of four pool accounts, wheat, durum wheat, feed barley or
designated barley. This ensures that all farmers benefit equally
regardless of when their grain is sold during the crop year. The
system of initial in term adjustments and final payment has
worked well.
Even that will be improved in this legislation and the
government will continue to guarantee the initial price. As
well, the government continues to guarantee the Canadian Wheat
Board's borrowings. This allows the CWB to finance its
operations at lower rates of interest, again to the benefit of
farmers and the country as a whole.
1140
The Canadian Wheat Board, without a doubt, has provided
exceptional service to western Canadian farmers for more than
half a century. The 1995-96 annual report tabled in this House
states:
A performance evaluation conducted during the 1995-96 crop year
showed Canada ranks highly with its customers in such areas as
quality of product, customer service, technical support and
dependability of supply. Another study conducted by three
economists showed that the CWB's single desk system generates an
additional $265 million per year in wheat revenue for farmers,
thereby enhancing Canada's competitiveness. It also showed the
CWB provides a low cost marketing service to farmers.
Another thing I should mention is what our competitors are
saying. To those who want to undermine the ability of the wheat
board, let me quote what our competitors are saying in the U.S.
Robert Carlson of the National Farmer's Union said:
From a competing farmer's perspective, we in the U.S. do not
have a vehicle like the CWB to create producer marketing power in
the international grain trade. We basically sell for the best
price among our local elevator companies and lose our interest in
our grain after that point.
Our export trade is dominated by a few large corporations who
are interested in buying low and selling high to enhance the
earnings of their owners, who are not generally the same
people.
If we destroy the various institutions that farmers in many
countries have built to help themselves survive economically, we
will have nothing left but producers standing bare among the
ruins of structures that once empowered and protected them in a
marketplace dominated by giants.
Our objective through this legislation, Bill C-4, is to continue
to empower our farmers and make the Canadian Wheat Board an even
better marketing institution. I would show these Reformers
opposite the annual report of the Canadian Wheat Board,
“Marketing for the Future”, and that is what this legislation
is all about.
Through this legislation, our government is responding to
recommendations made by farmers with concrete action. Under Bill
C-4, 10 out 15 Canadian Wheat Board directors will be elected by
prairie farmers before the end of 1998. That establishes the
two-thirds majority farmers called for.
There will also be changes to the Canadian Wheat Board's
marketing mandate and greater empowerment for farmers. There
will be changes to allow more flexibility in wheat board
operations and improvements in cash flow.
In addition, under Bill C-4 the Canadian Wheat Board will be
able to adjust management adjustment payments during any crop
year much more quickly by removing the need to first obtain
cabinet approval.
The legislation also provides for a contingency fund to manage
risk consolidated with cash trading. As the minister responsible
for the Canadian Wheat Board has said, the operations of the CWB
will also be improved by the access it will have to modern risk
management tools that would allow a forward contracting system.
I believe that these changes, along with many other important
adjustments proposed in Bill C-4, will effectively build on the
principle of more direct producer input into the priorities and
operations of the Canadian Wheat Board while also enabling the
Canadian Wheat Board to become an even more flexible and
effective marketing agent for western Canadian grain farmers in
the century ahead.
As it says on the cover of the wheat board annual report,
“Marketing for the Future”, this government is willing to
empower the Canadian Wheat Board while those opposite are wanting
to undermine it. We will succeed in the empowerment of the wheat
board.
1145
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate on Bill
C-4. As a matter of fact I am so enthused I was able to persuade
my colleague the member for Qu'Appelle to share his 10 minutes.
So we will be taking five minutes each on this issue.
There is an old saying that those who forget the lessons of
history are doomed to repeat them. We have seen the Reform Party
members stand in this House and try to give a little history
lesson as it has been rewritten by the Reform Party, not quite
going back to the dirty thirties where there were no marketing
boards working co-operatively to market farmers' grains in this
country. They fail to remember that part of history where
farmers were having a very difficult struggle in this country to
make ends meet but we will see what happens down the road.
In the last Parliament the NDP caucus opposed Bill C-72 which is
now Bill C-4 which is before the House. We opposed it as it was
originally introduced in December 1996 for a number of reasons
and I want to summarize some of those reasons today.
One was cash buying. The board's great strength and its success
are based on its practice of buying grain from farmers at an
initial price, marketing it as a single desk seller and
distributing any surplus earnings equitably as final payments. We
were concerned about provisions in Bill C-72 for the board to buy
grain for cash from anyone, anywhere at any time. We felt cash
buying had the potential to undermine the board and as a result
farmers' confidence in it.
We were concerned about governance. Given the language of
former Bill C-72 we feared that the government and not farmers
would control the board's destiny. For example it was not clear
then how many directors there would be. Nor was it clear how
many of the directors would be appointed by the minister and how
many would be elected by the farmers.
My colleague the member for Palliser has outlined what changes
have been made as a result of our interventions in the previous
Parliament. Of course two-thirds of the board are now going to
be elected in 1998.
The minister also retained the power to appoint the chair of the
board of directors as well as the president of the board. This
has not been changed in Bill C-4. We still support this
component of the remake of the CWB.
What concerned us most was that Bill C-72 allowed for the
exclusion of grains from the wheat board's jurisdiction but made
no parallel provisions for grains to be added to that
jurisdiction. We felt that this was clearly hostile to the board
and we could not understand why this provision was in the
legislation. For the information of the House it is now in Bill
C-4 and we are very pleased that grains are being included as
opposed to being excluded.
Bill C-72 was introduced in December 1996 but the legislation
was soon overtaken by events. The minister decided that farmers
should vote on whether they wished to continue to market export
barley through the wheat board. In a certain sense he was
experimenting with the exclusion clause of Bill C-72 even before
it became law.
The barley vote occurred amid great controversy. A few farmers
who were stubbornly opposed to the board had earlier chosen to
break the law. Rather than sell to the board, they ran to the
border with truckloads of grain. Some of these farmers and their
soulmates in the Reform Party and the National Citizens'
Coalition as well continued to use every available opportunity to
attack the wheat board as we have heard today in the House of
Commons.
The Alberta government even mounted a constitutional challenge
to the board's right to buy and sell grain on behalf of farmers.
The courts have now spoken, ruling in the board's favour.
But all of that is history. As we know the barley vote was held
last February and the great majority of farmers left no doubt as
to where they stand. Fully two-thirds of barley growers voted to
continue to have the wheat board act as the single desk seller
for their grains.
The Reform Party always boasts about how democratic it is, about
how it believes in referenda and plebiscites as a means of making
political decisions. Here is a perfect opportunity for Reform
Party members. Two out of three farmers voted in favour of wheat
board marketing. We might expect that Reform would now honour
its commitment to democracy and accept the wishes of the
majority. But as I said earlier, those who forget the lessons of
history are doomed to repeat them and that is Reform's tombstone
in my view.
The Reform Party rhetoric is one thing and principled action is
completely something else as far as Reformers are concerned.
Based on what I have seen and heard from Reformers, they will
continue to attack the wheat board. They have no intention of
respecting the wishes of the majority of farmers when it comes to
the wheat board. I think that speaks volumes about the integrity
of that party.
Finally, I want to congratulate former New Democratic Party
members Vic Althouse and Len Taylor who worked very hard in the
committee prior to the election being called to establish some of
these major changes on behalf of the wheat board, on behalf of
farmers throughout Canada.
1150
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
want to say a few words today in support of Bill C-4.
The history of the CCF and the NDP over the last 50 or 60 years
has been one of supporting the Canadian Wheat Board and fighting
very hard for orderly marketing in other marketing boards in this
country. I am very proud to say that in the last Parliament our
small caucus was able to persuade the government to come forth
with a stronger bill which is why we can support this bill in
principle today. At the committee stage of course we will be
moving amendments to improve the bill further.
I want to put on the record that we strongly support single desk
marketing in this country. It is a principle which is supported
by the vast majority of farmers right across this country. We
saw that recently in February 1997 when two-thirds of the barley
producers voted in favour of marketing their barley through the
Canadian Wheat Board, through single desk marketing.
The Reform Party is hypocritical. I do not even know if it
should be called Reform. Sometimes it is the deform party. It
opposes the Canadian Wheat Board and has called for dual
marketing. Meanwhile it says that it wants referenda for
everything. It says that it is a grassroots party. Remember the
rhetoric of its leader saying that it is a grassroots party and
that it will listen to the people.
Two-thirds of the people have spoken, the barley producers. And
where are the Reform Party members? Are they in the House saying
that barley should be marketed through the Canadian Wheat Board?
No they are not. They are silent. On the one hand they say
there should be referenda. There was a referendum. The farmers
said very clearly that they wanted their barley to be marketed
through the Canadian Wheat Board and that is the way it is going
to be. Yet the Reform Party members are silent on the issue.
They do not believe their own rhetoric. They do not fulfil their
campaign promises.
The farmers have spoken, the grassroots have spoken, the people
have spoken. Where is the Reform Party? Reformers are not
listening to the people. They have broken their word. They have
broken their promises. It is about time Reformers were called to
task for their hypocrisy, called to task for breaking promises,
called to task for misleading the farmers of this country. This
is only one example of where they have broken their promises.
They have another promise. Recall. Where are those prairie MPs
who said they would listen to the farmers? They should be
recalled. There should be petitions recalling those prairie MPs.
They have said one thing and done the opposite.
The Leader of the Opposition said “I would never move into
Stornoway. No, I would never move into Stornoway. It will be a
bingo hall”. Where is the Leader of the Opposition resting his
head at night? Where is he dreaming at night? In Stornoway.
What hypocrisy we are seeing from the Reform Party.
They are very quiet. They are ashamed of themselves. They are
hanging their heads in shame. The right wing Neanderthals of the
Reform Party say one thing and practise something else. It is
time they were exposed to the farmers of this country. It is
time they were exposed to the people of Canada.
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Madam Speaker, first I
would like to offer my apologies for a raspy, scratchy voice. I
beg the indulgence of members of the House to hear me out this
morning.
Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate you on your appointment to
the Chair. I am sure you will do a good job.
This being my first opportunity to give a speech in the House
during this Parliament, I want to take the opportunity to say
thanks to my constituents for returning me to the House of
Commons for a third term. I thank them for placing their
confidence in me once again.
One of the reasons I am happy to speak on Bill C-4 is because
the Canadian Wheat Board's home is in my city, the city of
Winnipeg. In fact many employees of the Canadian Wheat Board are
constituents of mine who live in the riding of
Charleswood—Assiniboine.
I would like to outline some of the changes which distinguish
the new bill from its previous incarnation in the last
Parliament, that is Bill C-72. I would also like to detail the
proposed amendments that are aimed at both rejuvenating and
modernizing the Canadian Wheat Board and putting control over its
activities squarely in the hands of producers.
1155
Throughout its 62-year history the board has been an agent of
the crown answerable solely to the Government of Canada and
governed by a small group of up to five commissioners. Bill C-4
provides for a big and immediate change in the way the board is
governed. Under this proposed legislation a board of 15
directors of whom 10 would be directly elected by producers would
govern the operation of the wheat board.
Therefore under the new bill the Canadian Wheat Board would
become a mixed enterprise, and for the first time in its lengthy
history it would become accountable in a very direct way to the
producers it serves. This means that producers will have a
larger and more direct voice in the way in which their marketing
system operates. These changes are consistent with the majority
recommendations put forth by the Western Grain Marketing Panel.
As many of the members of the House may recall, in 1995 an
extensive consultative process was undertaken that involved
literally tens of thousands of producers across western Canada.
The goal of that process was to determine how best to revitalize
and modernize the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board. It
culminated in a set of recommendations made by the Western Grain
Marketing Panel in July 1996.
While the debate among western farmers with respect to grain
marketing is a sharply polarized one, it makes it all but
impossible to arrive at one all-encompassing solution. The
minister responsible for the wheat board has listened to the
concerns of western farmers and has answered their calls for a
more responsive, accountable and accessible wheat board.
The evidence is before the House today in the form of Bill C-4,
an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts. This legislation
proposes major changes to the Canadian Wheat Board that will
empower farmers as never before.
What has changed from Bill C-72? Although Bill C-4 resembles
very closely Bill C-72, there are a few changes that
differentiate it from its predecessor. Foremost among these is
the elimination of the interim appointed board of directors
provided for in Bill C-72. This was to be a transitional
measure, however the government has responded to farmers who saw
no need for this step.
Under Bill C-4 the Canadian Wheat Board would be governed by a
board of directors with a majority of its members elected by
farmers and accountable to them. I repeat elected to farmers and
accountable to farmers. This board of directors should be in
place by December 1998 at the very latest. Ideally it would be
in place as soon as next spring. The draft bill no longer
provides for an interim bill.
The second major change in Bill C-4 is the provision that allows
for the inclusion or exclusion of grains under the Canadian Wheat
Board's mandate. Similar to an amendment tabled by my colleague
the hon. member for Malpeque during the last Parliament, this
provides that such a change in the Canadian Wheat Board's mandate
can only be triggered if certain conditions are met.
If producers wish to remove a type of grain from the mandate of
the board, they will be able to do so subject to three
conditions. First there must be a recommendation to do so from
the board of directors. Second the Canadian Grain Commission
must approve an identity preservation system to ensure quality
standards remain intact. Remember Canada has a great reputation
when it comes to our wheat and we want to maintain that. Third
if the exclusion is viewed as significant by the board of
directors, a vote among producers must be held.
Similarly if producers wish to add additional grains to the
wheat board's mandate, this too could be possible subject to
three specific conditions. First the farm organization
representing the producers of that commodity must make a written
request for the inclusion. Second the inclusion would have to be
recommended by the wheat board's board of directors. Third
producers themselves must vote in favour of the addition. That is
pretty democratic in my estimation.
These new provisions are balanced and fair both ways for either
exclusions or inclusions. In either case the decision making
authority lies where it should be, directly with producers
themselves. The clear goal is to put farmers in the driver's seat
when it comes to any future changes in what grains the wheat
board markets.
1200
It should also be noted that when Bill C-72 was originally
drafted, both the Financial Administration Act and the Canada
Business Corporations Act were used as models for various
provisions. Subsequently it was decided that it would be more
appropriate if provisions in the CWB act relating to the duties
of directors and officers were the same as those in the Canada
Business Corporations Act which applies to private sector
corporations. Accordingly, a few revisions have been made.
Hon. members opposite might wish to note that references to
employees in provisions relating to the duty of care, duty to
comply, limit of liability and indemnification have been deleted.
These changes will result in employees of the Canadian wheat
board being placed in the same position as employees of any
corporation. To me that makes a lot of sense. If they are
acting in good faith and within the scope of their employment,
then they would have the same protection under common law as
would employees of private corporations.
As for the directors and officers of the Canadian wheat board
they will naturally be required to abide by the law. They will
also have the duty to act honestly and in good faith, exercising
all reasonable care, diligence and skill. If they fail in that
duty they will expose themselves to legal liability.
In addition to the changes that I have mentioned, all of the
amendments made to Bill C-72 in the last Parliament have been
retained in Bill C-4. It reflects the essence of the
Western Canadian Marketing Panel's recommendations on Canadian
wheat board governance and operational flexibility and also
establishes the criteria and general process for making changes
to the wheat board's marketing mandate. These changes usher in a
new era of accountability and flexibility within the Canadian
Wheat Board, ensuring that it is well positioned to compete with
in the global marketplace as the dawn of a new millennium
approaches.
Canada has roughly a 20% share of the world market in grain.
This is in no small way as a direct result of our having a single
desk seller of wheat and barely that combines size, global reach
and marketing clout to bring about the best possible returns from
its world markets. Because of the not for profit nature of the
Canadian Wheat Board the cost to farmers for the premiums
commanded by the board amount to mere pennies per bushel. This
is well worth reiterating.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I
understand that the member is at least three minutes over his
time. Every member has been tightly constricted in the debate,
including the Leader of the Opposition. I would ask that the
Chair enforce the time limits on this debate.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): As far as I know,
there is no problem on the time. Everything has been according
to the chronometer. The member has 10 minutes.
Mr. John Harvard: Madam Speaker, I understand that I have
only a few seconds left. After all, I was given 10 minutes as
everyone else was.
I look forward to this bill's moving on to committee and I am
sure that it will be vetted and examined there very closely and
we will have a vigorous debate.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Madam
Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your elevation to
your new position.
I say to my constituents that this is the first time I have had
a chance to speak at any great length in the House and I really
appreciate being returned to the House after a short vacation of
three and a half years. I am certainly pleased to be back and I
will do my best to represent their interests.
Bill C-4, the Canadian Wheat Board bill, is a difficult issue.
It is very complicated and there are a lot of stakeholders and
many positions, as my colleague from Brandon—Souris reported a
while ago. The government had to take a position on this issue.
There are four options available. It could get rid of the
Canadian Wheat Board altogether which 37% of farmers recently
voted in favour of, quite an astounding vote to toss the wheat
board out completely. This certainly expresses a great deal of
frustration and anger for 37% of the people to say throw it away
and we will go our own way.
1205
The second choice would be to leave the status quo, and I do not
thank anyone agrees that is a realistic possibility. The third
option would be change the board and have influence from the
primary producers, and this is what Bill C-4 does.
We would have preferred some voluntary participation so that
farmers would have a choice. How would the fast food industry
react if a small group or majority group of fast food operators
said that all fast food operators would operate a certain way
without choices? This would not be acceptable. It would be the
same with the steel industry and with the fishermen in my part of
the country. If a majority of fishermen said they were going to
sell their fish and produce to a certain group of people and that
the rest of the fishermen would have to comply, it would not be
acceptable.
Farmers should have an option. It should be voluntary
participation in the Canadian Wheat Board like every other
industry. This goes well with the general direction of global
economy and privatization.
We are willing to support certain aspects of this bill but we
will require amendments. We will be making positive amendments,
not nuisance amendments. One area we are concerned about is the
inclusion clause. We do not understand it nor do we understand
the purpose of it. There is no support from the farmers we have
talked to. It seems to be a backward step in the age of global
economy and privatization.
The exclusion clause is positive and it does acknowledge the
needs and the desires of some people to have voluntary inclusion
in the program. But it is very complex and vary cumbersome to
implement the exclusion clause. We would like it made a little
more flexible and available to more people.
Ten out of fifteen people on the board of directors are from the
industry. Four of the fifteen members and the CEO will be
appointed. The previous speaker said he wanted to put farmers in
the driver's seat. If we are going to put them in the driver's
seat why do we not let them drive and have all of the board
members from the industry rather than just ten?
In Ontario the industry drives the system. In the Ontario Wheat
Board all members are elected. We do not see why the members of
the Canadian Wheat Board are not also elected. The CEO should
definitely be elected from the board, by the board of directors,
as in any other format.
The indemnification clause bothers us. The board members are
allowed to set their own pay, benefits and make all the
decisions. It says, however, that they will not be responsible
for any errors or omissions. This is unacceptable. They must be
responsible if they are responsible for their own pay, benefits
and working conditions. In any case this is still a monopoly the
way it is set up. There must be accountability. The way Bill
C-4 sets it up there is indemnification and there is no
responsibility on behalf of the board members. With a monopoly
there must be openness. There must be access to information,
freedom of information and there must be accountability. We will
probably put forward an amendment on that.
Another area which was brought to our attention by industry
people is the contingency fund. If farmers are to take the
responsibility for the contingency fund and not the federal
government, why are there still five federal appointees on the
board? Farmers see no place for the federal government's board
members if they are to be responsible for the fund. They think
all members should be elected.
There is a big hole in Bill C-4 the way I see it as the
transportation critic. Transportation is not mentioned in the
bill at all and there are no issues with respect to
transportation. The second biggest issue in grain handling in
this country is transportation. It involves every aspect of the
business, rail operators, elevator operators, port operators,
pilotage organizations, pool operators and the primary producers,
the farmers. Most people we have talked to have indicated that
the issue of transportation is equal to all others. It must be
addressed.
One aspect that is extremely cumbersome is that the Canadian
Wheat Board has total control over the allocation of wheat cars.
This makes it almost impossible for the farmers to have access to
the cars.
1210
It means that empty ships are waiting in Vancouver harbour and
full train cars are sitting in the port of Vancouver but with the
wrong product. The wheat board has determined that the wrong
product should be shipped to port. It is a mistake. We think
this should be completely reviewed and the primary producers
should be involved in what grain goes in what train cars and is
delivered to what port and when. They must play a role in it.
Another issue is pilotage charges. It has been brought our
attention that pilotage charges are expensive. With new
technology there is no need for these pilotage charges,
especially on the west coast. In the end the grain industry pays
for them.
We are pushing for a review of the Canadian Wheat Board issues
and on wheat transportation issues in general. We believe the
system cannot respond quickly anymore to changing market demands.
There is no accountability in the transportation system in the
wheat transportation business. There is no penalty for
non-performance. Many market opportunities are missed because of
full train cars sitting on the wharf, empty ships in the harbour
and the wrong grain in the train cars.
This system is designed to fail in the global economy. It
clings to the assumptions of a bygone age and it means the system
cannot work. We think the system must change and we have a plan.
We would like to see the new system have accountability. Farmers
are accountable for delivering the right grain in a timely
manner. Railways are accountable for moving grain according to
agreed on terms. Shippers are accountable for loading the grain
at the right time in the right place.
We think market forces should be responsible. We think market
forces should determine what grain goes where and when. We think
those people who buy grain should determine when it moves, not
the people producing it and not the people in the Canadian Wheat
Board. The demand should determine what grain goes where. We
think there should be just in time delivery so farmers do not
have grain sitting in elevators for months at a time or sitting
in train cars at the port of Vancouver.
There are many things. We want choice for the grain companies.
We want them to have choices for transportation as much as
possible. We want transparencies so the rules are clear to all
participants in the system. We want a reasonable transportation
cost. As much as the Canadian Wheat Board is a monopoly, so is
the rail system a monopoly. With deregulation and changes in
rail costs coming down, the transportation costs for wheat should
be coming down. They are not. We would like to see some control
over costs that way.
We have a lot to say on this bill. We want it to proceed but we
want it to proceed with the amendments the industry is demanding.
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, as a
quick comment on the final remarks of the previous speaker, I
suggest this is the Wheat Board Act. There has been a great deal
of work done in the transportation department and the
transportation committee on the issue of grain transportation and
some of the problems in developing a truly competitive rail
system. I do not think that is something contained in this
legislation and we should not detract from the importance of this
legislation in trying to solve a separate problem.
I congratulate the minister responsible for the wheat board for
what has been a truly Herculean task. The minister has worked
for more than two years consulting with producers throughout
Canada. This is a service to more than 110,000 Canadian farm
families. It directly affects their livelihood and you do not
undertake changes to such a program without careful consideration
and consultation within that community.
1215
The minister has done a superb job and is to be congratulated.
I come from the city of Winnipeg. I do not farm. I live in an
urban centre. Urban centres right across the prairies are
enormously impacted by the health of the agricultural community.
The large grain companies and the wheat board itself are located
in Winnipeg along with the commodities exchange and a host of
suppliers that make their living on the effectiveness of the work
done in the farming communities around the urban centres.
I would like to focus in my remarks today on the whole issue of
accountability and democratization. The minister has made a very
prudent step in his move to open up the operations of the wheat
board to control five producers.
I am a little surprised by the reaction of the Reform Party.
Like the member for Qu'Appelle pointed out, members of the Reform
Party came into the House in the last session, in the last
campaign and now in this session talking about the importance of
taking direction from their voters, the importance of listening
to their constituents and acting in their best interest.
I cannot think of another circumstance when it has been clearer
what producers want. A small number of producers would like to
see the board abandoned completely now, but a substantial
majority of producers, and not 50 plus 1, want exactly the kind
of changes the minister is proposing.
I do not understand what part of democracy the Reform Party does
not like. A majority of members of the new wheat board will be
elected directly by producers. It is unclear what members
opposite are objecting to.
The board will be more flexible. It will be more accountable.
Producers will have the opportunity to make major management
decisions such as excluding certain types of grain from the
control of the board. I was interested in the remarks of the
Conservative member who referred to including certain types of
grain. That member supported the exclusion but had grave
concerns about the inclusion.
Is that not what democracy is all about? If we tell farmers
they are empowered to make decisions following a process that
consults with the producers, and as in the act a vote must be
taken, what does the member of the Reform Party fear?
If a significant majority of producers vote in favour of
including something in the wheat board, are they not the ones to
make that decision? Similarly if they vote to exclude something,
are they not the ones to make that decision? Is that not what we
have heard across the floor in the last four years from the
Reform Party, that we should trust people to make the decisions
in their own best interests? That is what the minister has tried
very hard to do.
It is a balanced approach. It is a big step. It does not go
all the way to full democratization, but it certainly takes us
down that road and puts control directly in the hands of
producers.
The bill is about five basic principles. It is about empowering
producers. It is about putting authority where producers have
always wanted it.
I urge my friend in the Reform Party to consider all producers.
Let us not just be concerned about a few large producers along
the American border. Let us consider what the wheat board has
always been charged to do along with the rights and needs of all
producers. Let us trust in producers as a group to make
decisions which should properly be made by them because it has a
direct impact on their livelihood. The bill enshrines that
authority. It enshrines the democratic process that outlines the
authority those duly elected members will have in the management
of the new wheat board.
1220
I was a little surprised to hear the opposition of the member
for Portage—Lisgar to the new accountability provisions. I
heard him speak about the need for the wheat board to be more
accountability, yet when we take that action in the bill he wants
to toss it out. I am a little puzzled by that.
The board will have access to audited financial statements. It
will have access to all the operational information it needs to
make decisions about the proper functioning of the wheat board.
The board will have control.
It has enhanced powers in its overall flexibility. The board
can make the decision to include or exclude types of grain. It
can make the decision about how it will market. I fail to
understand the concern of the member for Portage—Lisgar.
The bill does something the government has tried to do in a
great many areas, that is open up the processes of governance and
hand over to people directly affected in a community the right
and responsibility for the management of that entity. We have
seen it with the moves in the transportation industry. We have
seen it with the moves in the establishment of independent, arm's
length agencies, in research infrastructure and now in
scholarships. We are saying that governments can step back and
can trust the community to make those decisions.
I am fundamentally amazed the one party in the House that
constantly preaches this process refuses to support it.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is always a pleasure to sit in the House, listen and learn, and
then give the opposition some good advice and perhaps explain a
term or two.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South asked me why we could not
support democracy. In the last election were there only
Conservatives and Liberals on the ballot? Were there not Reform
and NDP candidates? When we vote on the Canadian Wheat Board,
why do we not have on the ballot single desk selling, open market
or voluntary wheat board? Why do we not have four options? To
me democracy is a clear vote with no argument.
In committee we elected our chairman. I wanted to ask the hon.
parliamentary secretary to the minister for the wheat board how
he explains democracy and I was ruled out of order. To me
democracy is a vote by a secret ballot, not one with a policeman
standing at the door and counting fingers. That is not
democracy. I have seen that type of democracy in the Soviet
Union and in Eastern Bloc countries but not in democracies like
Canada, the United States and Great Britain.
I am all for democracy. I am for a free vote on the Canadian
Wheat Board. Everybody has hammered me because I do not
represent farmers. Let us ask members across the way how many
rural Liberal or NDP members there are from Saskatchewan,
Manitoba and Alberta? Not very many. They cannot hold one to a
dozen that we have, so they should not tell me that we are not
representing farmers.
Mr. Wayne Easter: 100% in Ontario.
1225
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: None, none, at all. Is it democracy to
have somebody in Ottawa dictating to farmers in western Canada
what they have to do, no matter what the price?
They did not listen to the latest ruling by Judge Huband in
Manitoba on the wheat board court case. He said the wheat board
had no accountability to farmers. It does not have to maximize
prices. All it is obliged to do under the wheat board act is to
move grain.
Is that representing farmers? For goodness' sake, to me that is
distortion. Perhaps I am getting a little strong with my words.
Maybe I had better tone down.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: The farmers spoke.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: The hon. member from the NDP talked
about accountability and equality. I wish he would explain it to
me. When his MP pension plan is about $2 million and my farmers
are starving, where is the accountability? How did the NDP vote
on the MP pension plan?
Mr. Jason Kenney: How come he did not run in Yorkton this
time?
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: I wonder why he did not run in
Yorkton. I do not think there were many farmers there. He
needed the farmers. He wanted them to vote for him, did he not,
or why did he move?
It is an interesting House in which to sit and listen to these
people talking about democracy, accountability and equality. As
long as somebody in Ottawa can tell us what to do in western
Canada it is accountability and it is democracy. When we in
western Canada send 60 Reform MPs representing all the rural
areas we say what farmers need. They want a voluntary wheat
board, a wheat board that can market all grain and get the best
price for them. But that is not equality, that is no good,
according to the government.
Mr. Wayne Easter: They voted on the wheat board advisory.
They were 100% in favour.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: They voted on the advisory board. I
thank the hon. member for bringing that out. I do not have Mr.
Harder, the advisory board chairman, in my riding but I was
interested in what kind of accountability and prestige he had in
his riding. I went to the returning officer and checked the
figures on the votes the Liberals and the NDP got in the two
polls where Mr. Harder, the big defender of the wheat board, was
working against Reform tooth and nail. The results were 25 for
the Liberals, 78 for Reform, 18 for the Liberals and 72 for
Reform. That is democracy.
There was a flood in Manitoba. It was very interesting when
they were campaigning. All of a sudden I saw Liberals waving
$5,000 cheques and saying “Vote for the Liberals and you will
get compensation. Just vote for us”. There were 12 Liberal
candidates in Manitoba and 6 of them floated down the Red River
with their $5,000 cheques. They are gone, gone for good. That
is what I call democracy. That is accountability. If we do not
deliver what we say then down the river and out into the lake.
Farmers in western Canada want equality. They want
accountability. They want democracy. They want the option of a
voluntary wheat board, a single desk or open market. That is all
they ask. When we look at the CTV-Maclean's poll, farmers
are in the most honourable profession in Canada. Let us look
where politicians are: right on the bottom just above lawyers.
It is accountability when they are placed according to order.
It has been a real nice experience to listen to the debate
today. I hope they will ask me for the judgment of Judge Huband
to read how accountable the wheat board is. When the wheat board
mandate is only to get rid of grain no matter what the price that
is not accountability. Accountability is to get a fair market
price distributed to each farmer. If the wheat board is not
prepared to do that it should get out of the business. Everybody
else will do it.
We can look at the canola industry, the flax industry and the
rye industry. Farmers are moving them. They are getting decent
prices. They are progressing. Look at the wheat board grains.
They are going down, down, down. Very soon we will not have any
wheat with which to make our bread. That is what is happening to
wheat board grains.
1230
We recently had a provincial byelection in Portage. It is
Portage—Lisgar for the information of the hon. member for
Winnipeg South. Reform got over 15% of the votes without a party
to back it up, just behind the Liberals. Not only did we do
well, we got rid of another two Liberal MLAs in the legislature.
They resigned because they were so disillusioned with the lousy
political system.
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I am very new to the House, but it was my understanding
that we were debating Bill C-4 today and not the recent
byelection.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In the opinion of
the Chair the hon. member was relevant.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to look
at the last clause of the bill. If a wheat board manager or a
wheat board employee is found to be in civil disobedience or is
caught in a criminal act what happens to them? The liability
comes back to the farmer who has entrusted that employee with the
grain. That is responsibility. I have to pay the liability for
the guy skimming my grain.
If I hire a man and he steals my pick-up truck and I call the
police and they arrest him and put him in jail, will I have to
pay the fine? Will I have to pay him for the time he spends in
prison?
That is how ridiculous this bill is. It takes the liability
away from the government, which is forcing this bill on farmers
and placing the liability on producers. I have never heard of
something like that happening in a democracy. It really bothers
me that that type of thing can happen.
Judge Huband said that Parliament should look into these
irregularities and do what has to be done. What did Parliament
do when asked to act on these irregularities? The solicitor
general lost the documentation between here and Winnipeg D
division. It was gone. I got kicked out of the House because I
could not believe that was possible. How can government, from
the solicitor general to D division in Winnipeg, lose the
documentation?
That is what this bill is about—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair rose
because on that occasion, in the opinion of the Chair, the hon.
member for Portage—Lisgar was straying from relevance to the
bill on debate. The member has about 30 seconds to wrap up his
speech. I would ask that he do so by speaking on the bill which
we are debating.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that very
much. I know that I will get the chance in the House one of
these days to get an explanation of democracy from that side of
the House because I still have not found that it gibes with what
the dictionary says. I would like to know who is right. Is the
Webster dictionary right about democracy or is the Liberal
government right?
That is what this bill deals with. Where is the accountability?
Where is the equality? Where is the democracy in this bill? I
do not see it.
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it has been an
interesting morning and afternoon discussing Bill C-4, an act
regarding the Canadian Wheat Board. It is something which the
hon. member opposite from western Canada claims he knows a fair
bit about. What astounds me is that he talked about democracy. I
know a little about democracy and I know that this bill speaks
directly to democracy.
This government has made a very firm pledge to listen to the
producers. It listens to the people who are affected by
legislation. That is exactly what Bill C-4 does. It speaks
exactly to the needs of producers and to consumers who enjoy the
agricultural industry. It is a Canadian industry. It is not
just a western Canadian industry. That is why we are debating it
here on the floor of the House of Commons. It is very important
for us to discuss it. I honour and respect the opinions of our
colleagues from western Canada, our colleagues from Reform.
1235
We too represent western Canada. We are prepared to listen to
their arguments, to their discussions and to their points. That
is exactly what we are doing here today. We are referring this
bill to committee prior to second reading. That is what the
debate today is about. We are referring this bill to committee
prior to second reading. That is the democratic process.
Referral to committee prior to second reading allows members
opposite and government members to provide greater input into the
substance and structure of a bill. It is an innovation that was
created by the Liberal government in the last Parliament to allow
opposition members and government members to provide greater
substance to bills.
From the democratic point of view that is a very important
point, something we are not afraid of. We are not afraid to
listen to people who have opinions and want to have their
opinions registered for the record.
However, we have come to a point where we are arguing—actually
my colleagues opposite are arguing—whether or not this bill
embraces democracy. Clearly two-thirds of the board of directors
of the Canadian Wheat Board will be representatives of the
producers who are most directly affected.
I understand a little something about democracy and I would
suggest to the hon. speaker that clearly those who have a vested
interest should be represented on the board. That is clearly
what Bill C-4 does. For the first time in the history of the
wheat board we will actually have representative democracy. Those
producers who are most directly affected by the actions and
outcomes of the Canadian Wheat Board will have a direct say in
its management and its structures. That is representative
democracy.
This morning the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar had to ask the
question, what is democracy. I can certainly understand why he
would have to ask that. He has intimated that he does not
understand where democracy fits into this bill. The farmers
themselves are sitting on the board of directors of the Canadian
Wheat Board. They are the ones who represent the associations,
they are the ones who represent the farmers and they do the best
job. Two-thirds of the board of directors will be farmers and
that is exactly what this bill is all about.
The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar mentioned that his farmers
are starving. For 62 years the Canadian Wheat Board has been
representing farmers and it has been doing a very good job.
Stability in the wheat board process is very important and it is
something that creates stability within the agricultural
community.
We are prepared to create innovation because innovation is
important. We are creating innovation within this act to respond
to the needs of the day. Two-thirds of the directors of this
organization will be from the producers themselves, and I find
absolutely nothing wrong with that. It is quite a good bill. It
is a bill that meets the needs of the wheat industry. The
Canadian Wheat Board will now be more representative of those
needs.
Wheat exports have been increasing recently in part because of
the efforts of the Canadian government and in large part because
of the efforts of the Canadian Wheat Board. We have actually
seen increases in our export capability in this field. We have
seen increases in revenue, in the amount of value that is created
from our agricultural community. That is a very important point
to add when we talk about the supposed inefficiencies of the
wheat board. Where do we get increases when there are supposed
inefficiencies from this structure? It is a good structure
because it represents the needs of the people who are most
interested in the Canadian Wheat Board.
It bothers me to address this in the House because the House
deserves better decorum. However, there has been a suggestion
that the farmers who will sit as members of the board of
directors for the Canadian Wheat Board will for some reason be
corrupt and that this wheat board legislation will protect
corrupt farmers. That was the suggestion from the Reform Party.
As they go around their constituencies making representations
about the Canadian Wheat Board, they will suggest that the
legislation allows inappropriate activity to go unharnessed and
unabated.
1240
I would like to point out the wording in the Canadian Wheat
Board Act what we proposed directly follows the Canadian Business
Incorporations Act and nothing more. It follows exactly what
every private sector firm incorporated under the rules of the
Government of Canada follow today.
When they go about their riding consultation process are they
going to point out that day after day as long as Reformers sit in
the House, that they have indemnity from any sort of prosecution?
That is a procedure they enjoy every day.
When Reform members make inappropriate statements and members
from the opposition benches make what some would consider
inappropriate statements, it is the House of Commons and the
people of Canada who will pay for their legal bills. That is
amazing.
Reform members are discussing the fact that they feel this is
completely inappropriate that farmers, those who sit on the board
of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board should be completely
open and susceptible to any charge or allegation, even if it
comes from the benches of hon. members opposite.
There is a valid reason why we should have the same rules that
govern every private sector forum in the country incorporated
under the Canada business act that same respect should be given
to the farmers who take the courage, time and energy to sit on
the board of directors of this corporation.
I would like hon. members opposite to point out when they go
about their constituency consultations that they do not want
farmers who sit on this board of directors to have any
protections whatsoever, to have any sort of umbrella within the
Canadian Wheat Board. They should be able to do their business
and not do things which are contrary to the laws of Canada as has
been suggested, not to do things which are contrary to the best
interests of farmers. They should be allowed to just go about
their business.
While members opposite enjoy parliamentary privilege day after
day in the House of Commons, they would have farmers be
susceptible to prosecution regardless of how frivolous the
charge. That is exactly what hon. members will not talk about as
they go about their riding consultations, that they enjoy
parliamentary privileges and that they will have their legal
bills paid for by the House of Commons, yet they will not even
extend part of that same privilege to anybody else. That is
hypocrisy.
Now I come to my conclusion. Soon we will refer this to
committee before second reading. It will be a great opportunity
to work with my colleagues, to respect the wishes of farmers and
to strengthen, not tear down, the Canadian Wheat Board. Quite
frankly, I believe hon. members opposite want to weaken it
because they know it is a darned good Liberal innovation and it
will strengthen our resolve in western Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to this bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act
and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
People sometimes think that the Bloc Quebecois or the other
opposition parties systematically oppose everything the government
proposes. We for our part support this bill. We may have a few
concerns, some constructive criticism, but in general terms, we
will vote in favour of the bill's being sent to committee.
1245
I would first like to take a few minutes to send greetings to
the people in my riding. This is not the first time I have risen
in this new Parliament, but this is my first speech. I would
therefore like to take a few minutes to acknowledge the people in
my riding.
As you know this is my second mandate. I obtained 64% of the
vote thanks to a fine team that stuck with me throughout the
campaign, which led to a great victory on June 2. The people
placed their confidence in me. That moves me deeply. And I thank
them very much.
In all good faith, I would like to salute my opponents in the last
election campaign, especially Clément Lajoie, the mayor of St. Bruno, a
village in my riding, and Sabin Simard, the Conservative candidate.
I think all candidates ran a respectful campaign. I say
“candidates” because at the party level, it was another story.
When you are facing in your riding a party like the Liberal Party
of Canada, I can tell you that respect sometimes goes out the
window. Let me tell you I did not appreciate the Liberal Party's
little destabilization tactics in the middle of the campaign.
It was rumoured that we had not risen often enough in the House,
while over not quite eight months I think I had risen more than
70 times, which is quite a bit more than many members across the
way. The word was going around that I attended only 80% of
votes, when it is well known that one day a week, that is one day
out of five or 20% of the time, I could not be here. They
were trying to destabilize us in the middle of the campaign using
this kind of lines. They played with public opinion by
capitalizing on the fact that people are not necessarily familiar
with how politics works.
Also, what I find most disturbing is how much money these political
parties have available. You probably know that, as a party, the Bloc
Quebecois believe it is important not to have financial ties with
business or corporate interests. That is why there are no corporate
donations allowed in Quebec, only public funding.
When, in the middle of an election campaign, you find yourself
pitted against political parties that take donations from large
corporations, I find it extremely painful to have a policy to that
effect, especially considering how they get their financing.
This was made obvious recently during question period.
In a word, Mr. Speaker, as I can see you watching the clock, while
I will not rend my clothes over this issue, I certainly would have a lot
to say on the matter, but there is nothing to worry about.
I may be upset with how things were done in the past, as I said,
but fear not, I am looking to the future. In fact, I am absolutely
thrilled about the future. Because the future means 44 Bloc members. It
means the year 2000 and a new country. This will require a third
referendum, and this time the yes side will win.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I would ask please,
that we stay somewhere close to the bill that we are debating
which is of course the wheat board bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I am getting
there. But the folks in our ridings deserve a nod.
I am very proud of my riding—
Mr. Louis Plamondon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I am very surprised to hear you call a member to order by censoring
his arguments. On every occasion that we have risen in this House, we
have made the connection between the bill now before us and certain
objectives that our party has. I am very surprised to hear the young
member interrupted and told that he must say this or that, when the
other parties are not treated this way.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): With respect, hon.
member, the Chair does not consider that to be a point of order.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I think that it is sort of
a tradition for one's maiden speech to concentrate a bit more on
local affairs. That was the reason I thought it important to
mention a few facts. But, as you wish, I will move right along.
I had some nice things to say, but out of respect for the Chair,
and for this democratic institution, the Parliament of Canada, I
will move on to my comments on Bill C-4. I do so with respect,
because I hold this institution in respect. In Quebec, we have
respect for democracy. I did want to mention the third
referendum, which is not far off. I hope that this institution
will respect Quebeckers' upcoming decision.
1250
Finally, in connection with Bill C-4, I wanted to mention an
agricultural initiative in my riding, the Coopérative Grains D'OR. The
co-operative's 225 shareholders have set up a grain centre, which means
they can process and package their own crops. I am telling you this
because it brings me to today's debate on the bill to amend the Canadian
Wheat Board Act.
So, as I said earlier, the Bloc Quebecois is not opposed to the
bill. It is a worthwhile piece of legislation which will ensure
greater representation for western producers, and we are pleased
to see a measure which will benefit other Canadian provinces. We
are not here to undermine what is being done elsewhere, quite the
contrary, but we are aware that, while the bill affects Quebec to
some extent, it does so in an indirect way.
This measure is a carbon copy of Bill C-72, which was introduced
during the last session of the 35th Parliament. Fear not: it is
not out of generosity that the Liberal government came up with
this legislation but, rather, because of pressure exerted by
western producers, who have been demanding that changes be made
to the methods used by the Canadian Wheat Board. In recent years,
many transborder farmers from western Canada have illegally
exported wheat to the United States. This undoubtedly explains,
to some extent, the government's initiative.
The changes to be made to the Canadian Wheat Board through this
bill take into account, among other things, the restructuring of
this body, thanks, in part, to the partial replacement of Liberal
patronage, as outlined in clause 3. I say “partial replacement
of Liberal patronage” because this government will still appoint
five directors out of the 15 mentioned in the bill.
However, the reason we are supporting this bill is that a majority
of directors, 10 of them, will be elected by the farmers who use the
CWB's services. This is a positive change, in light of the current
situation.
It should be noted that the Bloc Quebecois played a major role in
the makeup of the board. Indeed, without the efforts made and the
pressure exerted by the hon. member for Frontenac—Mégantic, the
Liberals would surely have reduced the number of producers'
representatives.
As regards the activities involved, Bill C-4 provides greater
flexibility in purchasing grain and paying farmers, the whole
process being covered in part by a reserve fund set up by the
CWB.
As our agriculture and agri-food critic said earlier, the Bloc
Quebecois supports this government measure. Unlike those who
accuse us of navel gazing and despite the fact that this subject
might appear to be of no interest to us because of the difference
in our farming sectors, we are interested in the measures
proposed in the bill, which is if considerable significance for
Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and various parts of British
Columbia. Western grain farmers are entitled to have their say,
and we will try to add our support in this matter.
Still on the subject of the social restructuring in this bill,
I would point out certain facts that will shed a little light on
what appears to be a government sacrifice, but which in fact a
sham.
I say sham because the government will retain fairly significant
control over the Canadian Wheat Board.
In short, for these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will support
the bill's being sent to committee, and we do not intend to make
things difficult for the government.
[English]
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to clarify a couple of points that have been made on
Bill C-4.
1255
When we hear about the undemocratic process that has been
suggested with regard to the wheat board, there is no question
that we need to have a balance between those who are responsible
for the expertise in that legislation and those who really
represent the sale by the farmers.
This bill does put forward a very good balance. We do have
people who were appointed as the CEO of that corporation. We are
looking at an extremely large corporation. People looking after
that corporation certainly have a responsibility to have the
expertise to be brought forward to make certain that those issues
are understood and understood well.
We certainly need a larger portion of elected people who are
going to represent those they are selling the grain for. Quite
clearly there is not a scenario where one can be done without the
other. The expertise of both is required: those who know the
value of the grain, sell the value of the grain, work with people
abroad, work with all the intricacies of transportation and
everything the board is responsible for; and those who represent
the primary producers.
In this bill we have set forward a balance yet we have put the
primary producer first without question having 10 people elected
from areas across this country.
When one talks about the responsibility of that board, the
Ontario Wheat Board which is a very heavy producer of wheat as
well is under the Canadian Wheat Board. Ontario certainly has a
very strong vested interest in how the Canadian Wheat Board
operates.
There is not one Reform member who represents Ontario nor do
they understand. I spent a long time in the last Parliament
trying to explain to several Reform members what that condition
was with the Ontario Wheat Board and our sales.
Certainly they have to understand that my riding is a major
producer of wheat, there is no question about that. We produce
it in Ontario yet we need to have permission from the Canadian
Wheat Board to sell our grain abroad. We need to have permission
from the Canadian Wheat Board to transport it from province to
province. Therefore there are many implications of that wheat
board that have a great effect on other regions of Canada. It is
not just a western grain issue, ladies and gentlemen. That is
not the case.
I also believe that when we look at this bill we have done
extreme consultation across the west. There is no question that
this has been a process where hearings were held by a committee
that went across the west. It looked at the results of those
hearings and certainly moved that issue forward.
I think the minister at the time and the minister who remains
today tried to take into account every aspect of the operation of
that board before he made any recommendations. He very
cautiously went about the recommendations and changes that were
brought about.
I have no question that the department has spent years looking
at the issues and bringing forth a compromised position that
actually is fair for everyone. What we are hearing here is a very
one sided viewpoint, a one sided presentation.
As my colleague before me pointed out, it is very clear when
they talk about not having protection for the farmers who are
sitting on the board from legal suits that may come about. What
an unfair position it is to ask people who are elected and sit on
a major board that deals with all Canadian wheat in areas of
other countries, with all the questions and problems that come
about and they are saying, “Look, sit there. We will pay you a
small amount but if you are sued for millions of dollars, do not
expect any support”.
What a shame that is because every other corporation in this
country provides those protections for people sitting on their
boards. All members in this House when they stand and speak are
afforded that protection in this House. The House of Commons
covers their costs if they have legal problems with regard to
whatever happens in the House. They cannot be sued for
statements they make in the House. However at the same time,
they are saying that the board of directors for the Canadian
Wheat Board cannot be provided that kind of protection.
1300
I suggest there are many arguments being put forth here which
are very one sided. That is very unfortunate from my viewpoint
because I believe those ladies and gentlemen who dedicate
themselves to work on the wheat board, those ladies and gentlemen
who shall run for the new wheat board, will do a great service
for the farmers in western Canada and for all the farmers in
Canada. There is no question that we should give them all of the
afforded protection we can give them so that they will provide
that service well.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise for the first time in this House. I want to say that no
bill will ever come before the House this session which is closer
to my constituents than this bill.
I come from the Souris—Moose Mountain constituency where the
farmers in 1960 wanted options. They were not satisfied with the
marketing of grain. Although they were subjected to all kinds of
opposition, phoney road bans, phoney literature being spread
about it, the farmers said they want an option. They dug down
deep into their pockets and built the Weyburn inland terminal.
Today the city of Weyburn has the largest grain handling facility
of any inland place in Canada because the farmers exercise an
option.
Members opposite do not seem to realize that is what Reform is
talking about. We are talking about an option.
If the wheat board does not look clearly into what our young
farmers are saying, and I know this is true in Souris—Moose
Mountain, if they are not given an option, then the wheat board,
in its original purpose, the reason for which it was designed,
will self-destruct. That self-destruction will not take too many
years.
There is one thing of which members opposite ought to be
cognizant. They brag about the 37% vote they got. The only
difference between a third and a half is a sixth. That fraction
is growing smaller and smaller all the time because of the bills
they are putting before the House such as the bill which revises
the wheat board.
They talk about democracy, with 10 of its members being voted
in and 5 being elected. They say it is a Canadian bill. Is the
creation of the Ontario Wheat Board not a Canadian bill? All of
its members are elected. What is wrong with electing all of the
members to this board?
As long as there is not accountability and open books, as long
as there is not accountability in the way their statements are
audited and produced, then that area of suspicion grows with
every crop that comes off every farm. It is growing and
government members had better understand why it is growing.
I alluded to the farmers in my constituency who have and will
continue to put their money into their own grain handling
facilities. If those farmers are given the option tomorrow, we
will find out which option they will take. They will take the
same option which they did in building their facilities. They
will take that option. There is no doubt about it.
The member talked about getting permission from the Ontario
Wheat Board to deliver grain across the border. Why is it that
the people in the west cannot get permission to deliver their
grain to the area of their choice? It is allowed in Ontario, but
it cannot happen in western Canada. Government members will have
to answer those questions.
1305
The electorate of western Canada did answer. The greatest wheat
growing province in Canada said “no way, we are going to elect
eight Reformers all from the rural area”. There is the answer.
Those members say this is an Ottawa made bill for the
bureaucracy that basically is in Ottawa, and therefore the bill
is going to stay here. They know very well with the government
members, five of them being appointed, all they have to do is
take three members away from the 10 and they have the majority.
Democracy goes right out the window. All of those three members
elected have to do is side with the government and the five who
are appointed and the wishes of the farmers are gone.
Members know that and that is exactly why they did not have a
totally elected board. That is exactly the reason. They are not
fooling the farmers of western Canada. They are not being fooled
one little bit.
If the farmers right now who are in dire straits, and there are
a lot of them with the price of wheat, are given the opportunity,
if they are listened to, they would say “Please, in our
democratic society of Canada give us the choice. Don't legislate
to us. We grow it, we store it but we don't own it. We don't
sell it. We can't understand the operation because our selling
agency is not even responsible to us”.
This is why, in my constituency, more and more agents every year
are going out of wheat. Do members know why they are going out
of wheat and barley production and the acreage is going down?
Because they do not have a choice.
When they can get mustard, canola and soya, all of these
commodities, that is where they are going. They contract it in
the spring. They know what they are going to get and they got a
choice. They have a choice with whom they even contract it to.
That is all we are asking, but those members want to keep this
thing a dictatorial body governed not at arms' length from the
government. The government is right in there and that is where
the mistrust comes.
I know I can go to the people of my constituency, even those who
support the wheat board, even those who openly say they want more
control. They have said no, they are not going to get it with
this mix-match. “We will give them 10 elected boys but we'll
control them”.
They still see the board controlled by the government. That is
exactly what the farmers do not want and that is not what the
farmers on their survey of western Canada said.
I hope this bill gets a good airing in this House. I hope
committee goes through it in detail because the major producers
of western Canada deserve more of an option than what they have
been given under this bill, for this is a billion dollar
industry.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know if two or three years from now whether
anyone will remember this speech, but I will give it anyway.
Government is destroying the wheat board. I want to make that
clear at the beginning. I am going to be asking a series of
questions to point out how it is doing that. I have heard the
Liberals across the way talking about the fact that we do not
have any representatives in Ontario.
I do not see the relevance of that point to what we are
discussing today. The Canadian Wheat Board affects primarily the
people in the prairie provinces. If the hon. minister in charge
of the wheat board had to face farmers in an election today, he
would not get elected.
He got elected because he is in primarily an urban constituency.
There are very few farmers who support him on this issue. I
think that is something that should be clear to the members
opposite.
I appeal to those people watching and listening to this debate
today, I appeal to our city cousins, to listen to the dilemma
farmers are in because they have no control over the minister of
the Canadian Wheat Board.
The government is talking about democracy. Every farmer knows
that the question which was asked on the plebiscite on barley
marketing was not the key question. It was an all or nothing
question.
1310
The government decided that there was either a monopoly or there
was no wheat board. That is not what the farmers in my area are
telling me. If members want to talk about democracy, they should
come to my riding and design the questions. I have already done
that and over 80% of the farmers want changes to the wheat board,
which the minister is not making. That is democracy and it is not
happening in the House today. Over 50% of the farmers want some
choice. They were not given that option.
I live in an area that is very strongly supportive of the wheat
board.
Unfortunately I will not have time to get through the nine very
important questions that I think need to be addressed. I will
have to somehow communicate that to the members opposite in
another way because those are key questions.
We have had very little light shed on this debate today. There
has been a lot of heat and it has generated a lot of friction
between farmers in Saskatchewan. Unless these questions are
addressed and light is shed on this, we are spinning our wheels
and not doing what is in the best interests of farmers.
When I surveyed the farmers in my area, I had no vested interest
in one side of the question or the other. I wanted to know what
farmers really thought. I think that is what the government
should be doing. It should be going to farmers and asking what
they really want. The government put in place a marketing panel
and when it brought in its report, the government cherry picked.
I listened to somebody this morning reporting about the
transportation issue and how all of the key stakeholders in it
got together and reached an agreement and the government simply
cherry picked on the results of that. That is what it has done
with the western marketing panel. We have this problem over and
over.
Another time I will go through my nine questions because I feel
they are essential in shedding light on this issue.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty to
interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the
question on the motion now before the House.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
If I were to get the unanimous consent of the House I could go
through these nine points because they are essential.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the member have
the unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There is not unanimous
consent.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1315
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The vote stands
deferred until the end of Government Orders tomorrow.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
The House resumed from October 6 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-2, an act to establish the Canada Pension Plan
Investment Board and to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old
Age Security Act and to make consequential amendments to other
acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of
the amendment.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last night, as you are well aware, I had started into the debate
on the CPP legislation, Bill C-2. I wish to give a quick review
of the points I made last night before I continue.
The CPP legislation was designed some 30 years ago. There is no
question that in that design of CPP legislation there needed to
be—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Excuse me, hon.
members, if we could keep it down in the House while other
members are speaking.
Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, that was very kind of
you. The folks across the way could listen and learn a bit about
the CPP legislation. Then they would understand. There is a very
good colleague across the way who happens to be a parliamentary
secretary who is helping them understand some of the finer
details and we very much appreciate that.
In the review of what I talked about yesterday it is critical to
understand that the legislation which started 30 years ago needed
some upgrading to be brought into the reality of today's society.
Certainly when the chief actuary reported that there was a
tremendous imbalance in the relationship between the
contributions on the one hand and the payouts on the other hand
and that it would not be a long sustainable plan, the finance
minister took it upon himself to make certain corrections were
made.
As I pointed out, the minister did not move along in this in
some way in that he did not hide the fact that this plan needed
revision. He went about it in a very open clear obvious way. He
did consultations with all provincial and territorial governments
in trying to examine the direction we should go. He talked to
professional actuaries across the country, insurance experts. He
talked to social planners, seniors, youth and the disabled to
make certain that all the elements of society that are affected
by the Canada pension plan were taken into account.
The consultations took a very long period of time. The answer
that came back from Canadians was to keep the CPP and to make
changes if necessary. The message was that the CPP is a very
vital part of Canadian society, a very foundation under which we
operate and one that needs to be maintained.
I also pointed out that there were some distortions when talking
about the CPP. Many colleagues across the way have suggested
that it is a tax grab. Quite the contrary. This is a savings
plan, an investment fund that will be managed by an independent
body. Any profits that come to the management of that
independent body will go back into the fund. No dollars will go
into general revenue. It is an independent fund that will be
managed separately.
1320
CPP contributions are tax deductible and therefore a tax
deductible process that is put in place for the future of
Canadians, for seniors of today. When we look at it, there is no
question that it is a very vital program.
Anyone who says it is a tax grab is saying “Don't put any more
money into it”. If that is the case, the reality is that if no
more money goes in, payments do not go out. In reality what they
are saying is no CPP for low income seniors in the future. That
is a shame because that is removing the vital foundation under
which this country operates which is to look after the seniors of
this land. To say “Don't put money into the CPP” is to say
“Low income seniors, we don't care about you”. I have a
tremendous concern about that.
The basic features remain the same today as they were before.
What we were told as well through these consultation processes
that I pointed out yesterday was to go very easy. We were told
not to go at this process very rapidly to alienate, hurt or upset
any group in society. The plan was put in place so that changes
would occur over a seven year period. Those adjustments would
not be put in immediately. They would be spread over a seven
year period and therefore it would not be a catastrophe or a blow
to any group in our society.
Thus I have arrived at the point where I finished last night and
I am continuing today. The impact of the changes will be shared
among retirees, future survivors of retirees and recipients of
disability benefits.
As noted earlier, one currently in receipt of a retirement
pension under the CPP will not see that pension change. Let me
state that again because that is something everyone in this House
and everyone in society should be aware of. If you are in
receipt of a CPP pension today, that will not change. All of
those people who have pensions now can look forward to that same
pension over the years without change.
However retirement pensions for future beneficiaries would
change since the calculation would be based on five year maximum
earnings instead of the current three. As an example of that
impact of the proposed change, the maximum monthly pension based
on the year's figures would drop from $736 to $724. That
proposed change means a $12 a month change in benefits. That is
a minimal change. It has been designed to be minimal, not to
upset or destroy the balance but to make it affordable and make
those changes minimal.
There are also changes proposed in the disability benefits of
the CPP. As of now, to qualify for a disability pension an
applicant must have contributed to the CPP in two of the last three
years, or five of the last ten years. The bill proposes to
change that requirement so that to be eligible for the benefit
you must contribute in four of the last six years.
Changes are also proposed to the formula which will be used to
calculate the disability levels. Under these proposals,
pensionable earnings would be based on the applicant's maximum
pensionable earnings at the time of disability.
I see I have a short time left to finish and there are a couple
of points I would like to underline. We found ourselves in a
position from the actuarial studies that stated that changes had
to occur in the plan. We have tried to make those changes as
easy and spread over a longer period of time as possible. We
believe it is very vital that all seniors have pensionable
earnings. We believe that seniors must be protected with the
Canada pension plan and it has to be put in place to be
sustainable.
Anybody who says you cannot increase the rates is saying you
cannot pay benefits to seniors in the future. That is the
reality. It is either pay into the plan and pay the benefits, or
do not pay into the plan and cut the whole CPP.
1325
What I am hearing from the right wing side of the House, from
the Reform Party, from the Conservative Party, is they do not
want seniors to have the Canada pension plan any longer. That is
the reality if they are saying not to renew it or not to do what
needs to be done to improve the plan.
Liberals strongly believe this fundamental foundation in
security has served Canada well and will in the future.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
was particularly impressed with the comments from the MP for
Kent—Essex saying that the pension plan is not a tax grab by the
government, that the funds that would be put into the pension
fund would not be used for purposes other than pensions.
I submit to the MP for Kent—Essex that the government increased
UI premiums and instead of using this money to help the
unemployed, it used it to reduce the deficit. This was a misuse
of that money.
What about the GST, the famous tax that was supposed to be
abolished by the government? The GST was never abolished as far
as I know. I ask the MP from Kent—Essex if the government can
be trusted not to use funds in the pension fund for purposes
other than the pension plan.
Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question
from my colleague. I am surprised because he was sitting in the
House when the Liberal government was elected in 1993.
The member referred to the unemployment fund. The first measure
that the government undertook in 1993 was to stop an increase
scheduled by the Tory government before we were elected. Then
under three subsequent budgets we reduced the EI contributions,
once, twice, three times. We reduced them in every succeeding
budget. For the member to suggest that we increased them, I
wonder where he has been for the last three and a half years.
Certainly he has not been studying the legislation.
I would like to continue on that point which he opened the door
for and reiterate very firmly so all Canadians understand, that
we will have a fund. It will be a tax deductible contribution by
Canadians. It will pay for the CPP benefit. It will be
administered by a separate body. Not one penny of contributions
will go to the general revenue fund. They will go to the CPP
fund and will be used to pay for benefits down the line.
It is important for Canadians to understand that there were
changes made in the 1989 legislation that allowed more people to
qualify for CPP and increased the flat rate. We actually
increased the rates that people could receive under the CPP and
we set up the plan for more people to qualify. As a result it
affected the bottom line of the fund historically. That is one of
the reasons that it is not able to pay for the costs in the
future.
1330
These minor alterations will set that balance straight and
maintain an appropriate balance so all seniors will be allowed to
receive CPP.
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
find this very interesting. I rise to make a comment on the hon.
member's speech. He called a 74% increase in payroll taxes a
minor adjustment. If that is a minor adjustment, I would like to
hear the hon. member's definition of a substantial increase.
I want to comment on his remark that the Reform wants to get rid
of pensions for seniors. A plan comes in. Everyone is told a
pension will be there for them and that there will be no
increases. Now we are facing a Liberal solution: throw money at
it.
We have promised in writing that seniors in our plan will be
guaranteed the pension they are already receiving. They will get
everything they have a right to expect from the plan. We will
offer it to people earlier and get it out of the hands of a
government that has totally lost control of the plan.
We are not talking about some adjustments in 1989 that have
jeopardized the cashflow of the plan. We are talking about a
plan that is almost $600 billion underfunded. That did not start
in 1989.
Does the hon. member wish to clarify his comment that this is a
minor adjustment? Does he wish to reconsider his position? He
ought to know it is incorrect to say the Reform is out to take
away anyone's pension.
Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, the obvious reality is
that people are paying into the plan. We have separate
management of the plan by financial experts. They are experts in
insurance policies. They are experts in social planning. They
are experts in disability payments. They are experts in all
areas CPP covers. They tell us the contributions—and we see it
in the actuarial numbers—have not and will not pay for the
retirements of the future.
We did not take this role on to stand back and not deal with it
until we are at a critical stage. Paul Martin had the foresight
to take the issue on immediately—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair is almost
certain the hon. member was referring to the Minister of Finance.
Is that correct?
Mr. Jerry Pickard: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Minister
of Finance had the foresight to move the issue forward and
resolve the problem 20 years in advance.
On the other hand the Tories avoided solutions. They did not
tackle the issue. We must make sure contributions match the
payouts over any period of time. It is a closed fund. The only
way it becomes sustainable is to make certain that contributions
and payouts balance. If we cannot increase the contributions we
cannot make the payouts. That is obvious. As soon as we cut the
contributions we cut the payouts.
What is being proposed in the RRSP scenario is that those who
have a lot of money to pay into RRSPs will be the benefactors of
a pension in the future. Those who do not have the funds, those
poor Canadians, are the ones who will end up without pensions.
The rich get more and the poor get poorer. That is story being
put forward by colleagues across from me today.
1335
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member's
time has expired for this segment.
Before recognizing the next hon. member, for the benefit of hon.
members who are new to the House, including those who are new to
the Chair, I would like to explain the use of the word you.
If the word you is being used as a general term and not aimed at
a specific individual, this Chair thinks it is okay. If we use
the word you and we are referring to another hon. member, it
would be better if we referred to each other through the Chair.
This is the interpretation this Chair has taken from the Speaker.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise to debate Bill C-2, an act to amend the
Canada pension plan. Some members of my generation think it
should be renamed the Canada Ponzi plan.
The pension plan was devised over 30 years ago by a Liberal
government with a noble objective, one which all members then and
now can agree on. The objective was to provide retirement
security to all Canadians and to reduce poverty among seniors.
To a certain extent Canada's retirement income system for
seniors has been successful in alleviating poverty among seniors
and generally improving the living standards of Canadians. As a
young Canadian I would like to be on record as supporting a
strong, fully funded retirement income system which ensures that
no Canadians fall between the cracks in their older years when
they are without earned income and sometimes without support from
their families.
This is one thing we can all agree on. It is unfortunate the
hon. member who spoke before me found it necessary to engage in
overblown, overheated partisan demagogic rhetoric. He suggested
that my Reform colleagues and I supported a diminishment of
benefits for seniors simply because at the same time we support
generational equity.
It is an important first principle that all parties debating the
bill support income security for seniors and for all Canadians as
a primary objective.
The basic framework of the bill and the plan which it amends is
as fundamentally flawed as it was 30 years ago when it was first
introduced in this place at a time when the most wildly
optimistic demographic projections still foresaw that a pay as
you go scheme was unsustainable.
The experts knew it then. They have known it every since. Call
after call for responsibility to ensure that we did not rack up a
massive unfunded liability, a massive taxpayer IOU, was not
heeded by successive Liberal and Tory governments. They put
short term political considerations ahead of long term human
considerations. They should be eternally shameful for failing to
act.
They have created a scenario where the pension fund now has a
$580 billion unfunded liability, an amount that almost exceeds
the federal debt. This brings the total indebtedness and
liability of younger Canadians to well over $1 trillion.
When we add to that the debts and unfunded liabilities of
provincial governments, local governments and other pension plans
for public servants, we find my generation will be inheriting
over $2 trillion in public indebtedness and liabilities. This is
a result of successive decisions made by this parliament and
provincial parliaments. That is something for which those who
sit on the front bench of government, none of whom represent
people of my generation, should apologize to my generation.
People of my age will forever have to work harder and longer to
get less, keep less and earn less. They will be paying higher
taxes, higher income taxes, higher payroll taxes and higher sales
taxes, to fund the debts and liabilities incurred by the
government and by the Progressive Conservative Party when it was
in power. The bill speaks to that and the member for Saint John
denies it.
1340
The fact is, whether or not they like it, the Tories made the
decision to do nothing. They made the decision not to act. They
made the decision to let the unfunded liability rack up to the
point where it is now at $580 billion.
Now the government comes to us and presents itself as the
saviour of the Canada pension plan. Finally it says it is time
for somebody to take up the clarion call and reform the Canada
pension plan.
The government is 30 years too late and $580 billion short. It
should have structured the plan the right way 30 years ago when
it was known that the demographic pyramid would change.
When the plan was designed it was assumed there would be six
taxpaying workers to every dependent retiree. We now know that
within 20 years the ratio will be two taxpaying workers to every
dependent retiree, a ratio which is not sustainable for a defined
benefit pension scheme like this one.
We do not need a Ph.D. in mathematics. We need to look at the
actuarial report of the Canada pension plan which year after year
reports a tragic record of red ink into which the government has
decided to steep my generation.
I find it particularly galling that the government spends so
much time congratulating itself on its moral courage in deciding
to raise payroll taxes by 73%.
This will kill tens of thousands of jobs and reduce hope, growth
and opportunity for younger Canadians and future generations. The
government is busy congratulating itself. At the same time it is
busy stealing from the taxpayers of the country to fund its MP
pension plan. It is prepared to impose a 10% payroll tax on all
Canadians so they can get a whopping pension of $8,800—
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
When an hon. member accuses us of stealing I would ask you to
consider it. It is not right. It is not fair. It does not
create an atmosphere which is conducive to the good governance of
the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair heard
the member for Calgary Southeast refer to stealing in an abstract
manner. It was not directed at an individual. The Chair also
recognizes the sensitivity and would ask the hon. member for
Calgary Southeast to ensure that when that kind of word is used
it is very clearly put in the context of the abstract.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I did not mean to impugn
the integrity of any member of the House. I meant to impugn the
decisions made by successive governments and parliaments that
decided to use the coercive power of the state to take money from
people, without giving them a choice, to fund their retirement
funds.
Maybe I cannot use that word in the House, but I know the words
people on Main Street use to describe the MP pension plan. They
are a lot worse than the word I just used.
The government and its friends in all the other parties want to
raise the CPP payroll tax to 10% to give Canadians an enormously
generous pension of $8,800 a year. Is that not something? They
are prepared to pay a lesser premium to the MP pension fund to
get millions of dollars in unfunded, lifetime pension benefits.
This double standard is a scandal which every Canadian knows
about. Members can heckle me from the other side of the House as
much as they like, but they know their constituents are fed up
with that double standard, and I will take a stand against it
every chance I get in the House.
1345
What the government proposes to do, among other things, is to
raise the CPP premium, as it is called, from the current rate of
5.6%. It started at 3.5%. I understand that when the father of
the Minister of Finance first introduced this concept, it was
suggested that the premium rate would stay at 3.5% in perpetuity.
They guaranteed Canadians that at the time. Of course they were
wrong. I will not say they lied. I will assume the best
intentions. Since then, the rates have creeped up to 5.6% and
now in Bill C-2, they propose to move those rates to 9.9% by the
year 2003 so that individual premiums will increase from $945 a
year to $1,645 a year, a 73% increase. That means payments of
over $3,200 a year for a self-employed person, the kind of person
who is trying to run a small business, to create jobs, the kind
of jobs the government does not know how to create.
What is that going to do, that $10 billion tax grab, the largest
single tax increase in Canadian history? Is it going to create
any jobs? That is a question I ask members opposite. I believe
they ran, quite honestly and sincerely, in the last two federal
elections on a commitment to increase employment, particularly
for younger Canadians.
I heard the Prime Minister speak quite movingly in his remarks
on the Speech from the Throne on the importance of increasing
economic hope and opportunity and jobs for young Canadians. I was
very impressed by the sincerity and emotion expressed in his
speech but actions are the true measurement of sincerity, not
just words.
The government proposes in Bill C-2 to take away jobs from
younger Canadians, take away opportunities from small businessmen
who are struggling to create real employment and growth in our
economy. They propose to do that through the single largest
payroll tax grab in our history.
What about the question of generational equity? What do they
say about that? What we know is that the first retirees, the
first beneficiaries of the Canada pension plan, will have
received $11 in benefits for every dollar in premiums that they
paid into the plan.
Who can argue with that? It is nice that we were able to
manufacture money to increase the living standard of retired
Canadians. The problem is that somebody has to pay the bill, and
that falls on us here today.
Younger Canadians, those of the generation after me, will
receive some 57¢ in benefits for every dollar they pay into the
plan that the government is proposing. Is that equity?
The Liberal Party of Canada always prides itself on being the
party of equity. It claims to be the party of fairness. Where
is the fairness in taking from one generation without its consent
to subsidize benefits for another generation? Where is the
fairness in that?
They talk about supporting young Canadians. This is a
government that does not have a single member under the age of 30
but has the temerity to stand up and say that. I appeared before
two of the panels that the federal government held on reform of
the Canada pension plan.
There were very few representatives of the younger generation of
Canadians welcomed at those panels. Why? They were too busy
working. They did not have time, like the tax-funded special
interest group friends of the government to come before those
hearings and to ask for more money from their grandchildren and
great grandchildren.
I say shame for not giving younger Canadians a voice on this.
We do have younger Canadians. They are looking at one of them
right here who is going to have to pay part of these bills.
One of the other things the Liberals propose in these amendments
is to create a publicly managed investment fund of over $200
billion. Just imagine that, a bunch of politicians and
government appointed patronage hacks controlling the largest
investment fund in Canadian history. As far as the eye can see is
pork when they talk about that kind of investment board. Where
are the controls? A board entirely appointed through cabinet
appointments, just like those very noteworthy appointments to the
appeals board, to the parole board, to the immigration refugee
board—
An hon. member:—like to the Senate.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Thank you very much. That is just what we
need, a bunch of senators managing $200 billion public dollars.
1350
The Department of Finance has produced several studies and
reports. The Bank of Canada, the World Bank, the International
Monetary Fund, and virtually every credible economic think tank
in Canada will confirm that payroll taxes kill jobs. The biggest
killer of jobs in terms of taxation are higher payroll taxes.
We are now in the 78th straight month of unemployment at over
9%, with 17% youth unemployment that reaches 25% in some regions
of the country. Families have been undergoing diminished
disposable income for the past 15 years. Even though they are
working harder, they are coming home with less. What does the
government want to do? It wants to raise those taxes even higher
and go against all of the conventional economic wisdom which says
that will reduce job growth and mean fewer opportunities for
Canadians to get a leg up in the tough new 21st century economy.
There is an option. Yes, we do have an unfunded liability and
the country has to make some difficult decisions on how to deal
with that unfunded liability. There are no easy choices. As I
said at the outset, this party and I think all reasonable
Canadians are committed to fully respecting and honouring the
commitments that have been made to Canadians concerning their
pension benefits. We are committed to that, but it will cost
money to honour those obligations.
However, there is a way to fully fund those benefits while at
the same time giving younger Canadians better pensions and better
retirement security. That is to look at some of the reforms that
have been proposed by very respectable mainstream organizations.
The C.D Howe Institute has produced several papers proposing the
conversion of the defined benefit Canada pension plan Ponzi
scheme into a mandatory private retirement savings vehicle, a
proposal which has been seconded by the World Bank, an
organization which is in part funded and supported by the
government, as well as many other think tanks around the world.
Governments around the world are coming to grips with the same
problem that Canada is now encountering. Last summer I attended
a conference in Budapest attended by economists from welfare
state countries around the world. They talked about how to
convert these defined benefit pension plans into pensions that
are fully funded, mandatory private retirement savings vehicles.
Reform has offered such an alternative and I wish members opposite
would take this idea seriously. If young Canadians were
allowed to make a payroll contribution to a private investment
vehicle and got a modest rate of return of 6% a year, they would
end up with an annuity of over $250,000, producing an annual
retirement income of nearly $24,000 a year, a far sight better than
the measly $8,800 offered by the government. Better pensions at
lower cost seem to make too much sense for the Liberals opposite.
I would like to close my remarks by saying that the House has a
unique opportunity to really grasp the future. Members should
think about the impact that this will have on their grandchildren
and the taxes they will be forced to pay. Members should forget
about their own interests for a moment if it is possible. Maybe
they would give up their MP pension plan if they really started
doing that. Members should forget about their own benefits for a
moment and think about their grandchildren. If they do that, I
have enough faith in the sincerity and good sense of members
opposite that they will embrace a real alternative for Canada and
for its future by embracing a private mandatory retirement
savings plan, as we have proposed.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have listened very closely to my hon. colleague.
Unfortunately the Reform people continue to speak negatively and
with fear.
I want to quote from my hon. colleague's speech. He said
“Actions are the measure of sincerity and not just words.” That
is very interesting coming from a party whose leader is now
living in Stornoway where he promised he would never live, but
that he would turn it into a bingo hall rather than live there.
1355
Some hon. members: Shame.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: This also comes from a party with a
leader who drives around with a chauffeur and a car that he said
he would never drive around in.
This comes from a leader of a party who received $31,000 tax
free for suits. What kind of suits could you possibly wear for
$31,000 a year? I ask that question.
The leader of the opposition has changed his looks. He would
never, ever change himself. He has changed his hair, he has
changed his teeth and he has changed his voice.
In his speech my hon. colleague said “we have to believe, we
have to trust”. The people of Canada elected a Liberal
government this time because they believed that we would attempt
to change the pension plan—
The Speaker: I do not know if that was a question or a
comment or an answer or all of the above. Was she asking for a
comment from you?
Mr. Jason Kenney: Yes.
The Speaker: So now you have a chance to go at her. You
have about a minute.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, it was not a question, it
was not a comment, it was an irrational rant by a member who is
embarrassed by the moral leadership of the hon. leader of the
opposition who took the challenge and gave up his pension last
year. Why does that member not meet the same challenge?
All I can do is quote one of my constituents. I have received
more mail on this than on any other issue so far in this
Parliament. People have been saying that there is a need for
real reform of this pension plan. For instance, Mrs. Brad Skeet
from my riding writes “I am a hardworking, tax-paying citizen in
your constituency. I heard that the federal government is going
to raise the pension contributions again. I must strongly
protest this action—the CPP is something that my husband and I
do not even count on for supporting us in our retirement. We
have struggled to put aside the money we can to invest in our
future years”.
Those are the kinds of sentiments I am hearing from Canadians
instead of the superficial partisan political rhetoric that we
just heard from the member opposite. What about talking to young
Canadians who are concerned about their future? That would
be responsible.
The Speaker: As much as I know we are enjoying the debate
going back and forth there will be about six minutes for
questions and comments when we come back to this debate. As it
is almost 2 p.m. I have two things to do.
* * *
[Translation]
REPORT OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
The Speaker: I have the honour to table the report of
the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons, Volume 1,
dated April and October 1997.
[English]
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(d), this document is deemed to
have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts.
Because it is almost two o'clock we will now proceed to
statements by members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
HOMECOMING '98
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise to tell hon. members about an exciting event that will
take place in my riding of Sault Ste. Marie next year.
Homecoming '98, an 11-day celebration of Saultites and their
city, promises to be the biggest party Sault Ste. Marie has ever
seen. From July 9 to July 19 residents and visitors will be
treated to more than 150 events and activities.
Each day will have a specific theme, such as July 11, youth day,
and July 14, heritage day. Homecoming '98 will give the local
economy a significant boost, but just as important, it will instil
a renewed sense of civic pride in all Saultites past and present.
High profile homecomers will include astronaut Roberta Bondar,
artist Ken Danby and writer Morley Torgov.
I invite all members to add their names to this list and to join
us in Sault Ste. Marie for what promises to be a truly
unforgettable event.
* * *
NATIONAL FAMILY
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this week is national family week. The October issue of
Reader's Digest said it received an enormous response to a July
article and that the vast majority of letter writers agreed
wholeheartedly that it was unfair for the government to tax a
single income family more than a double income family making the
same amount.
1400
Some families with one parent at home pay thousands of dollars
more each year than their double income counterparts. Sheila
Donovan from New Brunswick commented that staying home to raise
children is a real job: “Not only are we not valued by society
but our government does not value us either”. Rhonda Pomeroy of
Carrot River, Saskatchewan wrote: “I find it appalling that
families who have a full time parent at home are at a
disadvantage compared to homes where both parents work”.
Strong families are the fundamental building block of Canadian
society. We need policies that support parents as they raise
their children not which put them at a disadvantage. Canadian
families are not asking for special treatment. They are just
asking for equal treatment.
* * *
DENTURISTS
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to inform the House and all Canadians that October
is national denturist awareness month. Denturists received legal
recognition as a profession in Canada in 1961. Since that time
Canadians of all ages have benefited from improved quality of
life and health care that denturists provide.
The Denturists Association of Canada seeks to promote nationwide
standards and common legislative treatment in all provinces. As
part of denturist awareness month denturists are seeking to
encourage and facilitate the standardization of education among
their colleagues and to make the public more aware of their
commitment to providing the best services available to Canadians
in need of oral health care.
For our part the federal government continues to co-operate with
the provinces and territories, as well as non-government
organizations, to ensure that the health care needs of Canadians,
including oral health care needs, are addressed in a cost
effective but efficient fashion.
* * *
[Translation]
FOUNDATION FOR INNOVATION
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the
February 1997 budget, there has been talk of the Foundation for
Innovation and its magnificent $800 million budget.
Yet we do not know when the Foundation will be truly
operational, nor what it has planned for the world of research.
According to the information we have available, the funds will be
used solely for infrastructure expenditures.
Universities and hospitals are already having to cope with
budget cuts, imposed by the cuts in transfer payments in
particular. The Minister of Industry must realize that they will
have difficulty finding partners who could make contributions
equal to 50 percent or 60 percent of the funding from the
foundation.
I am therefore inviting the minister to sit down with the
Government of Quebec to find the best way to get the most out of
these funds while respecting the respective governmental
jurisdictions.
* * *
[English]
FIRE PREVENTION
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I remind all hon. members that October 5 to 11 is fire
prevention week. This special week reminds us all of the dangers
of fire and promotes messages of safety and prevention.
As the Minister of Labour stated at the official launch last
Friday, we should never take for granted that we and our families
will not be affected by fire. People need to know how to respond
in an emergency. That involves education, planning and practice.
Every family should have a smoke detector, a home fire escape
plan, conduct fire drills and learn to react quickly and
decisively. It could make the difference between life and death.
I thank all firefighters in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex and across
Canada and recognize the vital service they provide in our
communities.
* * *
COMMUNITIES IN BLOOM
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
past weekend Merrickville, a community in my riding, was a
participant in the Communities in Bloom national finals. I had
the honour of attending the third annual competition in St.
John's, Newfoundland.
This competition was created to honour Canada's most beautiful
municipalities in their efforts toward community and
environmental improvement. Participating municipalities were
judged on the quality of their green spaces, the diversity and
originality of their landscaping, general tidiness, environmental
awareness, heritage conservation as well as the level of
community involvement.
There was representation from all the provinces and territories.
All were winners as they experienced people, plants and pride
growing together.
I congratulate Mr. Raymond Carriere and the Communities in Bloom
organizers, the judges, participants as well as the sponsors on
the tremendous success of this program and I encourage all
municipalities to get involved in projects that improve quality
of life through participation and help build a sense of
community.
* * *
1405
SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
as this House is aware, October 19 to 25 is small business week.
I take this opportunity to make a tribute to the businesses that
enrich the constituency of Edmonton—Strathcona.
There is a merchant in my constituency who trades in rare
artefacts from around the world. He came to me frustrated
because despite his constant and meticulous attempts to obey
thousands of rules governing trade, he was still in violation of
customs laws. As a consequence, his merchandise was held in a
sterile city warehouse while his business suffered.
I am also familiar with a small, family owned restaurant whose
owners find themselves unable to hire the staff they need because
payroll taxes are too high.
In the spirit of the upcoming small business week, I urge this
government to pursue policies that would lower taxes and
deregulate the economy. Let us eliminate this monkey business
and give Canadian small businesses the fighting chance they
deserve.
* * *
APEC '97
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues that our prime
minister visited Vancouver last week to launch Canada's hosting
of the Asia-Pacific economic co-operation forum, also known as
APEC '97. As a B.C. member of Parliament, I was honoured to join
him at various functions.
British Columbia will host APEC meetings for 18 world leaders
and their ministers in beautiful Vancouver. To use the prime
minister's own words, Vancouver is Canada's gateway to
Asia-Pacific. It is also my home town and I can assure this
House that the people of Vancouver are honoured to be hosting
this important event on November 24 and 25.
As chair of the APEC '97—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Champlain.
* * *
[Translation]
PARISH OF SAINT-RÉMI DE LAC-AUX-SABLES
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to express my warm congratulations to the people of the parish of
Saint-Rémi de Lac-aux-Sables, in the riding of Champlain. They are
celebrating the 100th anniversary of its founding this year.
When the parish began in 1897, Saint-Rémi had 59 families. It
now has 1,512 residents. Saint-Rémi de Lac-aux-Sables is an
outdoor tourism centre of great attraction to boaters and sport
fishers.
I wish to pay tribute to the founders of Saint-Rémi de
Lac-aux-Sables and to all those contributing to the success of
the festivities surrounding this 100th anniversary.
* * *
[English]
LAND MINES
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Robert
Kennedy once said each time a person stands up for an ideal,
strikes out against injustice, they send forth a tiny ripple of
hope, and crossing each other from a million different centres of
energy, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the
mightiest walls of resistance.
Last year those ripples gathered enormous speed when our
Minister of Foreign Affairs issued a challenge to governments
around the world to sign, this December in Ottawa, a treaty that
unambiguously bans land mines.
Land mines are indiscriminate killers that too often, long past
the end of the intrastate conflicts, kill or maim children
playing or men and women trying to grow food and gather firewood.
Non-governmental organizations, soldiers, survivors and
witnesses have been pushing for years to ban land mines. In
December 1997 we will ride that current together. Much work will
stand before us to implement the treaty, but December 1997 will
be a time of celebration, a time of hope.
* * *
JUSTICE
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, one of
my constituents, Brenda MacDonald, points out the absurd
application of section 232 of the Criminal Code, the defence of
provocation.
Brenda's sister, Susan Klassen of Whitehorse, was strangled to
death by her estranged husband Ralph Klassen. In January 1997 he
was given a five year reduced manslaughter sentence by
successfully arguing the defence of provocation, that Susan had
provoked him such that he could not contemplate the consequences
of his own violent actions.
This defence of provocation blames Susan for her own death. It
legitimizes violent spouses' attempts to control and dominate.
Manslaughter is death resulting from accident. Susan's death was
no accident.
Experts say this defence should be abolished.
1410
Susan Klassen may be just a name to us, but she was Brenda's
sister, a friend, an aunt. How many more spouses need to die
before action is finally taken by this government? Abolish the
defence of provocation.
* * *
[Translation]
ACADIAN ARTISTS
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, them Acadian
artists had to go to Montreal to find work. It's kind of like
them poor sovereignists what went to Ottawa because there weren't
no jobs in Quebec City.
* * *
[English]
TRADE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, 10
years ago the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement was concluded. The
passage of time has taught us a few things. First, hundreds of
thousands of jobs did disappear and many such jobs disappeared
from the ranks of the large corporations that said in 1987 that
free trade meant more jobs.
Second, there is no question that the FTA and subsequently NAFTA
and the WTO have all contributed to downward pressure on wages
and the standard of living of ordinary Canadians, not just in
terms of wages but also in terms of deteriorating social programs
and social harmony. Although I am sure there are Canadian
exporters who have done very well, it is also true that we do not
know to what extent the low value of the Canadian dollar is
really the key determinant in much of this success.
Furthermore we continue not to have free trade with the U.S. On
softwood lumber, on durum wheat, on sugar, and in a variety of
other ways the U.S. appears to have it both ways.
Now we have the MAI, with still more protection for investors
than that provided by current free trade agreements. When will we
get agreements to protect workers, the environment and the public
interest? When we get an NDP government.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC BY-ELECTIONS
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government of Lucien Bouchard, our designated premier, took quite
a beating last night. The Liberal Party of Quebec won three out
of four by-elections in the province.
First of all, I would like to congratulate the winners: Michelle
Lamquim-Éthier, MNA for Bourassa; Denis Chalifoux, MNA for Bertrand;
Claude Béchard, MNA for Kamouraska—Témiscouata; and I have to hand it
to the Liberal candidate in the riding of Duplessis, Daniel Montambault,
who turned in a wonderful performance and almost carried the day.
The message Quebeckers were sending to Lucien Bouchard and his
followers was loud and clear: “Enough about your special
interests. Enough of your colonialist junkets on the backs of
taxpayers to promote the partition of Canada. Enough of worrying
Quebec's business community with talk of partition”. It is time
you took care of real problems and—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Chicoutimi.
* * *
FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, this week marks the
10th anniversary of the signing of the free trade agreement.
What did the Liberals say back then in order to win the election?
They said, “The Americans are going to take our water”, “seniors are
going to lose their pensions”, “we are going to lose control over gas,
oil and electricity”.
What do we have to show for the free trade agreement ten years
later? We have a 140 percent increase in our exports to American
markets. But economist Alain Dubuc said it best in one of his
editorials, which is worth a second read: “When the Chrétien
government boasts about economic results that are beginning to
look up, it does so as a government that owes much to the
Conservatives, as a government that is acting on strategic
decisions taken by its—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The
hon. member for Davenport now has the floor.
* * *
[English]
CANDU MOX
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian nuclear industry's CANDU MOX proposal would involve the
importation of up to 150 tonnes of weapons grade plutonium from
Russia and the U.S.
Canada would mix the plutonium with uranium oxide for use as
nuclear reactor fuel. Canada would then be responsible for the
“disposition” of the spent fuel. Since plutonium with its
immense radioactive longevity and carcinogenic qualities cannot
be disposed of, “disposition” is used to mean moving plutonium
from one place to another without actually eliminating its
danger. If implemented, this initiative would also impose high
long term costs on Canadians.
1415
I therefore urge the government to reconsider its support for
the Candu MOX initiative and instead have Russia and the United
States dispose of their own plutonium within their national
boundaries.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today the auditor general released his report. In it he condemns
the waste in the fisheries department in some of the strongest
language he has ever used. In particular he shows how the
government has squandered $3.5 billion on the TAGS program.
The TAGS program was supposed to help lift up Atlantic fishermen
after the collapse of the fishery. Instead it has made more
Atlantic fishermen dependent on the federal government for
income.
How does the Prime Minister explain the complete and utter
failure of the program and the damage it has done to Atlantic
Canadians?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I do not think it was an error for the government to help
fishermen who were in a very difficult situation because of
problems in the fishery.
The TAGS program helps people in Newfoundland adjust to the
situation. They were asked by the government not to fish any
more because the stocks had decreased and there was a need to
give the resource time to replenish itself.
Of course it was a program that—
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when TAGS was created, members will remember the former
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans stood in the House to say that
only one-third of the expenditure was to go to income support.
That was the basis on which parliament gave the money.
According to the auditor general's report today, fully 76% of
the TAGS money went to income support and none of the program
objectives were achieved.
Now that the auditor general has exposed TAGS as a costly
failure, will the Prime Minister pledge to the House that he will
not extend this wasteful, dependency creating program?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, to call giving money to poor fishermen who cannot go to
sea a waste of money is completely unacceptable.
One of the benefits of living in a federation is that we can
help those people who live in areas where there are problems.
Everyone recognizes that the fishermen in Newfoundland and in
other Atlantic provinces have faced very difficult problems over
the last few years.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, what the fishermen of Atlantic Canada wanted and what
parliament voted on when it voted to support the program was
money for training and restructuring of the industry, and they
got neither of those through the TAGS program.
The auditor general said that the government started
implementing the program before it had finished the planning,
that parliament was not given accurate progress reports, that the
department did not have reliable data, and that other
alternatives which would not have created dependency were not
even considered.
How could the House regard the government's claim to be
accountable as anything other than a big fish story?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very sad when a leader of an opposition party
makes fun of a difficult problem.
I do not think I should comment further when the Leader of the
Opposition has no consideration for the misery suffered by anyone
in the land.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, taxpayers
have been taken for a sucker once more. In the auditor general's
report tabled today we find that the government sold Nav Canada for
$1 billion less than its value.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Why, when he is
squeezing every last nickel out of employers, employees,
taxpayers and retirees, did he give a $1 billion break to Nav Canada?
1420
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government estimated the net worth of the air
navigation system as did those negotiating on behalf of Nav
Canada.
In any deal no one expects to get their own financial adviser's
top dollar. This was a good deal that reflected a negotiated
compromise.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister is not telling us that the adviser to the government was
also the adviser to Nav Canada and Nav Canada got by far the best deal.
We paid millions of dollars to lose a billion dollars. I want
to know when it was the government's policy to approve conflict
of interest sole source contracts that cost the taxpayer a
billion dollars.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think we have to keep in mind that at the time of the
sale the viability of the air navigation system as a not for
profit entity relied heavily on fluctuating interest rates. It
relied on credit ratings which were creating a serious concern as
to whether or not the new entity could actually raise the money.
That is why the government moved in this direction.
With respect to the question of advisers, the advisers were
retained in accordance with normal Treasury Board guidelines.
* * *
[Translation]
RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, on four separate occasions, the Prime Minister was
asked what action he had taken after being advised of allegations
of influence peddling within the Liberal Party of Canada, he
repeated each time that his minister had done his duty in
following instructions.
My simple and direct question to the Prime Minister, who likes
clear questions, is as follows: What did he personally do to protect his
government's integrity and that of his ministers once he was made aware
of the fact that a fundraiser for the Liberal Party of Canada was
peddling influence to businesses that had applied for grants?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will repeat at this time that there is a police investigation
under way and we will wait to see what comes of it. Whether there
has been wrongdoing or not will be determined after the police
has conducted its investigation.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
know that there is an investigation under way.
What I am asking the Prime Minister is what he did, what action he
has taken, since his minister took action. Did he, personally or through
his chief of staff, on the eve of a general election in Canada, remind
his ministers of the directives on influence peddling issued within his
government? Is that what he did or did he tour Quebec with individuals
who were involved in influence peddling instead?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is in fact because we have given and continue to give
ministers advice on this issue on a regular basis that the
minister acted on this swiftly. Only hours after being informed,
he immediately called in the RCMP to conduct a proper
investigation.
The instructions were clear. They were understood by the ministers.
I regularly remind them that it is imperative that they follow all
instructions issued to them on their conduct in their official capacity.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Intergovernmental Affairs recently suspended an aide involved
in a controversial issue, until the investigation into his
conduct is completed, in compliance with the spirit of the
government's code of conduct.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Why, in the case involving
influence peddling, did the Prime Minister not act like his Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs and comply with the government's code of
conduct by suspending the person suspected of wrongdoing until all the
facts were known?
The Speaker: The question as asked is out of order.
[English]
They must go to the administrative responsibility of the person
involved. This has to do in my view with a party matter as
opposed to another matter. I will go to the second question.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): I apologize, Mr. Speaker, but
my question is for the Prime Minister and concerns his compliance with
the government's code of conduct. With all due respect, I will put the
question to the Prime Minister rather clearly, so everyone can
understand what it is about, given that I have only one question.
I am asking the Prime Minister to tell us why his ministers comply
with the government's code of conduct, but not him, since he left a
person strongly suspected of influence peddling mingle with Liberal
Party members and ministers.
I think the Prime Minister has a duty to respond.
1425
The Speaker: I will allow the Prime Minister to respond because the
question is on the code of conduct.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the code of conduct applies to the government and to
public servants.
In this specific case, the investigation concerns an organization
that is not part of the government. It is a political organization.
Moreover, in the case of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the
person involved admitted he had made a mistake and the code of conduct
was immediately applied because that person was an employee accountable
to the minister and to the government.
* * *
[English]
EMPLOYMENT
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Prime Minister.
Canadian analysts including Wood Gundy's chief economist charge
that the government's endorsement of last week's interest rate
hike is “like waging war on yesterday's problem”. It is
predicted that as many as 500,000 jobs will be lost if the
government continues on its current path.
When will the Prime Minister show some leadership, start to live
up to his campaign commitment and tell his finance minister to
stop killing jobs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
everything the government has done since it took office, whether
it be re-establishing the credibility of government to bring
interest rates down, keeping inflation low, investing in research
and development or investing in youth employment, has been
directed to the one aim of giving Canadians an opportunity for a
better quality of life and greater job creation.
Since we have taken office over a million jobs have been created
in the private sector. It is very clear that the policies we
have put in place have worked.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
finance minister is telling us that it is just too bad about the
1.4 million people who still do not have jobs. I have in my
hands a paper—
The Speaker: I remind hon. members that we can read from
papers but I prefer that we not use them as props.
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, I refer to a finance
department report that says the very best Canadians can expect
from the government until the end of the century is 7.8%
unemployment.
Before the election the Liberals said their unemployment goal
was 5%. Now we learn that it is really closer to 8%.
Why does the Prime Minister not make this his big millennium
project and put a million and a half Canadians back to work so
they can join in the celebration?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
since we have taken office we have already put a million
Canadians back into the workforce.
I refer the leader of the New Democratic Party to the numbers
that came out last week. Long term interest rates have dropped
and five year mortgage rates are now at the lowest level they
have been since 1965.
* * *
AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. It has to do with the
continual misuse, abuse and rip-off of the employment insurance
system by the government, a rip-off we have been denouncing for
some time which it refuses to acknowledge.
The auditor general in chapter 17—
1430
The Speaker: Would the hon. member for Sherbrooke please
get to the question.
Hon. Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, my question is this
and it is to the Prime Minister. Will he guarantee to the House
that his government, as the auditor general reports, will cease
to abuse the employment insurance system at the expense of
Canadians who are unemployed?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said last week and I will repeat that when we took
over as the government the premiums paid by Canadians were $3.30.
This has been reduced to $2.90 and is going down every year.
When we took over the unemployment insurance fund it was many
billions of dollars in the red. We put it in the black. Good
administration led to a reserve and led to a reduction in
premiums. We are doing that on a regular basis.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker,
surely the prime minister knows that he is alone in this
position. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian
Federation of Independent Business, le Conseil du patronat du
Québec all share the view that these premiums must come down.
Let me ask the question to the Minister of Finance. Since the
prime minister will not move, will the Minister of Finance accept
the recommendations of the auditor general and table here in the
House of Commons the analysis on which he bases the premium rate?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the analysis is well known. The leader of the Conservative Party
is very badly placed to comment on unemployment insurance
premiums. The prime minister has set it out very clearly.
Let us be very clear. For a Tory to blame the Liberals for the
unemployment insurance premiums is like a mosquito blaming the
doctor for malaria.
* * *
POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
night we learned that there is a special government list of
companies seeking government funds and that this information gets
sent out to the government's regional ministers and the local MPs
whose ridings are affected. That means the prime minister must
have known about the $600,000 grant proposal by Videon. Then of
course Videon made this $5,000 donation to the Liberal Party when
it never had done so before.
Let me ask the prime minister this. When he went to cash that
$5,000 cheque, did he not smell a conflict of interest?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there should be a little respect for the truth. The $600,000
program is going toward the creation of jobs and will be paid
when the jobs have been created. Also, the company that is
building the hotel is not Videon. A person by the name of
Thibault who lives in the riding told the press that he never
heard about a company called Videon.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister talks about a little respect for the truth. We
have to watch him from this side every single day, so we
certainly understand what he talks about.
Videon is a parent company of Auberge des Gouverneurs which is
building the hotel. We know that. The transitional jobs fund
lets people in the riding know what is happening. This means
that the prime minister would have been informed. This means that
the prime minister as the local MP for that area would be allowed
to lobby the minister for that $600,000 grant.
1435
The prime minister is digging himself deeper and deeper. Let me
ask him how in the world he is able to plead ignorance on more of
these shenanigans in Shawinigan.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member has her facts absolutely wrong. She is not
listening. The builder of the hotel is Mr. Thibault. He has a
franchise with the hotel chain but the builder and owner have
nothing to do with the Auberge des Gouverneurs. Mr. Thibault
told the media a few hours ago that he has never heard of the
company Videon. This should be enough for the hon. member to
shut up.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I cannot wait for Wednesday.
* * *
[Translation]
AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the Minister of Finance.
The auditor general has just confirmed that the contribution
rate for employment insurance was just pulled out of a hat, and is
a matter of pure chance.
When will the Minister of Finance put an end to the amateurism
he has shown to date in the way he is administering the employment
insurance fund and setting the contribution levels?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member is well aware that the contribution level is set
according to the economy, the government accounts, and a
combination of various data. We are adhering exactly to
established procedure.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the auditor general states specifically that there is no
procedure and that the minister is flying by the seat of his
pants, for example by excluding, since January, half the people
who would have been entitled to employment insurance and no
longer are, thanks to him. That is the situation.
I wish to ask this question of the Minister of Finance. Does
the minister realize that his haphazard approach greatly penalizes
the companies and workers who make the contributions, and the
unemployed, who are truly unemployed, not just sort of unemployed?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the facts speak for themselves. When we came to power, there was
a $6 billion deficit. Today, there is a surplus. When we came
to power, the rates of contribution were going up, year after
year. Since we came to power, they have gone down from $3.07 to
$2.90 and it has been announced that they will drop to $2.80 in
November.
* * *
[English]
ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today
the auditor general devoted three chapters of his report to the
Atlantic groundfish strategy. TAGS failed in its own stated
goals of downsizing fisheries capacity and retraining fishers in
response to the Atlantic fisheries crisis. Even the auditor
general said that the government was at best naive about the
failed results of TAGS.
How can the prime minister defend a program that the auditor
general has pronounced to be such a failure?
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us put
this into context for two seconds. TAGS can also be put into the
same position as the two major problems we had with the two
floods, the one in the Saguenay and the one in the Winnipeg area.
When we think of what happened in Manitoba and in the Saguenay
and that they were crises, the crisis in the fish community was
the same thing. We met that crisis with a program that was put
in place to help 40,000 people who had no income. I think that
is what a government should do.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, floods
are something that are natural disasters that one cannot predict.
In 1994 there were too many fishers and there were too few fish
and the Liberal government promised a program to end all
programs. Today in 1997 there are too many fishers and too few
fish and a Liberal government with egg on its face and an
Atlantic wipe-out to prove it.
Will the prime minister commit to never again buying the votes
of desperate fishers with programs that breed dependency?
1440
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us put a
few facts on the table.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Robert D. Nault: Pay attention, you might learn
something.
Out of the 40,000 people we were working with, some 15,000 were
adjusted out of the groundfish industry. Maybe the auditor
general does not accept that as a move in the right direction but
we think that is a long way down the road to restructuring an
industry that has totally collapsed.
* * *
[Translation]
AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment.
The auditor general reveals that 7,500 trucks carrying
hazardous waste cross the border between Quebec and the United
States alone, without any federal control.
How does the Minister of the Environment intend to put a stop
to this unacceptable negligence by her government, which, we must
remember, puts people's health and safety at risk?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since April when the auditor general's
information became knowledge to my department, officials have put
in place measures to try to combat the weaknesses that were
outlined by the auditor general.
We consider the import and export of hazardous waste to be a
very serious situation. I will be looking further into this issue
to make sure the necessary improvements are put in place.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how does
the minister intend to meet her responsibilities in the future,
when only yesterday she announced that staff will continue to be
cut in her department?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, the staffing cuts
that are occurring are a result of the 1996 program review. It
has nothing to do with our department's ability to refer to the
auditor general's comments about the import and export of
hazardous wastes and we will be doing everything to respond to
the concerns raised by the auditor general.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in
question period the minister of Indian affairs bragged about the
level of accountability to aboriginal people. Today the auditor
general gave us the straight goods.
Over $1 billion is spent on aboriginal health care each year,
yet the auditor general states that the government has
insufficient information on how two-thirds of its programs are
working. Given that the auditor general refers to the status of
aboriginal health as a tragedy and a crisis, what concrete steps
is this government going to take to ensure proper accountability
for the $1 billion that is spent every year on aboriginal health
care?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
whenever responsibility for an aboriginal community is turned
over to a First Nation, it is done on the basis that that
community will not only have responsibility for administering the
program, but for accounting for it as well. The agreements that
are entered into with First Nations ensure a level of
accountability.
There is no doubt we have things to learn from the auditor
general's report. We will be looking at it very carefully. I
assure the hon. member that chief among our priorities will be
the accountability of First Nations for the money that is spent.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the auditor
general's report shows clearly that there is no accountability.
On another subject. As if there is not enough heartbreak
stemming from serious social problems on reserves already, we
learned today that the department of Indian affairs is complicit
in facilitating prescription drug abuse.
The auditor general states that in one three-month period,
15,000 people went to three or more pharmacies, 1,600 obtained
more than 15 drugs and over 700 people had 50 prescriptions in
one three-month period. Since the government has known this
problem has existed for 10 years, why has it done absolutely
nothing about it?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
that is simply not so. Over the last 10 years we have worked
assiduously to put systems in place to deal with the kind of
problem the member has referred to. I will give two examples.
First, it was the system of gathering information put together
by Health Canada that allowed the auditor general to come up with
the analysis in his report.
1445
Second, by the end of the current calendar year, after years of
work, we are going to have a point of sale system in place that
will let pharmacists know that there is a problem with the
prescription. That is going to help with this problem.
* * *
[Translation]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that the government would
ensure that no one would use a Canadian passport for unacceptable
purposes, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs responded in a
similar vein.
Are we to understand from the Prime Minister's response that
Mossad is authorized by the Canadian government to use Canadian
passports for purposes other than terrorism?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this question is particularly irresponsible, and the
answer is no.
* * *
[English]
AIRPORTS
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Can the minister confirm that there are guidelines restricting
the hours of operation at Lester B. Pearson International Airport
and can the minister assure the citizens of Mississauga that the
government will not allow the Greater Toronto Airport Authority
to unilaterally change those hours?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Don Valley East, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to congratulate my colleague for his first
question. I know it is of great concern to him and thousands of
other people in the west end of Toronto.
The hon. member is right on both counts. There is a restriction
in effect at Pearson airport that cannot be changed without the
government's authority and that authority will not be
forthcoming.
* * *
INCOME TAXES
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Governor of the Bank of Canada says he is going to continue to
raise interest rates, but now the CIBC says that he is choking
off the potential for job creation.
Since high interest rates shut off job creation, the minister
must now finally explore the only other avenue that will create
jobs: lower taxes.
Instead of increasing spending all the time when is the minister
going to start lowering taxes?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member was a member of the House during the course of
the last mandate. He knows full well that in the last budget
taxes were reduced by over $2 billion.
Does the hon. member feel that reducing taxes for students so
that they can pay for their schooling, that reducing taxes for
the physically disabled so that they are given a level playing
field, that helping poor families with children is not the kind
of thing the government should do? We feel that it is.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, by
the government's own measure taxes have gone up $8 billion a year
since the government came to power. The finance minister says to
Canadians he wants to consult, when in fact he has already
committed in the throne speech to higher spending. What gives?
The fact is lower taxes, not higher spending, is the way to job
creation. With interest rates increasing, when is the minister
going to recognize that the only way to create jobs is to start
cutting taxes? When is he going to get it?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
repeat, if the hon. member looks at what happened last week with
the reduction in long term interest rates, mortgage rates have
been at an all time low.
I would refer him back to his own province and the consultation
that took place. Citizens from all over the province came
together and effectively came to much the same conclusion as the
government: it is worthwhile investing in Canadians. That is
what we are going to do.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
The auditor general raises a serious issue when the report
states about Health Canada that the department is not fulfilling
its responsibilities to manage in a way which helps First Nations
establish programs and services likely to improve their health.
What action will the minister take to ensure that rather than
the dump and run style of program transfer often currently
employed, the department will work in partnership with aboriginal
communities to ensure that programs transferred are actually
going to improve the health of aboriginal people?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
that is certainly our objective.
1450
As I mentioned earlier to the House in response to another
question, with each agreement we negotiate the transfer for the
purpose of self-government, a program for health of aboriginal
communities. We try to ensure a level of accountability that
will make sure that money is properly spent and spent for
community purposes.
May I also say that we have achieved some real progress in areas
like life expectancy and infant mortality over the last 15 or 20
years, and we intend to keep investing in that kind of effort.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
auditor general's report raises the horror of death and illness
of aboriginal people due to over prescription of drugs through
the non-insured health benefits program. The auditor general
also states that the department has known about this problem
for 10 years.
Will the minister now move, in consultation with aboriginal
peoples, to transfer this program to the First Nations people as
a way to ensure that the issue of over prescription is actually
dealt with instead of the department's poor response to the
report when it says it will deal with the problem simply by
giving aboriginal people more to read about the dangers of
prescription—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
for 10 years Health Canada has been working to address this
problem. There are two things in particular that have been done.
First, we have kept good statistical analysis of how the drugs
are being used so that we can track abuse. Second, over the last
number of years, we put in place a system that will be fully
operational by the end of December 1997 which will allow
pharmacists at the point of sale to determine whether the person
presenting the prescription is doing it fraudulently or
otherwise.
That will make an enormous difference in resolving this problem.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Prime Minister. The auditor general
today stated in his report that he could find no clearly stated
national policy for sustainable fisheries.
In light of the very serious problems being experienced on the
west coast and the east coast of the country with fisheries and
after being in office now for four years, when can we expect a
national policy on sustainable fisheries?
[Translation]
Hon. Gilbert Normand (Secretary of State (Agriculture and
Agri-Food)(Fisheries and Oceans) Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise here for the first time.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gilbert Normand: The new fisheries act will be tabled in
February 1998. We will then be able to see with all the fishers,
organizations and provinces just how we will manage the future of
fish we call “fish of the future”.
[English]
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
hope the Prime Minister attaches a little more importance to
this, which I am sure he does.
As well, in his report today, the auditor general stated the
obvious. Ground stocks in Atlantic Canada are not regenerating.
There are very few job opportunities in those rural communities
in Atlantic Canada and the Atlantic groundfish strategy expires a
year early in May 1998.
What can Atlantic Canadians expect from the Prime Minister and
his government after May 1998?
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
inform the member if he has not been reading the press in the
last few days, Human Resources Development Canada announced a
post TAGS review.
The intention of this review is to deal with exactly what the
Reform Party asked earlier in the House. Now that we have dealt
with the crisis in its early stages, we are going to be reviewing
post TAGS in the next year to work in partnership with the
provinces and the stakeholders to come up with some long-term
solutions to the problem he asks about.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, schizophrenia is a devastating disease that affects one
out of every hundred Canadians. There is a critical need for
increased funding for schizophrenia research in Canada.
Can the Minister of Health tell Canadians how much of our
government health care research funds are going to schizophrenia
research?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the federal government tries to reflect its awareness of the
seriousness of this problem in its programs and its policies.
We are trying to help in a number of ways. We encourage the
collection of catalogues of best practices around the country so
that can be shared with communities. We encourage research
and indeed, through the Medical Research Council, we invest in
medical research.
We work with other legislatures to make sure that legislation
reflects the need to integrate people with this affliction into
the community.
I can assure the hon. member that in everything we do, we try
to reflect the importance of our concern with this illness.
* * *
1455
GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the Minister of Public Works and Government Services told us that
the government has a new system for choosing the successful
bidders on larger contracts, but there are Liberal Party
organizers and campaign workers on this committee and they give
government contracts to Liberal firms.
The Prime Minister cannot justify having patronage appointed
Liberals on this patronage granting committee. Will he remove
them?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, the members of the
panel are appointed by the industry.
Again, maybe the member should speak to Mr. Brian Thomas, who
ran the advertising campaign for the Reform Party. He said that
he has no evidence the process is not fair or weighted in favour
of Liberal political allies. Maybe he should consult the person
who ran their last election campaign. He will give him the best
advice.
* * *
[Translation]
TOBACCO ACT
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Health.
Less than 24 hours after the Tobacco Act was passed and on the eve
of the last election campaign, the Prime Minister partially recognized
his mistake and promised to amend the legislation so as to remove
certain restrictions on international racing event sponsorships.
Does the Minister of Health intend to keep his government's promise
to make the legislation more flexible in order to satisfy international
racing event organizers?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we intend
to keep our promise. We are now in the process of drafting an amendment
to the Tobacco Act. We are consulting all interested parties and I
intend to take action when we are ready.
* * *
[English]
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Finance.
I suspect that Canadians will be shocked later today when they
find out that when the government decided to sell off the air
navigation system to the private sector it only charged $1.5
billion when its own department said it was worth $2.4 billion.
Will the Minister of Finance explain to the Canadian people why
he gave away almost $1 billion in this transaction?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we negotiated a very good deal. It is a good deal
for taxpayers. It is a good deal for airline safety.
What better structure to have than those representing the
aviation industry, the stakeholders, running the system, keeping
the seamless safety record intact, one day with the government,
the next day in a non-profit organization?
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the Canadian ambassador to Mexico resigned after making
incendiary comments, including his reference to international
business transactions between Canada and Mexico as being a joke.
The ambassador also referred to U.S. tactics regarding law
enforcement in Mexico as hiding a darker U.S. reality.
Irresponsible comments like these can undermine our foreign
policy legitimacy. I ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs if
those comments were simply a diplomatic faux pas like the Prime
Minister's at NATO or are these statements part of some emerging
Canadian foreign policy?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first I would like to compliment the Prime Minister
on his major diplomatic achievement at Madrid at the NATO meeting
where he was able to secure an agreement.
Having put that aside, I point out that the ambassador to Mexico
made his own decision that the comments he made which were
published in a Mexican magazine, were inappropriate and were
going to limit his effectiveness. He, therefore, requested he be
reassigned to Ottawa. We agreed with that request. It reflects
no policy position whatsoever of the government.
* * *
1500
FRANK MCKENNA
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with regret that I learned today that Premier
Frank McKenna of New Brunswick has decided to quite politics.
He has been a very good public servant for a long time. He has
done a fantastic job in his province. He was elected for three
terms. He changed the province by bringing responsibility to
public administration and at the same time kept a social
conscience, a balance that we all try to achieve.
He has gained the respect of the people of New Brunswick and all
of Canada. In Calgary last summer he played an extremely
important role in using his experience as the dean of the first
ministers to develop a consensus that was very important for the
future of Canada.
[Translation]
As a premier, he was always interested in the status of
minorities. I had the pleasure of meeting him myself, because he
vacationed at Cap-Pelé, in the riding I represented for a number
of years. He has, for many years, spent his holidays with
francophones. He always took a keen interest in the status of
the French minority in New Brunswick and throughout the country,
and of the English minority in Quebec.
I believe he served his province and his country very well and we
wish him all the best in his future endeavours.
I would like to pay tribute to his wife and family for the
wonderful support they gave him during his many years in public life.
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the official opposition I would like to pay tribute to
Frank McKenna. The fact that he was premier of New Brunswick for
10 years certainly withstands the test of time for any leader.
Frank McKenna was one of the first premiers who acknowledged the
need to balance the books in his province. This is being
celebrated right across the country now and we certainly
appreciate it.
He served his province and his region, especially as an advocate
of free trade and private enterprise. This also has spread right
across the country and we celebrate that because that is the only
way we will be able to work our way out of the terrible debt
situations we have all found ourselves in.
He also was a signatory and an important player just last month
in the Calgary declaration. He endorsed the national unity
process, the process the premiers were talking about in Calgary.
He found it important to note that consultation is important, but
also to recognize the equality of all provinces. We appreciate
the fact that he thinks this is important and we want to move
ahead in that area.
We want to wish him well. Again I wish to say on behalf of the
official opposition that we probably have not seen the end of
Frank McKenna in this country.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on the
occasion of Premier Frank McKenna's resignation I rise today on
behalf of my colleagues to wish him well. There are few Canadian
politicians, in fact not one that I could name, that have to
their credit having won 58 out of 58 seats in a provincial
election or any election. This certainly has been an indication
of the level of support the premier has had throughout his 10
years of office.
I note it is rumoured that Premier McKenna is thinking of
leaving politics and perhaps going to work in Africa. The
current prime minister should beware. When I stepped down as
provincial leader in Nova Scotia it was my intention to go to
Africa, not to go after the top job in the federal NDP. So one
never knows where Frank McKenna may land when it comes to his
future decisions.
1505
During 10 of the 12 years that Frank McKenna was in the New
Brunswick legislature, I had the opportunity to serve in the
adjacent legislature in Nova Scotia. During that time we had
differences of opinion as you might expect. There were a couple
of particularly strong ones over his commitment to workfare,
which I think has been proven to be something of a failure, and
also over his commitment to court corporations into the province
to create low wage jobs as long as they were subsidized by the
public.
Despite my differences with Frank McKenna from time to time, I
have never questioned his sincere commitment to serve the people
of his province as he saw fit.
On this occasion I would like to wish him and his family well.
Whatever he decides to pursue in the future I am sure he will
undertake with the same kind of zeal and passion with which he
has approached his job as premier of the province of New
Brunswick.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, as has
been mentioned in the House by the prime minister and the leader
of the official opposition party, Premier Frank McKenna will be
stepping down effective October 13, which is the 10th anniversary
of his leadership of the Liberal Party of New Brunswick.
Frank is very personable and he has tremendous family values. He
is a man whose family comes first. His wife Julie and his
children have given a great deal to Canada and to New Brunswick
over the last 15 years. Frank was there as an MLA before he
became leader of the party. He said when he was elected as the
leader of the Liberal Party that he was going to be there for 10
years and that was it. He kept his word.
A lot of people are critical of politicians, particularly
politicians who do not keep their word and Frank did. He worked
very diligently for the people in New Brunswick. There are a lot
of us here who live in that province. I served as mayor of Saint
John for 11 years, so perhaps I worked with Frank more closely
than anyone else in the House. Sometimes we agreed and sometimes
we did not agree, but we always had great respect for one
another.
We will miss Frank. I am hoping that he does not go to Africa.
I am hoping that he finds something in Canada, preferably in New
Brunswick so he can continue to work and promote our province. He
is known probably better than any other premier we have had
across Canada for his stance.
To Frank, to Julie and the children, we wish him good health and
the best of luck. I am sure we will see him again.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a question of privilege. It came to my attention
yesterday afternoon that the office and position of legislative
counsel has in a de facto manner ceased to exist. I would
suggest that this in and of itself is a prima facie case of
breach of privilege.
I need not remind members of the House that a breach of
privilege occurs according to all the precedents when there is
some improper obstruction to the member in performing his
parliamentary work. The facts are that in 1993 there were seven
legislative counsel and today there are approximately two point
something legislative counsel. This is the improper obstruction.
1510
I have three questions to ask. How can a member of any of the
18 standing committees be reasonably expected to have access to
independent legal advice concerning the probable effect of
specific sections of bills before a committee when no legal
counsel is available? How can a member draft amendments to
legislation when there is a six month wait for the same two point
something people to draft private members' bills? How can a
member who is sent here as a legislator fulfil that role without
reasonable access and availability of legal counsel? In brief, to
do the job, each member requires the tools.
The Privy Council in the case of Kielley v. Carson in 1842 when
ruling on a question of privilege noted that members of the
legislative body enjoy these privileges because the legislature
cannot act or perform without the unimpeded use of the services
of its members.
Yet members are in fact being impeded in performing their
parliamentary work. Indeed I as a member have no reasonable
access to the services of the legislative counsel's office. As a
member of this House I have been disempowered in carrying out my
duties.
As the guardian of the rights and privileges of this place, I
implore you to give me along with others in this place the right
to do our work. I am suggesting to you that this is not a matter
for the Board of Internal Economy. That body functions in a realm
that is defined by statute.
What I am asking of you is to uphold my rights as a member of
this House and not my interests as a member of a particular
political party which we know is reflected in the composition of
the Board of Internal Economy. When the Board of Internal Economy
meets, its members present the positions of their parties and
members but do not speak or represent each and every member of
the House. Only you, Mr. Speaker, as guardian of privileges can
act in such a manner.
I am not asking for another business process review of the House
staff and functions, nor do I believe that I should be forced to
resort to individuals who have been subjected to four hours of
training and are now called legislative clerks.
Finally, I am aware suggestions abound that the British
Parliament uses legislative clerks to fulfil the function of
legislative counsel and by extension the same could apply here. I
would suggest that this kind of logic ignores 130 years of the
evolution of this House to the point that we are unique and not a
twin or clone of Westminster.
I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that a prima facie case of
privilege exists and with your permission I would like to move
the motion:
That the lack of legislative counsel to assist members in
fulfilling their duties is a prima facie case of privilege and
this matter shall be referred to the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs.
The Speaker: I will wait for more discussions on this
particular point of privilege but at least at this point, I will
not accept the motion until I find if indeed there is a prima
facie case.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, I believe that, with all due respect for your
decision, if you were to agree to consider the motion, you would
find there was agreement. That is because each hon. member who has
used the services of the legislative counsels in the past to draft
bills knows just how time consuming that is, without the proper
resources.
1515
I know you have been extremely attuned in the past to our task
as legislators, but how can anyone seriously claim in this House
that our privileges are not being violated when the situation is
such that gaining access to legislative counsel has become
extremely complicated?
I remind you that a committee addressed this matter only four
months ago, with the suggestion that more legislative counsels be
added, contrary to what has been done recently. It is a
fundamental privilege for each member to be able to act as the
spokesperson for his community and to be able to introduce private
members' bills.
Everyone is well aware that the complexity of the matters
dealt with, the complexity of the subjects the hon. members must
debate in order to properly speak for their communities, require us
to have access to a level of expertise such as the legislative
counsels possess.
I truly believe that there is unanimity in this House. Let us
recall the time, not so long ago in parliamentary history, when
private members' business was allotted far more time. If the work
of the legislator is to have any meaning, it is important that we
be equipped to be able to introduce private members' bills.
I believe our colleague deserves our gratitude today for
bringing to your attention the fact that our privilege is being
infringed upon by the lack of resources.
[English]
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to second what the member for
Sarnia—Lambton and the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve said.
I had a couple of private member's bills in the system long
before the House sat, and since then a couple of more, but they
were not ready when the draw was taken.
I am sure many other members in the House have had the same
situation where bills they were hoping to be drafted and ready
for the draw were not.
Our privileges are affected, especially when we made commitments
in the last election to constituents that we would do things when
we got here and present legislation as private members. However,
because they were not done, our privilege of having our name in
the draw was not there. That is key to this whole argument. That
is why most private members in the House are upset with this
whole situation.
I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you take that as the major
consideration. If we cannot have a bill in the draw or it is in
there but it has not been drafted because there is not enough
bodies to draft it, there is a problem with the system. It is a
good issue to be referred to a committee so we can solve the
problem of private members and ensure that all private members'
bills and amendments are drafted as quickly as possible so they
can do their job.
We know the government with all its machinery can get bills
drafted in a day if it wants to present them in the House. Yet a
private member comes nowhere near that ability. It is taking
months, at least three and a half months in my case for one bill
which is still not finished. I think we should have better
service than that.
I am hoping, in your considerations, Mr. Speaker, that you will
see fit to allow it to go to a committee so we can solve this
serious problem.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would just like to respond to the last remark of my colleague
opposite. He indicated that there may possibly be some
preferential treatment to members on the government side. I do
not believe—
An hon. member: That is not what he said.
Mr. Bob Kilger: I am sorry, I apologize to the House. If
in fact it is a reference to the government in terms of drafting
bills, yes, it has certain resources.
I think this question of privilege was raised already by a
government member who had experienced some frustration and was
possibly looking for a different or a better means of being able
to serve his constituent through private members' bills.
I will wait for the decision of the Speaker on whether this is a
prima facie case. As one member of the board, it is certainly a
matter the Board of Internal Economy has already been apprised of
and sensitized to.
In a matter of hours, possibly, as we get together for our first
meeting the issue will be high on the agenda. We will be looking
to address it in the best interest of private members. It is not
a government-opposition issue but is a member issue that should
be addressed by the board. I will certainly abide by the ruling
of the Chair.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member on the government side for
bringing the issue to the floor of the House.
Many colleagues on the opposition side as well as on the
government side have experienced this situation. I lend the
voice of our party in support of the motion that has been brought
forward. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you will address this
proposition and take it under advisement. We want to support it.
1520
The Speaker: Unless there are new facts that members
would like to bring to the argument, as opposed to support one
way or the other, I will take it under advisement.
However, if there are new facts members would like to bring
forth, I will listen to some brief comments.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I will be brief. I do not know if it is a new fact, but I want
people to know that it is a fact the NDP shares the concern
raised by the hon. member and others who have brought it to the
attention of the Chair.
We will be doing what we can, either through the Board of
Internal Economy or in some other way, to make sure the matter is
addressed.
The Speaker: If I am to hear more facts about support
that is one thing, but if we have new facts to bring forth that
would be another.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
addition to the problems we have as private members, during the
clause by clause amendment of Bill C-68, a large controversial
bill, we were unable to get the services we required to draft
amendments.
We had over 200 amendments and we were not able to obtain the
services from legislative counsel because of the overload they
were experiencing. We had to not bring in our amendments at
clause by clause stage. We had to bring some of the amendments
in at report stage.
I add that to the volume of information that has been placed
before you for your consideration, Mr. Speaker.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the new facts you have
at your disposal to enlighten your decision, I would like to point
out that there used to be a law clerk here, who reported directly
to the Speaker of the House. Over the years, the idea got lost,
and little by little we slipped into a funnel with fewer and fewer
resources.
The fact I would like to add is that having only two permanent
law clerks for 301 members is the result of a number of years of
systematic erosion of the resources available to us to perform our
duties as members.
We both know that time is very important in politics. We had
an example here today in which the auditor general commented on
employment insurance. Had we asked for a bill to be drafted for a
month or two, or some such, and we could not take political action
before next January or February, then I would consider my
parliamentary privileges were being breached.
[English]
The Speaker: We have had quite a bit of information
on this matter. I remind all hon. members, with respect, that
last week a question of privilege was brought up to which I will
address myself in the next short while.
All the interveners seem to be of one opinion. The hon.
government whip has stated that the matter would possibly be
brought up in the Board of Internal Economy today.
I would like to take some time. Perhaps some information will
be forthcoming to me in the next 24 hours or so. I will review
everything that has been said today as I have been reviewing with
regard to the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River. If it
is necessary for me to get back to the House I will do so after a
brief delay.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1525
[English]
CANADA PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, an
act to establish the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board and to
amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act and to
make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second
time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
The Speaker: We have six minutes remaining for questions
and comments.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I very
much enjoyed the debate that was going on in the last couple of
hours. It really demonstrates the difference between a group of
people who have not really thought about what they are proposing
and some people who have given a considerable amount of thought
to what is actually happening.
I gave a statement in the House the other day in which I pointed
out that young people today, like the member who was speaking,
pay $3,400 a year for 35 years to pick up a pension of about
$8,800 a year, when that same money invested in a very modest
RRSP style plan for the same number of years would end up with an
annuity of something like $92,000 a year.
Members on that side who still think an $8,800 a year pension is
good news should give their heads a shake because it is totally
ridiculous.
As a secondary effect of these CPP taxes, what does the hon.
member feel the impact will be on small business? At the moment,
having come from small business myself, I know that every month
they have to pay CPP taxes, UI taxes, corporate income taxes,
income taxes for employees, business licences, Workers'
Compensation Board taxes and capital taxes in B.C.
Could the member give us an idea of the impact on small business
of this drastic increase in CPP?
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for his question.
The impact on small business of the proposed payroll tax
increases in Bill C-2 will be considerable. Self-employed small
business people will face an increased payroll tax burden of some
$3,600 a year.
For some hon. friends opposite who are expecting to cash out on
the great Las Vegas MP pension scam, $3,600 is not a lot of
money. For a lot of people in my constituency it is the
difference between being able to take a holiday in a year, being
able to take their kids for a trip in the summer, and perhaps
being able to hire an extra employee to help them so they can
actually go home a few nights a week and spend some extra time
with their families. For the people that I know $3,600 a year is
an integral part of their quality of life, which will be further
eroded by the payroll tax increases in the bill.
As I stated during my speech a direct link between higher
payroll taxes and fewer jobs has been demonstrated again and
again and again. That is one of the reasons we still have over
9% unemployment, 1.4 million unemployed Canadians, and 17% youth
unemployment. If that is not evidence enough that high taxes
kill jobs, I do not know what is.
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I listened to the member for Calgary Southeast. The debate has
two levels. Clearly our parties disagree on the function of the
retirement system. I think we would all agree on that.
I also marvel at the member's skills in terms of making
speeches. He has a lot to bring to the debate, but to simply
harp on about the form of the system when what he is really
talking about is the function does not do any good.
One thing that disturbed me was when the member spoke of his
youth. Clearly I do not know exactly what role that plays in the
debate, but he opened the door and I will try to get my rickety
old body through it. Just because the member speaks of his youth
does not mean he speaks for the youth.
I watched that party across the way during the election. Its
advertising strategy seems to be let Canada separate from Quebec.
We recently went through a colleague of his going through let
B.C. separate from Canada.
1530
When he talks about the younger generation not being willing to
pay for some of the deficits that are owed in terms of the plan
to the old, I would caution him that generations should not be
autonomous.
There is a generation of Canadians that went to war to pay the
price for his freedom. He simply stood up and said “my
generation now, at our age, doesn't think this is a good deal for
us, so forget the older generation Canadians”.
I would like a clear answer from the member. Is he laying the
groundwork for the third pillar of the Reform Party, which is
youth separation? Am I going to have to stand up here and fight
against that? Is that something that the hon. member does not
stand for?
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon.
member that I am a strong federalist as are my colleagues in this
party. I do think I speak for a large number of young Canadians.
It is interesting that there are nine members of Parliament on
this side of the House under the age of 30 and none on that side
of the House. I think that says something.
I said during my speech at the very beginning that I would like
to be on record as a young Canadian supporting a strong, fully
funded retirement income system which ensures that no Canadians
fall between the cracks in their older years.
Therefore yes, I do recognize those obligations and do want to
fully fund those obligations. I did say it would not be easy to
do that.
In the context of funding the obligations to older Canadians, we
can also give more retirement security to younger Canadians at
lower cost than what the government is proposing.
That is why I encourage hon. members to vote against Bill C-2
and to support a private mandatory retirement savings vehicle, a
defined contribution plan which would give more retirement
security at lower cost to my generation as well as to all
Canadians.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is one time I really regret not having an opportunity to ask
a question of the previous speaker, the member for Calgary
Southeast, rather than having a 10-minute speech.
The question I would have asked him pertains to his continued
attacks on the MP pension plan. One does not like to hear old
time rhetoric from supposedly new style politicians.
As it happens, when he attacks the MP pension plan, he alludes
to the fact that in the last Parliament the majority of Reform
MPs, all but one, opted out of the pension plan. That was by
statute. We had to make a legislative change because the pension
plan for parliamentarians is mandatory. What has been the case
of the MPs of the Reform Party of the class of '97 recently
elected?
A change of statute, a vote in this Parliament, is required for
the MPs of the class of '97 to have the option of opting out of
the MP pension plan. Instead of moving legislation or proposing
a private member's bill, what the Reform Party has done is that
each one of the class of '97 has written to Treasury Board saying
they want to opt out of the MP pension plan.
The problem with that is, as they should know, Treasury Board
does not have the power to act. It can only be done by statute.
The question I would like to have put to the member for Calgary
Southeast, and I am sorry he does not have an opportunity to
reply, is whether he is prepared right now to move a private
member's bill, which he can write himself, giving MPs the option
of opting out of the pension plan. If the Reform Party were
really sincere in all it says, it should have done this long ago.
The rest of my speech has to do with the accountability, a term
MPs opposite seem to like to throw around, of what has been said
in debate by the opposition parties, chiefly the Leader of the
Opposition.
I listened with great care to the speech of the member for
Calgary Southwest because I am a great believer that, in this
Parliament, when the opposition speaks it must speak
constructively. It has an important role in making legislation
better.
1535
I did not find the kind of constructive criticism that I would
like to have found from the Leader of the Opposition. Instead I
found, for example, the Leader of the Opposition criticizing Bill
C-2 because it does not have a preamble. He says the reason it
should have a preamble is so the courts will know how to
interpret the legislation. He actually says there is a legal
reason and that every time Parliament passes a statute it has to
make its intent crystal clear.
If the hon. member for Calgary Southwest had consulted with a
competent lawyer he would have been told that a preamble has no
legal force in the courts. When a judge approaches legislation
for interpretation he is not required in any way to follow the
preamble. The legal profession disparagingly refers to preambles
in legislation as the pious hope clause.
When there is a preamble in legislation it is usually a
political smoke screen which comes out of the department that
writes the legislation, usually the Department of Justice.
I will give the House a perfect example of a misleading
preamble. It is the preamble to Bill C-46, which the party
opposite fully supported at third reading. That bill had to do
with restricting the rights of the accused in obtaining records
from therapists in sexual assault trials. Remember that the
opposition party completely supported that bill. It had a
wonderful preamble which outlined how it would protect the rights
of victims, how it would do this, that and the other thing. It
outlined how the legislation would obey the charter.
Within months of getting through Parliament it is being
challenged in Alberta because it defies natural justice. It
destroys the right of the accused to defend themselves. It has
also been challenged in and overturned by the courts of Ontario.
This is the case of a preamble which was put into legislation
that was fundamentally bad. Learned parliamentarians on all
sides of the House supported a law which should not have been
supported.
I suggest that the hon. member for Calgary Southwest, instead of
proposing that bills have preambles, should be condemning
preambles. Legislation speaks for itself clause by clause.
The hon. member for Calgary Southwest talked forever about
payroll taxes. The point he was trying to make was that
increases to CPP premiums are a tax. He cited all kinds of
academics to prove the point that the increases to CPP premiums
are a tax.
It is certainly true that no one likes to talk about a new tax,
be it in Parliament or anywhere in the country. Certainly the
government would prefer not to talk about it as a tax. The
reasoning is that because the government does not directly
collect the tax one should not think of it as being a tax.
The argument was not fully developed by the hon. member for
Calgary Southwest. The argument is if it is mandatory, if it is
taken off a worker's payroll, then it is a tax. It is a tax
because it is mandatory. The hon. member for Calgary Southwest
said the government is not being genuine because it is really a
tax.
What do we find later in his speech? He talks about super RRSPs
which are mandatory. In other words, the other party, while
condemning the government for proposing a pension tax, is
proposing a tax itself. It is a matter of semantics. Perhaps it
is a misunderstanding of the language. The reality is that a
mandatory super RRSP is a tax as well.
Finally I come to the issue of accountability. The Leader of
the Opposition condemned Bill C-2 because he felt it merely
required annual reports and proper reporting by the investment
board which will be responsible for the funds under its charge,
which is a huge innovation in the bill to turn the management of
the pension funds over to an investment panel which will invest
them in the open market and do so wisely.
1540
Again the member for Calgary Southwest missed the point. Instead
of condemning the fact that Bill C-2 wanted reporting he really
should have gone after the bill and said that this is the kind of
reporting we want. I do not blush as a government member to warn
my government that I am dissatisfied with this aspect of the
bill. What is missing from the bill is an itemized account of
what we expect from this investment board when it presents its
annual report.
We want to know the remuneration of the executives. We want to
know the cost of administration and management. We want to know
the investment plan. We want to know investment performance.
Rather than condemning the government, and Bill C-2 because it
wants annual reports, the Leader of the Opposition missed an
opportunity for valid criticism and he has left it again to the
government backbenchers to warn the government that it has not
fully examined the bill. I hope the committee will look very
carefully at this whole matter of what kind of accountability
there should be.
I also listened very carefully to the remarks of the member for
Sherbrooke. He is the leader of the fifth party, I believe. We
find Sesame Street economics. This member condemned the bill
because it took $11 billion out of the economy over six years.
Somehow he does not seem to understand that this investment board
is going to reinvest it in the economy, in the open market. It
will reinvest the money in Canada.
Later the member for Sherbrooke complained that he wanted RRSPs
to be permitted to invest 50% in foreign investment instead of
20%. He is proposing that Canadian pension funds be invested
outside Canada. He is not interested in investing in Canada, and
no wonder. That party did not succeed very well in the election
of 1993.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to this bill
that will finally bring the CPP up to date. It must be admitted that
the existing plan has a few shortcomings and is in need of improvement.
There is certainly no need to replace it with the sort of formula the
Reform Party is proposing, but adjustments are in order.
I think it is also important for those Quebeckers listening to know
that very few Quebeckers are affected by the CPP, because a similar
plan, the Quebec pension plan, was set up at the same time as the CPP.
This evokes memories of a time when some form of co-operation with the
federal government was possible.
Members will recall the Pearson era, when Quebeckers were allowed
to create the Quebec pension lan, and even to make original
contributions, such as the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, an
idea which the government has picked up on in the new bill before us
today.
The only Quebeckers affected by the CPP are those who have paid CPP
premiums, whether they live in Quebec or decide to move there, as well
as members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the RCMP. Approximately
12,000 Quebeckers are affected by the plan.
For most Canadians, however, these are significant changes. The
increase in premiums will reach 9.9% in 2003.
We understand that this increase is due to adjustments required to
ensure that the plan can meet the objectives for which it was created.
I think it important to point out that there have been many
shortcomings in how the plan's money has been built up in the 20 years
it has been around and that we thought the present bill needed to be
improved in this regard. In this sense, the Canada pension plan
investment board seems like an interesting idea. It is not too direct
a market competitor for the Caisse de dépôt et placement because it does
not actually have an economic mandate.
Its only mandate is to ensure that the funds are managed as well
as possible. As a matter of fact, there were major deficiencies in this
respect.
1545
I would like to add that I am somewhat surprised by the Reform
amendment where it says that the system will be even more unfair to
young people when in fact the proposed premium increase will come mainly
from the pockets of the baby boomers, that is to say those who are
presently aged between 40 and 55, and I am one of them.
It is normal to some extent that we pay more.
Indeed, had corrections not been done, we would have ended up receiving
benefits for which we would not really have paid premiums and nothing
would have been done to ensure that younger people do not have to pay
disproportionate amounts for what we, the so-called baby boomers, will
be entitled to in terms of benefits.
It seems to me that the position of the Reform Party and their
amendment are untenable. The purpose of this bill is not to reform the
plan at the expense of the younger generations, but rather to reduce
intergenerational inequity by ensuring that everyone pays his or her
fair share.
What is missing in this bill and is of great interest to me is
mention of what will become of the seniors benefit, commonly called old
age pension. Under the current pension plan, the various sources of
income available to those eligible for benefits because of their age
include private retirement plans such as RRSPs and supplementary pension
plans.
There are also the public plans, namely the Quebec pension plan and the
Canada pension plan. Then there is old age security, the guaranteed
income supplement and the spouse's allowance.
Once this bill on the CPP is passed, it will be very important to
hold a true consultation across the country regarding the seniors
benefit. What little information we have received so far on the
government's proposal involves very fundamental issues for the future of
pension plans in Canada.
There is, among other things, the universality of benefits. Many
people who had planned their retirement based on an existing plan will
face a situation different than the one they expected, simply because
the government has decided, with this bill, to protect those aged 59 and
over.
The government should ensure that much younger people have the option to
choose between the existing plan and the one that will be implemented in
the months to come.
The plan protects those who are already in the current system.
These people will not be affected. This is a good thing, but we have to
make sure that those who will have to live with the new plan can do so
under acceptable conditions. This is why I call upon the solidarity of
older people, of those already covered by the existing plan.
The initial reaction of a person aged 65 or 70 could be: “I am
protected under my plan.
I don't necessarily need to be worried about the coming reform”.
However, those who can give the most intelligent opinion, the one
most closely reflecting day to day reality, are the people who are
65 or 70 years old today and are living with the current program,
those who receive the guaranteed income supplement, who can tell us
how it would be if they had to live from day to day on an income
that came solely from the new form of allowance the Government of
Canada is proposing, and can tell us there would be major problems.
This consultation would, therefore, have to be transparent,
and carried out in such a way that everyone may grasp the issues
and that all strata of society may have a chance to be heard.
The new pension plan is going to be very important to the baby
boomers, but it is also going to be important for those who are 20,
25 or 30 years old today, because this will be their opportunity to
define the framework under which they will have to live in the
years to come.
It is important to look at the Canada pension plan in the
perspective of this reform of the seniors benefit.
1550
I would like the government to be more attentive in the next
consultations than it was in previous ones, such as the
consultations on the employment insurance reform. If the past were
any indication of the future, it would be a cause for concern.
The Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the
Status of Persons with Disabilities toured Canada and visited all
the provinces to hear what people thought of the proposed
employment insurance plan. The consultations did not lead to the
results expected.
Again today, we see basic common sense in the auditor
general's report, but considered, calculated, assessed and
providing the same result as the committee's consultations. In
other words, the employment insurance plan must be managed by its
contributors—employers and employees—and government must
provide an accounting of the way it determines contribution amounts
and ensure that the surplus is properly directed to ensure that job
creation objectives are met.
The type of consultation done for employment insurance should
be done for seniors pensions, but with greater guarantees that the
government will listen to those consulted, who will tell us what
they want in a benefits plan for seniors, so that after the Canada
pension plan is reformed with the change to seniors benefits, we
are sure that our seniors have an adequate pension plan. Perhaps
the most respectful way a society can acknowledge the contributions
of its citizens is in the treatment it accords its seniors.
[English]
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on
Bill C-2. I also congratulate on you your appointment.
Bill C-2 amends the Canada pension plan and secures the future
for all Canadians. No government has ever consulted more widely
across the country than the Liberal government. We consulted all
Canadians from sea to sea on the future of the CPP and on
Canadians' vision for the future of the CPP.
Now Bill C-2 allows the CPP to be an investment for Canadians,
by Canadians and in Canada. This will be a win-win situation and
we will not burden future generations.
My hon. colleague who spoke before me talked about our extensive
consultations with the HRD committee, on which he was a very hard
working member. The social security review was good and much
will come from it. We have set the direction for social security
into the next century.
Today we heard the Reform party attack everything we are doing.
I commended the hon. member from Quebec on his good attendance
and good work in committee. The HRD committee set an all time
record for the amount of hours spent here in Ottawa and on the
road. I have to disclose that Reform members were not there to
listen to Canadians.
It is shameful that they took this opportunity to cross the
country and hold their own town hall meetings and then bring the
reports back. Reformers are only wanting to represent the views
of their own members and not of Canadians.
An hon. member: We could not get a hearing before the
committee.
Mr. Larry McCormick: The hon. member opposite says he
could not get a hearing before that committee. When we were in
Calgary for two days there was a lot of opportunity for walk-ins.
If the hon. member had been there he could have been heard.
1555
Last February a federal-provincial agreement was reached on
changes to ensure that the Canada pension plan would be
sustainable in the future and would make it more fair and more
affordable for all Canadians.
The changes are the result of the latest statutory review of the
CPP that the federal and provincial governments, as joint
stewards of the plan, began in 1995. They reflect what was said
during extensive public consultations that were held across
Canada in 1996. The key recurring theme was that Canadians
believe in the CPP and they want it preserved.
Most participants believe this can be accomplished by
strengthening the plan's financing, improving its investment
practices and moderating the growth in costs.
This agreement answers the concerns of the residents of my
riding and of most Canadians. This is a very balanced approach.
Federal and provincial ministers agreed on a three part approach
to restore the financial sustainability of the CPP and make it
fairer and affordable for future generations by moving to fuller
funding; by accelerating contribution rate increases now so that
it will not have to exceed the 10% for future generations;
improving the rate of return on the CPP fund by investing it
prudently in a diversified portfolio of securities at arm's
length from the government; slowing the growth by tightening the
administration of benefits and by changing the way that some are
calculated.
The following important features of the Canada pension plan
remain unchanged. Anyone currently receiving CPP retirement
pensions, disability benefits, survivor benefits or combined
benefits will not see these benefits affected. Persons over the
age of 65 as of December 31, 1997 who elect to start CPP
retirement pensions after that date will also not see these
pensions affected.
All benefits under the CPP except the one time death benefit
will remain fully indexed to inflation. The age of retirement,
early, normal or late, will remain unchanged.
Building up a larger fund, fuller funding and earning a higher
rate of return through investment in the market will help pay for
the rapidly growing cost that will occur once baby boomers begin
to retire. This is what Canadians have asked the government for,
to ensure that their Canada pension plan will be there in the
future.
Accordingly, the Canada pension plan will move from pay as you
go financing to fuller funding to build a substantially larger
reserve fund.
Contribution rates will rise over the next six years from the
current rate of 5.85% to 9.9% and then remain steady instead of
rising to 14.2% in the year 2030 as predicted by the chief
actuary. In dollar terms an employee earning $35,800 a year now
pays about $945 in contributions. In the year 2003 that employee
will contribute about $1,635. Yes, that is $450 more than what
is currently legislated for that year. However, by the year 2030
employees will be paying $565 less a year than if we had not
acted now. Increasing rates more rapidly now will cover the cost
of each contributor's own benefits plus a uniform share of the
unfunded burden that has built up. These costs will not be
passed on to future generations.
There will be positive changes to the benefits and to the
administration of the CPP. Changes proposed are how benefits
will be administered and calculated in order to moderate the
growth of costs. By the year 2030 costs will be reduced by just
over 9% compared to what they otherwise would be by then.
Stewardship and accountability are the most important facets of
the CPP. To improve stewardship of the CPP and provide for more
accountability so that the sustainability of CPP is not again put
at risk, federal-provincial reviews will be required every three
years rather than every five. Any future benefits will be fully
funded.
In any future statutory review of the plan, new default
provisions will identify the steps necessary if the chief actuary
calculates the CPP to be no longer sustainable at the steady
state rate and ministers cannot reach a consensus on actions to
sustain the plan.
Canadians will now receive regular statements about their
pensions with the intent to provide annual statements to all
contributors as soon as possible. The CPP investment board will
provide quarterly financial statements and will report to
Canadians on the performance of the fund. It will hold public
meetings at least every two years so Canadians can know what is
going on in every province. CPP annual reports will provide more
complete information and will explain how administrative problems
are being addressed. Other issues are up for review. These
changes will restore the CPP sustainability and make it more fair
and affordable for all future generations.
1600
Partial pensions. Many Canadians want to make a gradual
transition to retirement. This opens up the possibility of more
jobs for younger Canadians. This will be made possible by
providing partial pensions during the transition while Canadians
can continue to work and earn further pension credits. We are
going to examine this and I hope we can make great progress.
Survivor benefits. Compared with today when 68% of working age
women are in the workforce, in the past, when the CPP survivor
benefits were designed, most women did not work outside the home.
Ways to update survivor benefits to reflect changing realities
and the needs of today's families will be examined.
In response to misinformation that is being supplied across
Canada by the official opposition I want to repeat that there is
no change in the age of retirement. There is no change in the
contribution rates past the 9.9% that is being set now. It will
be held steady. We will know what the rate will be in the
future. The year's basic exemption, which is now $3,500, will be
frozen at $3,500. There is no change to the maximum pensionable
earnings. All benefits except the death benefit will be fully
indexed.
Again I want to say that good government makes a difference.
This government has certainly listened to Canadians. We have
held hearings in every riding that we represent and we are happy
to talk to Canadians.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I would
like to tell you a story about some mad scientists. Many people
know them as social engineers. They have this theory, this idea
that the more centralized a project is, the better it is. They
also believe the more people that are involved, the better it is.
But these scientists have a problem. There are so many
observations that refute this theory. These fallacies of theirs
are obstacles that prevent this scientific theory from becoming a
scientific law.
These social engineers have staked their reputations, even their
views of the world, on this framework of centralizing more jobs,
but the anomalies are overwhelming. Hence we have a real crisis.
They created this crisis called the Canada pension plan.
I will talk about a number of these anomalies, these
complications they had. First, other government run disasters do
not work. Government members point to their own example when
they talk about how it is a half trillion dollars underfunded.
There is also the Quebec pension plan. Although it is better
than the CPP it has repeatedly earned a rate of return
substantially below the market average for investments.
I look to my own province with the Alberta Heritage Fund which
squandered hundreds of millions of dollars on Gainers meat
packing and Novatel. Those are two examples but there are more.
Even Singapore's Central Providence Fund will not be able to meet
even the modest levels of retirement benefits estimated by the
Central Providence Fund itself. We have examples within Canada
and without that point to government run disasters on investment
funds like this.
When these Liberal social engineers set up the CPP in 1966 they
made some promises. Paul Martin Senior and his Liberal cronies
said that it would “never cost more than a few hundred
dollars”. Those were their own words. Yet today Liberals are
talking about something in the thousands of dollars which is 10
times what their initial promises were. But oh no, we should
trust them.
1605
The Liberals also promised the CPP would never climb above 5%
contributions, but lo and behold they are talking about 9.9% as
though it was nothing. They say that's it. Can we trust them
now?
It was a con job all along. We know that now. And it is still
a con job. Some people are convinced that they are entitled to
this tax. I say that if it comes out of your pocket, if it is
taken out of your wallet, it is called extortion; if it goes back
into your pocket once the government has taken it, then it is
blood money. It is paying you off. It is trying to buy back
your support with the fruits of your own labour. The GST rebate
worked the same way.
The Liberals said that Canadians asked for these changes. I do
not remember being asked if I wanted the CPP tax doubled. I have
friends on this side of the House who wanted to make application
before the travelling board and they did not get an opportunity.
Even if were dense, I surely would have remembered the
government selling this high priority Canada pension plan tax
hike during the election campaign. It is a high priority bill
that is being introduced right after the election. Surely the
Liberals would have mentioned it there and I would not have
missed it.
Where was the tax increase mentioned in the Liberal red book? I
did not see it. I am not blind and I do not think I am all that
deaf, but nonetheless these things were not talked about during
the campaign. I am reminded of when the Liberals broke their
promises on the GST.
I doubt whether doubling the CPP would have passed a referendum
vote. They say it is something that is grassroots and
democratic. If they put a vote to the citizens of this country
in terms of whether or not they want to see a doubling of their
CPP, they know that would fail.
The Liberals have more tricks in their bag. They bent the ears
of the provincial governments. How did they do that? The
Liberals bought off the provinces with promises of cheap loans
that would be available due to the federal government's extra CPP
tax revenue.
History has a funny way of repeating itself. The last time the
government raised the CPP tax it squandered pension funds in
provincial bonds at below market rates. We could well see that
type of thing again. Canadians would once again be in the debt
hole and the Liberals would once again come back to them and say
“Trust us. This time it is only going to be 15% or 20%.”
This job killing tax hike is going to bring in nearly $11
billion over and above what it does now. That is $700 extra per
year for every working Canadian. According to a Department of
Finance study acquired through an access to information request,
the increase in compulsory contributions from 3.6% to 5% that
happened between 1986 and 1993 reduced employment by nearly
26,000 jobs. These are the same people who are saying this tax
hike will not cost jobs. This Department of Finance study
indicates that the Liberal tax hike this time could kill up to
75,000 jobs.
I would like to quote the finance minister. In 1994 in his
blueprint for the economy entitled A New Framework for Economic
Policy, he said “Higher payroll taxes increase the cost of
labour and reduce the incentive to create new jobs.” It is
75,000 fewer jobs. That is what the finance minister is talking
about. The Liberals do not like to call it a tax hike or a
payroll tax, but that is what it is. It reminds me that the
Liberals are short-sighted. They only see as far ahead as the
next election because the finance minister can say one thing in
1994 and another thing in 1997.
1610
Indeed, members opposite said during the beginning of this
debate that they only realized there was a problem three years
ago in 1994. They did not sense this baby boom population
bubble. They did not feel it. They were oblivious to it.
Marketers, demographic trend setters, everybody was talking about
it but the government did not know.
This Liberal plan was created in 1966. Surely these people
could not turn a blind eye to this. They were not daft, or were
they? They should have known and anticipated this bubble in the
demographic trends. For them to notice the plan even on their
own admission only three years ago, it has taken them this long
to finally catch wind that it has to be changed, that it has to
be reformed. It sounds very fishy indeed.
What we have is a government that wants to bring in a tax hike
right after an election. What they are hoping is that people are
going to forget it, but I do not think that is going to be the
case.
The Liberals claim that the screw-up they created could have
been worse. If they had stuck their head in the sand a little
bit longer, then the hike would actually have been 14%. This is
so typical of Liberal promises. They promise to spend taxpayers'
money and then when they do not spend it they say “We are
heroes. We've saved you money because we didn't spend your 14%.
We are only doubling it to 10%”.
I am going to make a prediction, and this will be very short.
The Liberals are bringing in this tax hike early in their term
and they are hoping the people are going to forget about it by
the time of the next election. This increase only gets worse
over time, and its coat tails will be long.
If they cut taxes, they might not slit their own throats but if
foreign pressure on interest rates causes them to rise,
especially with a separatist vote in Quebec, then they will dig
their own debt grave.
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to be able to participate in the debate today on such an
important issue for Canadians.
In recent years, as hon. members may know, a number of social,
economic and demographic trends have developed, such as declining
birth rates, increased life expectancy and lower than anticipated
growth in productivity and wages, which, if unaddressed, could
challenge the sustainability of Canada's public pension system.
This is why we committed ourselves to strengthening Canada's
public pension system. The legislation that we are debating,
Bill C-2, will enact the joint federal-provincial agreement
reached last February to change the Canada pension plan, or CPP
as it is known. It is legislation that will place the Canada
pension plan on a solid financial footing.
The first point that I would like to make is that whatever the
circumstances, CPP will be there for Canadians when they need it.
In fact the very reason we are making changes now is to ensure
that it is there in the future.
In his February 1995 report, the chief actuary clearly showed
that without modification to the Canada pension plan, the CPP
fund would be exhausted by the year 2015 and that contribution
rates would have had to soar to over 14% to cover the rapid
growth in cost. That would be a 240% increase.
It is only through responsible action now that we can avoid
bankruptcy and truly intolerable CPP rates later, an increase now
with a number of generations sharing the burden or an increase
later for our children's generation.
Before moving to make changes to CPP, we held extensive
consultations with Canadians. During 33 sessions held in 18
cities throughout Canada, more than 270 formal presentations were
made to allow the government to find out what Canadians thought
should happen to their plan. Canadians had no reservations in
their expectations. They wanted the plan preserved, its
financing strengthened and its investment practices improved. We
have done that.
I would like to take a moment to tell my constituents what
remains the same under CPP legislation and how the plan is being
preserved. Anyone currently receiving Canada pension plan
benefits, be it retirement pensions, disability benefits or
survivor benefits, can rest assured that they will not see these
benefits affected in any way.
1615
Anyone currently receiving Canada pension plan benefits will not
see these benefits affected in any way. All benefits now and in
the future will remain fully indexed to inflation. The ages of
early retirement, normal retirement or late retirement all remain
unchanged.
What has changed? Let me try to describe the changes today.
Effective January 1, 1998 retirement pensions will be based on
the average of the year's maximum pensionable earnings in the
last five years prior to starting the pension. In the past they
were based on a three year average. The amount of the pension
will continue to be dependent on how much and for how long a
person contributes to the plan.
The administration of disability benefits will be further
improved. The appeal process will be streamlined and the
legislation will be applied more consistently. To be eligible
for disability benefits workers must have made Canada pension
plan contributions in four of the last six years prior to
becoming disabled. Presently a person needs to make Canada
pension contributions in two of the three years previous or five
of the last ten years in order to be eligible to apply and
qualify for disability benefits.
The rules for combining the survivor and disability benefits and
the survivor and retirement benefits will be largely the same as
those in existence before 1987. However, changes will limit the
extent to which these benefits can be added together.
The death benefit will continue to be equal to six months of
retirement benefits but up to a maximum of $2,500 rather than the
current $3,580. The option to eliminate the death benefit was
rejected by the federal and provincial governments together.
Through enacting the legislation after careful consideration
with Canadians the government will ensure that the Canada pension
plan is there for future generations, that it is there at an
affordable premium and that the benefits are guaranteed for those
future generations. Due to our plan some 75% of the reduction
has been made on the financing side and only 25% on the benefit
side.
The CPP will continue to be affordable. Canada pension plan
contribution rates will increase in steps to 9.9% by 2003 or
4.95% for each employer and employee and then remain unchanged
instead of reaching the 14.2% projected by the chief actuary for
the year 2030.
The Canada pension plan will move from pay as you go financing
to fuller funding to build a much larger reserve fund. It will
grow in value from two years of benefits currently to about four
or five years of benefits. It should be noted that the yearly
basic exemption, the first $3,500 of earnings on which no
contributions are paid, will be maintained and frozen.
Without these changes future generations would have to pay 14.2%
for the same benefits we are currently paying only 5.85% for.
Until now CPP contributions not needed to pay for benefits have
been lent mainly to the provinces at the federal government's
interest rate on long term bonds. Under this new legislation
Canada pension plan funds will now be invested in a diversified
portfolio of securities prudently and at arm's length from
government.
This means that Canada pension plan funds will be invested in
stocks, bonds including provincial bonds, and mortgages. Instead
of being lent in their entirety to the provinces we are now in
the position with the passing of the legislation to make the
investment philosophy of the Canada pension plan more market
oriented. This is consistent with investment policies in most
public and private pension plans in Canada.
Based on prudent assumptions the Canada pension plan can secure
an average long run return of almost 4% a year above the rate of
inflation. That compares with only 2.5% assumed under the
current policy of the chief actuary. As well, from now on
whenever provincial governments borrow from the Canada pension
plan they will pay the same rate of interest that they pay on
their market borrowings. That is making smart use of public
money.
During cross-Canada consultations Canadians told us they wanted
the Canada pension plan to run like a private pension plan. In
response we have provided that the fund will be managed
independently from government by a 12 member investment board.
The investment board is accountable to Canadians and their
governments through regular reports.
The board will be subject to investment rules similar to other
public and private funds in Canada. Therefore the transparency
for Canada pension plans of the future is the same transparency
in private plans throughout the rest of Canada.
1620
It should be noted that Canadians will start to receive regular
statements on the pensions they are earning. We intend to
provide annual statements to all contributors as soon as it is
feasible. Canadians will receive an annual statement which will
show how the Canada pension plan is progressing. Canadians will
have the opportunity to see year to year the retirement future
their contributions are building.
Last February in the House of Commons the Minister of Finance
tabled the first draft of Canada pension plan legislation, in
case the member for Calgary West was unaware. In response to the
comments received further refinements were made to the
legislation and revised draft legislation was released in July
for further comment.
The measures proposed in the bill today will become law once the
legislation is passed by parliament and support orders in council
are received from the provinces that are party to last February's
agreement. This will permit the changes to take effect on
January 1, 1998.
Finally I would like to take this opportunity to answer some of
the critics of these changes. There are some who advocate
scrapping CPP and moving to a privatized system with mandatory
retirement savings plans. I believe they do not understand two
things.
First and foremost, Canadians want the Canada pension plan to
remain. Canadians want a public pension plan that is available
to everyone.
Second, the Canada pension plan provides protection not
available through private RRSPs such as disability benefits and
survivor and death benefits.
The Canada pension plan is part of our public pension plan
system along with old age security and guaranteed income
supplement. Together these three pillars ensure that all our eggs
are not in the same basket. The changes reflect the long held
Liberal values of providing stability for and protecting those in
need.
It was a Liberal government that introduced the Canada pension
plan over 30 years ago in 1966, and now this Liberal government
is making the necessary changes to ensure the future of the
Canada pension plan for all Canadians. This allows all Canadians
to prepare for their future together.
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
my comments are sparked in part by the last member who spoke and
some of the other members who have spoken today, in particular
those on the Liberal side.
I find it very ironic and kind of sad that they would stand and
talk about Reform's plan when obviously they have never read it.
They have never opened the book, or they read it and they chose
to ignore it, to say things they know are not stated in the book
and to ignore the things that really are there.
It is unfortunate they would prey on the fears of Canadians,
those who have already retired and those approaching retirement,
to try to sell a very bad plan of their own.
It has been mentioned today that it started at 5%. They were
told it was a wonderful plan and that it would never go up. Now
it is doubling from that early start.
I want to speak about one aspect of the plan, the impact of the
raising of the payroll taxes to 9.9% on business, in particular
small business.
Speaking again of false comments made by the government, its
members seem to want to imply that Reform's plan is to scrap CPP
and instead simply have people put their money into RRSPs.
Members who think like this are the ones who have not actually
read the plan. The plan is an RRSP type system changed over from
the existing Canada pension plan. It is not paid out of rich
profits from a high paid job but in fact paid by the same
deductions that are going into the Canada pension plan right now,
money that has been squandered, money that has been spent and
still results in a $600 billion liability on the part of the
Canada pension plan. I just want to make sure people understand
that.
I hope hon. members opposite listen to this example. I welcome
heckling when I am speaking. I actually feed on it. Sometimes
it gives me some good stuff to carry on with in my speech. When
all their friends are away, I hope they get a chance to think of
this one point personally and consider it from a non-partisan
point of view.
1625
Before I came to this place I had a small construction company
that built about eight houses a year. During that time I was
doing other things. My company, which was primarily myself, made
a profit of about $6,500 per house.
I employed carpenters, plumbers, electricians, excavation people
with their equipment, roofers, drywallers and any number of
people. I bought supplies from people all over town and
throughout my region. It was a good economic engine for the
small community and the region I come from.
I had three people who virtually worked full time for me. If I
consider the number of people who worked for me as I needed them
for drywalling, roofing or some other components, it worked out
to be the equivalent of about 10 full-time positions. It was as
if I had 10 people full time who, if they had the particular
talents, would have been able to do all the jobs. It would have
created an annual income for those people.
According to the Liberal plan the wages I paid those people
would be subject to this new payroll tax for the purpose of CPP.
It would amount to $650 per head. What would be the impact on a
small company?
As I said, I made about $6,500 a house and I had the equivalent
of 10 full-time positions. As the employer my share would have
been $650 times 10. The gross profit for one-eighth of my
productivity as a builder would have gone to pay the increased
CPP premiums.
When I had people working for me they liked to maintain some
form of standard of living. They were pretty reasonable people.
If I was still running my company and this increase came along, I
suspect many of them would have come to me and said “We know
times are tough. We know that the economy is tight. We are not
looking for a raise but we certainly cannot afford a cut in pay.
What we need is enough of a raise to pay the increase in our CPP
premiums”.
They were hard workers. I would have been hard pressed not to
have given it to them, but had I done so it would have been
another $650 per employee for the equivalent of 10 full-time
employees or $6,500, the gross profit from another house.
This was a viable small business and the increase in the Canada
pension plan premium, a payroll tax, would have taken 25% of my
gross profits from that construction company.
Government members will say that it is a government bill and
they have to vote for it. I understand their dilemma. A member
of the House who does not happen to belong to the Liberal Party
any longer voted according to the way his conscience and his
constituents directed him. Consequently he sits on this side of
the House because the Liberal Party threw him out. They are not
allowed to vote the way they think is in the best interests of
Canadians in general or their constituents in particular.
I hope government members will raise this matter in caucus,
speak to the minister and speak to the critics who deal with the
Canada pension plan. If that is what would have happened to the
small business I operated in Castlegar, in the interior of
British Columbia, think what it will do to countless hundreds of
thousands of businesses across the country.
The Liberals talk about job creation. How in God's name can
jobs be created when they increase a payroll tax on people which
will ultimately result in 25% of the profit from a small company
going out the window? It will not work.
I hope that each of those members will say that they did not
look at it from the point of view of employment. They are saying
they looked at it from the point of view of rescuing the plan.
There are much better ways to rescue the plan than simply
throwing more money at it and in doing so destroying the economy
of the country by destroying a lot of small businesses.
Instead of spouting the rhetoric thrown by the minister down to
them they should read Reform's plan. It is an alternative. It
is not the destruction of a pension plan. It is looking at it
from the point of view that we have to ensure an income for
people in their retirement and we have to make it affordable not
only in terms of premiums but in job creation and sustainability.
They look at it and say the 9.9% now will be the be all and end
all to save the plan. It is the same thing that Liberals of days
gone by said when it was brought in at 5%.
1630
I hope my speech gives the Liberals something to think about. I
appreciate the attention Liberal members have paid and I truly
hope they will reconsider this in a non-partisan manner. If they
do, I promise that I will not try and roast them by saying they
were wrong. I will congratulate them on their re-examination and
their concern for Canadians instead of just following the
rhetoric of a few.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I congratulate you on your new office. This is the
first chance I have had to speak with you in the chair.
As I listen to members opposite, particularly members of the
Reform Party, it becomes more clear that we are dealing with two
very fundamentally different visions not only of the Canada
pension plan but of the country.
History would make it clear that Liberal governments have put
people and their communities first. I suggest the Reform Party
would take us back decades when it was not so important that
people and communities worked together for the good of all.
The Reform Party attempts to make an issue of sustainability
with regard to the changes to the CPP and the program being in
place in the future. I think it has much more to do with the
kind of society we want for ourselves, our children and our
grandchildren.
Throughout the last term of office and through the election
campaign I did not hear much from the constituents in my riding
of Algoma—Manitoulin calling for a privatized super RRSP for the
future. If I heard concerns about the pension plan for the
future they were to make sure that what Canada has such as the
CPP and OAS will be there for us when we retire and for our
children and our grandchildren. Their worry centred around the
sustainability of the program and that it be available in the
years to come.
While Reformers can argue that a super RRSP, according to their
arithmetic, will be better for Canadians, when we get to fine
details it is a much different story.
I will cite a couple of examples. The Reform Party claims to be
the party of families, a fact which is quite disputable. Its
proposal would not cover workers who take leave to look after
children, which runs contrary to the fact that CPP does. Working
poor families would have difficulty paying mandatory RRSPs and
the extra insurance to replace the disability and death benefits
provided by the CPP.
In a society where there is a general consensus to move toward a
national drug plan, a pharmacare plan, and society is moving
toward sharing the wealth in a reasonable way, Reform would have
us go back to the beginning of the century when it was quite the
opposite. In its plan we would forget the working poor family,
the spouse who for one reason or another had to stay home to take
of children. I use this as only one example of where the Reform
plan would break down and the CPP would be there for spouses who
stay home for children.
1635
Reformers also neglect to point out that in a super RRSP plan a
tremendous public subsidy is required. As we all know, when you
invest in an RRSP, as all Canadians are able to do if they choose
to and have the funds to do so, there is a commensurate tax
reduction to reflect that investment.
The current system costs billions of dollars per year. It is a
system whereby Canadians are redistributing their wealth. In a
system totally dependent on RRSPs those with most of the wealth
would be benefiting from most of the tax loss as a result of the
tax deduction. In the current system which is a balance of
RRSPs, Canada pension plan, OAS and the supplement, there is a
broader range of pension options available to people. If we
provide a pension plan based solely on the RRSP system there will
be a much greater demand on the tax system than what we see right
now.
It is incumbent on the Reform Party to make it clear that its
system does not come without tremendous cost. I submit to the
House that the cost will be much greater than what we are seeing
right now. The CPP is not intended to be the only source of
income for seniors, although by necessity it is for many. The
overall pension system in Canada is designed to provide Canadians
with a chance to blend several vehicles as they prepare for their
retirement.
Much is made about the fact that premiums are going up. The
Reform Party uses the word tax. Tax is not the correct word. The
correct word is investment. When an employer through a payroll
deduction makes a contribution to the CPP he is making an
investment in the country for sure but also in the workers who
work for him. When the employee makes a contribution to the CPP
he too is making an investment.
The previous speaker from British Columbia mentioned his
construction firm and the number of houses he made per year. If
he asked his employees they would not see it unreasonable that 10
employees would see their premiums matched by the profit, just
the profit on one of eight homes. They might see that simply as
sharing the benefits that come with a capitalist society.
If we were to move in the direction that is proposed by the
official opposition we would see a deterioration in a significant
way of Canada's social safety net which is made up not only of
our pension system but of the employment insurance system and the
health care system.
The pension system is one of the very important three pillars
that make up the social safety net. It is in the nature of our
society and the reason we are envied throughout the world, it is
in our nature to be compassionate to one another. That
compassion is reflected in the fact that our pension system makes
sure that in every reasonable case Canadians can provide some
income for their pension.
When it comes to the cost of administering the Canada pension
plan versus millions of private super RRSPs I do not think it
takes rocket science to figure out that administration costs
would be approximately $20 per person through the CPP versus $150
or $200 per person in a private RRSP plan. When it is all added
up, a 10:1 ratio in favour of the CPP makes a lot more sense.
Why should we be spending pension dollars unnecessarily on the
administration of a pension plan? The fact that these amendments
include the creation of a board to ensure the CPP fund is
invested in the most appropriate way for Canadians makes a lot of
sense.
1640
To distribute the administration of these funds to hundreds or
thousands of fund administrators across the country makes very
little sense at a time when we should be looking at better ways
of spending our money. We have made changes that will ensure the
sustainability of the CPP into the 21st century.
Canada's current government has seen fit to take charge of this
issue and to move us forward in a way that most industrialized
nations have not yet be able to do. I am pleased and proud to
support the government's initiatives. To do contrary would be
very irresponsible.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Thibeault): It is my duty, pursuant
to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to
be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington, children; the hon. member
for Vancouver East, post-secondary education; the hon. member for
West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, foreign affairs.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased to speak to Bill C-2 on the reform of the CPP.
As is usual, I would like to begin by thanking all those in the
riding of Argenteuil—Papineau for their vote of confidence in once
again sending me to represent them in this 36th Parliament. I will
continue to uphold their rights as staunchly as I have in the past.
This reform of the Canada pension plan is of particular interest to
me because I am the Bloc Quebecois critic for seniors and also because
it affects me as a member of that generation.
I have risen many times in the House to uphold the rights of
seniors, one of society's most vulnerable groups. The Bloc
Quebecois agrees in principle with the contents of Bill C-2 at
second reading.
I am now going to give a brief history of this bill. The
government introduced a preliminary bill in February 1997, followed by
a revised bill last July. Amendments proposed by the federal government
were approved by at least two thirds of provinces representing two
thirds of the Canadian public, as required by law. Eight provinces in
all, including Quebec, approved the proposed changes. Only British
Columbia and Saskatchewan voted against.
Generally speaking, the Bloc Quebecois is in agreement with the
primary objectives of this reform, with a few reservations.
Indeed, I cannot help but mention that, on March 9, 1994, I asked
a question to the then Minister of Human Resources Development
concerning the reform of social programs.
As the official critic on seniors issues, I also made the following
statement in the House, again in 1994, and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human
Resources Development.
On March 9, the minister indicated in this House that he
wanted to review old-age security programs. Following the
general outcry caused by this announcement, the Prime Minister
decided that the review would be limited to the Canada Pension
Plan and RRSPs. This review was to be tabled last June but the
government has clearly delayed it.
My question is this: Can the minister tell us why the
government has delayed announcing its intentions by tabling
the review promised for last June?
1645
The following was part of the answer was:
We are presently speaking with a number of groups and organizations
throughout Canada, particularly as they represent seniors, to get
their point of view.
Allow me to wonder what the government's true intentions were,
since it called an election before making good on that commitment.
However, we realize that some changes have become necessary, because of
the financial implications and of the plan's sustainability.
It had been forecasted that there would be no money left in the
fund by the year 2015, at which time contribution rates would have gone
up from 6% to 14% for the Canada pension plan, and from 6% to 13% for
the Quebec pension plan.
The reform is also more of a concern to Canadians than to
Quebeckers, since less than half of one per cent of Quebec residents
receive CPP benefits.
So, the bill proposes the establishment of the CPP investment
board, which will be quite similar to Quebec's Caisse de dépôt et
placement. The Quebec government introduced Bill 149 to deal with the
Quebec pension plan and to amend various related acts.
Allow me to reiterate the remark made by my hon. colleague from
Mercier, who indicated that the Government of Canada and every province
except Quebec should have taken Quebec's lead in 1964-65 when it
established the Caisse de dépôt et placement.
While the Bloc Quebecois supports this reform's objective, which is
to preserve this public pension plan, increasing contribution rates
faster than initially planned will cause an increase in benefit funding.
We believe that this in turn will reduce intergenerational inequity by
charging more to baby boomers, who, generally speaking, have another 20
years to put in on the labour market.
I would also like to emphasize the changes proposed by the
federal government with respect to the disability pension. Under
an existing ministerial directive, any person over the age of 55
who is unable to perform the duties of his or her own job can be
declared disabled. Now the federal government wants to repeal
this directive, thereby making the administration of the plan
much stricter.
We have never had any such directive in Quebec. The federal
government wants to limit eligibility to those who have contributed to
the plan for four of the past six years, which should make the plan
considerably less accessible.
In Quebec, those who have contributed for two years out of the past
three, five years out of the past ten or half of the contribution period
are eligible for disability benefits. Unlike the federal government, the
Government of Quebec is about to recognize a proportionately larger
number of persons with a disability. The Bloc Quebecois cannot support
this part of the CPP reform.
The Reform Party's proposal to establish a super RRSP is based
in part on the model developed in Chile. According to the
example provided by this country, however, the administrative
costs of such a system are far higher than for the present ones.
The Quebec pension plan devotes the equivalent of 1.7% of the
amount paid out in benefits to plan administration.
In this system of super RRSPs, the government will have to
guarantee an acceptable base income at the time of retirement, in
the form of either a minimum pension or a separate assistance plan.
In both cases, considerable costs are associated with this type of
guaranteed minimum income.
This Reform Party position leads me to the position of the
government, which is trying to worm out of it by shifting the
administration of a government plan to a local administration.
The Reform Party proposals will enable the government to assume
the same attitude toward its responsibilities, as the example of
ADM, Aéroports de Montréal, clearly illustrates.
1650
As the member for Argenteuil-Papineau, I have spoken out on
numerous occasions in defence of the development of Mirabel
airport, which is located in my riding.
In order to understand the similarities, we must start with a
brief review of the history of ADM. This is a not-for-profit body,
or as it states in its letters patent, a corporation without share
capital, constituted under part II of the Canada Corporations Act.
The government is washing its hands by handing the airports over to
this body, because it refers any taxpayer claims to it.
The Reform Party proposals relating to the reform of the
Canada pension plan place the federal government in a similar
position, since it can always answer that, in future, this plan is
privately administered and is similar to the registered retirement
savings plans.
The Bloc Quebecois has, moreover, never called for termination
of the Canada pension plan, and I would refer you to my speeches in
the House, which have always been along the same line: do not touch
seniors rights.
The younger generations must also be able to benefit from a
public pension plan. Our approach is the opposite of the Reform
Party's.
I wish to repeat my position on seniors rights and to point
out that October 1 of each year will always be a memorable day,
because the United Nations have designated that day to mark the
important role seniors play in society.
As well, the UN has decreed 1999 to be the international year
for paying homage to seniors. Its theme, “Toward a society for all
ages” is aimed at raising public awareness of the essential role
seniors play in all sectors of activity.
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise
today to challenge the flawed reasoning by my opponents across
the way and to demonstrate why our efforts to reform the Canada
pension plan are far superior to any of the opposition plans and
are much preferred to doing nothing.
Our plan is exactly the kind of preventive action that Canadians
demand from their governments to avert future crisis in the
Canada pension plan. While our opponents would rather we do
nothing and let the program collapse, we are moving forward in a
decisive way.
Before I reiterate the benefits of the government's well
considered plan, I will refute the feeble assertions and the
rhetorical rantings of our opponents.
When we came to power in 1993 we inherited a mismanaged plan
from the Conservative government of the day. The procrastination
of the Conservatives showed their unwillingness to act. If they
had acted to repair the Canada pension plan in preparation for the
growth in seniors then, we could have capitalized on the massive
economic boom of the late 1980s. Instead, they did nothing. They
believed that the issue was best left for future generations.
In a similar way the Tories ran their platform in the last
election, they essentially said they would do what we would do
but they would put it off longer and make more substantial
increases in the future. Apparently they were not ready to let
the future begin for Canada pension plan reform.
Yesterday I heard the NDP critic, the hon. member for Kamloops,
compliment our efforts to reform the Canada pension plan as the
economy changes. I thank him for his support of our plan and
remind him that when he has the conversation on the Canada
pension plan with his parents they or any other senior today will
not be affected by any changes in the plan. We can put that
yellow herring aside.
The NDP's plan during the election was just not practical. It
wanted to maximize the payout while limiting the potential growth
in the fund and its viability. This meant that some day
Canadians would be forced to borrow to cover the difference or
abandon the plan. This we find irresponsible.
This brings me to the Reform plan and the super RRSP. This is
not what Canadians want. The Reform plan would break the
covenant that was laid down when workers first began to pay into
the pension plan in 1966 by breaking the pledge made to those
workers by previous governments that the Canada pension plan
would be there for them when they retire.
The mandatory Reform plan calls for higher increases in
premiums, higher administrative costs and an additional private
cost by Canadians to cover the private insurance for disability
and death coverage. Reform plans to take this away.
1655
In total it adds up to higher payments for young Canadians than
our plan. In the name of intergenerational equity espoused by the
member for Calgary Southeast, their fresh start on pensions is a
false start for young Canadians.
In addition, the Globe and Mail speaks of the plans already
under way. The future reform of Canada pension plan would enable
the baby boomers out of the work force to reduce the unemployment
of young having difficulty—
Mr. Ken Epp: Talk about your own plan instead of ours.
Mr. John Richardson: I have just heard the booming voice
of the biggest teller of tall tales we have ever heard in this
House.
What we have done is avert a crisis and we are doing it
responsibly. Our government acting in co-operation with our
provincial partners took the lead to restore financial footing of
the plan. We held 33 sessions in 18 cities, hearing more than
270 former presentations from Canadians on the plan including
young Canadians.
Canadians and young Canadians in particular have no hesitations
in asking us to preserve the plan, strengthen its finances,
improve its investment practice, and we are doing that. This
bill addresses the concerns raised in our national hearings and
again we thank the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance for
their visionary leadership on the issue.
However, do not take our word for it. Listen to the words of
others. The minister of finance of Ontario, a hero to many
Reformers, on February 15, 1997 stated: “We have protected
benefits for pensioners and secured a sound financial future for
the plan and the people who need it”.
Christopher Clark of the Canadian Council on Social Development
says: “It is highly ironic that proponents of dumping the Canada
pension plan for private RRSP schemes often defend the idea in
the name of intergenerational equity because it would be cheaper.
It is neither equitable nor cheaper. As is the case with most
quick fix privatization proposals, it sounds too good and easy to
be true, and it probably is”.
The head of Business Council on National Issues agrees with him:
“This agreement places Canada at the forefront of industrialized
nations with problems linked to an aging population”.
Allan Tough, an actuary from Alberta, states in the Calgary
Herald the importance of acting now: “With any problem it
is better to face up to it now rather than later. The longer you
delay, the worse it gets. A 9.9% contribution rate sounds
definitely better for my children than going to 14% later”.
David Crane of the Toronto Star commented: “The
announcement of higher premiums for the Canada pension plan
should reassure Canadians on the long term viability of the plan
to which all workers contribute”.
The CPP has become a key component of our national pension
system. The amendments to the plan contained in Bill C-2 are
designed as a package to stabilize the plan and ensure that it
will continue to meet the needs of Canadians. If we continue
forward ignoring reform to the pension system we can guarantee
there will be no pension for Canadians and that is simply not an
option. That is why I stand in my place and support this bold
move to save this cherished covenant with working Canadians.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to speak for a few moments on Bill C-2, an act to
establish the Canada pension plan investment board and to amend
the Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts. What a title and what a
problem the government is creating with this bill.
As has already been indicated by previous speakers, this bill
attempts to do a number of things, namely to discontinue the
Canada pension plan advisory board and establish a Canada pension
plan investment board, the main function of which will be to
manage and invest Canada pension plan funds, to amend the
contribution, benefit and funding provisions of the Canada
pension plan, to tighten the eligibility for disability benefits
and the rules for combining survivor and disability benefits and
survivor and retirement benefits. It reduces the death benefit,
it reduces the maximum CPP retirement pension through its formula
for calculating retirement pensions.
Another thing this bill attempts to do involves harmonizing. We
in Nova Scotia know that dreaded word, harmonizing, very well
because we have the harmonized sales tax. This bill attempts to
harmonize the CPP disability benefits with provincial workers
compensation benefits and various other benefits, including those
received from municipalities and private insurers.
1700
As well Bill C-2 amends the Canada Pension Plan and Old Age
Security Act with respect to information sharing, investigations
and penalties. Indeed some of the clauses regarding information
sharing and investigations require close scrutiny but that will
be done at a later time.
Suffice it to say for now that we are opposed to this bill
because it erodes the public pension system and the universality
of that system. It erodes the system that was established in
1966 to provide all members of the paid labour force in Canada a
base upon which to build their retirement income, as well as
provide benefits in the case of serious disability or death.
The changes to the public pension system as proposed by this
bill continue the trend of the Liberal government of penalizing
the most vulnerable members of our society: low income workers,
many of whom are women, the disabled and seniors. Again with
respect to seniors, the changes proposed by this bill regarding
OAS and GIS have profound implications for seniors and the income
they can look forward to under the new seniors benefit proposal.
The government is creating more difficulties for people by
introducing a bill that will force low income workers to pay more
in contributions, that will cause fewer people to obtain benefits
by tightening the eligibility for disability, that will create
greater clawbacks on seniors' incomes, that will take away a
person's right to have his or her own benefit by consolidating
the income of both spouses. Rather than creating these kinds of
difficulties through Bill C-2, we believe the government would be
better advised to spend its time correcting the problems which
already exist in the Canada pension plan rather than creating new
problems.
I am referring specifically to the kinds of problems which we
see every day in our constituency offices. By far the largest
volume of case work in Halifax West concerns Canada pension plan
disability. The same I believe is true in other NDP metro
ridings and I am sure across the province and perhaps even across
the country.
The main complaint is the lengthy process and red tape which
applicants must go through before a final decision is rendered.
First is the initial application with numerous forms and medical
reports to assess eligibility. Apparently almost everyone is now
rejected at this initial level in keeping with a decision over
the last few years to apply the definition of severe and
prolonged disability more strictly for eligibility purposes, and
Bill C-2 would put further restrictions on eligibility.
Following a rejection at the first level there is an appeal by
way of a request for reconsideration which must be filed with the
minister within 90 days. Then there is a second level of appeal
to an independent, note the word independent, review tribunal.
This must be filed within 90 days but may be extended at the
discretion of the minister. Finally, applicants or the minister
may appeal a decision of the review tribunal to the pension
appeals board within another 90 days. Claimants dissatisfied with
the board's decision may then ask for a reconsideration within 90
days but this would entail more waiting and would likely be to no
avail.
The administrative procedures and hearings involved in all of
these are long. It is not uncommon to have applicants waiting
for years before a final decision is rendered, sometimes with sad
consequences.
A constituent applied four years ago and has since developed
terminal cancer. Last month he was told his application had been
approved but even now it appears that the department is
backtracking and wants more clarification on a range of items.
This person is suffering with terminal cancer and is still unable
to get disability benefits.
My constituency assistant had a meeting with two CPP officials
last Thursday. He was informed that there has been an attempt,
which started last June, to speed up the process by regionalizing
the services somewhat. However there is still a backlog at the
pension appeals board level. The board is backlogged and is
unable to hear cases expeditiously.
Figures that we have obtained from Human Resources Development
Canada suggest a trend starting in 1995 to reject most of the
applications for CPP disability. In 1993 they approved 69%. This
was down to 44% in 1995 and sank to 33% in 1996. I am told that
Nova Scotia has the highest per capita CPP disability claimants.
If that is the case, this trend of rejecting applications is
particularly harsh in our province.
1705
A major problem with this program is that the minister can and
often does automatically appeal any decision below the appeals
board level. When the independent review tribunal has ruled in
favour of an applicant the minister can appeal that decision, and
the matter becomes bogged down in a time consuming process. No
doubt the primary reason for this tactic is to save money, but
this is being achieved on the backs of the disabled.
Another troubling issue is that recipients of CPP disability
benefits who try to work are penalized. Benefits are withdrawn
if they work for over three months. This is most discouraging to
the disabled who usually have to go through considerable personal
sacrifices to supplement meagre benefits with a meagre income.
The system should be working to improve the lives of the
disabled, not to penalize them for trying to seek a more active
and productive life.
In conclusion, we cannot support Bill C-2 as it does nothing to
correct the problems that are currently experienced, but rather
introduces measures to make life even more difficult for low wage
workers, women, young people, seniors and the disabled.
I wish to move a subamendment. I move:
That the amendment be modified by inserting after the words
“young Canadians” the following: “and more particularly, to
women, the disabled, those eligible for survivors' benefits, and
low income Canadians”.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The amendment is in
order. Debate is on the subamendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is a
pleasure for me to speak on Bill C-2, which will have an impact
on the future of Canadians.
In keeping with tradition, I would like to thank the electors
of Abitibi who put their trust in me for the next four years.
I represent the largest riding in the ten provinces of Canada.
It covers an area of over 802 square kilometres and has a
population of 92,000. To give you an idea of its size, it is
equivalent to more than half the province of Quebec.
There are four PQ members of the National Assembly doing the same
work I am as a federal MP. In other words, in the riding of
Abitibi, there are four provincial MNAs and that costs four times
as much.
1710
To get back to the bill, in compliance with the law, changes
to the Canada pension plan must be approved by at least two thirds
of the provinces representing two thirds of the country's
population. This requirement has been met.
This bill represents a significant step toward preserving, as
we said we would, the Canadian income and retirement system. The
changes will ensure the plan's viability over the long term while
making it fairer and more affordable for future generations of
Canadians.
They recognize that the Canada pension plan is fundamental to
the public pension system. The proposed changes will strengthen
our system to permit it to continue to provide Canadians with the
opportunity to create for themselves new and sufficient
retirement income.
To ensure the future of the Canada pension plan for all
Canadians, last February the federal and provincial governments
agreed on changes to the plan to ensure its long term financial
viability, while making it more fair and more affordable for future
generations.
The proposed changes have the support of the federal
government and the provinces of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec especially, Ontario,
Manitoba and Alberta.
However I must point out that Quebec administers a plan which
parallels the Canada pension plan, that is, the Quebec pension
plan. The Government of Quebec, through the Hon. Lucien
Bouchard, recently announced amendments to the Quebec pension
plan comparable to the proposed changes to the CPP, with the
result that premiums will be the same.
Let us take a look at this new investment policy. There are
approximately two years' worth of benefits in the CPP at the present
time. The assets not immediately required to pay benefits are placed in
non-negotiable instruments issued by the provinces. The provinces pay
interest on these loans at the rate of long-term federal government
bonds, as set at the time they were issued.
Greater capitalization of the CPP will result in significant
growth of the assets from approximately two years of benefits to
four or five years of benefits over the next twenty years. A new
investment policy is necessary to get the best return possible in
the interests of contributors. A higher return on the plan's
assets will help hold the line on increases in premiums.
The ministers of all provinces, including Quebec, agreed on the
following measures. The assets of the CPP will be invested in a
diversified portfolio of instruments in the best interests of the
contributors and beneficiaries. This new policy is consistent with that
of most other pension funds in Canada, and in particular with that of
the Quebec pension plan.
The assets will be managed in a professional manner, independent of
governments, by an investment board, which will periodically report to
the public and to the various governments on its activities.
Finally, with respect to investments, the board will be subject to
rules similar to those applying to other pension funds in Canada.
I noticed that schedule II contains a comparison of existing CPP
provisions and the proposed changes. This is something we should also
mention: early retirement, from age 60, no change; normal retirement,
at 65, no change; late retirement, up to 70 years of age, no change.
There is no change in the new bill to the maximum annual earnings with
pension entitlement, indexed to salary.
There will be no change to the ceiling for the combined
survivor's and pension benefit in the new bill. All benefits,
except death benefits, are now fully indexed. There will be no
changes.
1715
There are several stages to go through still. The bill complies
with the terms and conditions agreed upon with the provinces in February
regarding such things as a move toward fuller funding, with the new
investment policy, changes to the formula for calculating certain
benefits and a tightening of the administration of benefits.
It is always important to keep our people informed of what goes on
in Parliament.
[English]
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, for the
first time in our history a whole generation of Canadians is
unsure that it will be able to enjoy the same quality of life
that their parents did.
Many Canadians worry that some of our most fundamental
institutions and values, such as health care and the Canada
pension plan, might not be there for them and their families when
they need it.
Canadians know that they can no longer count on the federal
government for everything. There was a time when they did, no
matter which political party was there. We all know that.
Everybody was looking for the government to take care of them,
and the political parties were only too happy to promise
everything. Canadians have every right to expect the federal
government to set the right priorities and policies, and to chart
the right course to achieve what they need for the future.
We need an innovative, realistic plan that sets new priorities
for government as part of a long-term vision for our future. One
of these priorities is security of retirement for all Canadians,
and more especially, the restoration of the Canada pension plan.
Canadians are looking for leaders that are committed to
maintaining the CPP as a central component of our social safety
net. They want obligations of the CPP to be clearly defined.
They want it to be put on a sound financial footing, and they
want it to be managed efficiently now and in the future.
What is wrong with the CPP? For one thing, it is bordering on
bankruptcy. The rapid aging of our population is one of the main
reasons. I know that because they just have to take a look at my
grey hair. My hon. friend across the way might have a little dye
in his—I am not sure—but I think he is almost as grey as I am.
Today, for every person of retirement age there are five persons
of working age. In 20 years, there will be one person of
retirement age for every four persons of working age. When
today's youth retire 40 years from now, that ratio will be just
one to three. We have young pages sitting here. We want to make
sure that they have a good retirement pension plan.
In 30 years, the average age of Canadians will be higher than
the present average age of the population of Florida, with no
corresponding adjustment in temperature.
A lower birth rate and increased life expectancy along with a
sharp rise in disability claims also puts new stress on the CPP.
The CPP has also been jeopardized by inadequate contribution
levels and inefficient plan management as a consequence of faulty
legislation.
CPP funds, for instance, have been lent to the provinces at the
rate Ottawa pays on its 20-year bonds. This is less than what
the provinces pay other bond holders. It is also less than what
private sector plans earn. No wonder Canadians think the
government cannot add.
The CPP must be changed now if it is to provide pensions in the
future. Older Canadians have earned the right to a secure
retirement. Middle class workers cannot afford to pay more, and I
know that because I had a young mother come to me just last week.
She came with her husband and said “It will cost us $700 more,
Mrs. Wayne. We have two children. We are trying to save every
month for their education. We don't want any handouts but we
can't afford that $700 more”.
Younger Canadians want the CPP to be there when they need it,
and they expect it to be flexible. They expect government to
plan for the future in the same way Canadians plan for their
future.
1720
How are some proposing to preserve the CPP? The Liberal plan to
fix the CPP is an $11 billion tax hike on working Canadians and
employers over the next six years. This is coupled with already
punitively high EI levels which the Minister of Finance has
refused to lower, despite a substantially high fund surplus. Such
a traumatic tax grab would have a devastating affect on job
creation. This is an attack on the middle class taxpayers,
families and small businesses.
The Reform's plan is even simpler. Just scrap it and replace
the CPP with super RRSPs. That is even more scary when we
remember that at its last convention the Reform Party advocated
eliminating the RRSP plan. I do not know whether it has any plan
at all?
Under the Reform Party's plan Canadians would be given
recognition bonds to reflect the CPP credits they have already
earned. This approach would leave young Canadians paying for the
CPP benefits of their grandparents, for the recognition bonds due
to their parents and for their own retirement savings. On top of
all of that, it fails to provide any numbers as to how it will
pay for its proposals. It reneges on a commitment to Canadians
made by successive governments. It ignores the profound
attachment that Canadians have for this social program in favour
of an extreme ideological position.
Individuals also have to assume the risk of inflation in their
investment decisions under the Reform Party's plan. The
disability coverage now included in the CPP would be eliminated.
Both the Liberal Party and Reform Party solutions are
shortsighted and self-defeating. The security, affordability and
stability of the CPP are an integral part of the Progressive
Conservative Party's plan to address the economic and social
insecurity felt by so many Canadians.
We set out three key benchmarks to do so. Make the CPP
self-financing, offset premium increases with tax cuts and
encourage more RRSP savings. How would we meet these objectives?
We would increase CPP contribution rates to levels adequate to
ensure the long-term viability of the plan. However, these
increased contributions would be offset by the substantial
reductions of personal income tax rates and EI premiums. This
means putting more money into the plan without asking Canadians
to pick up the tab and without creating more threats to job
creation. We would also make provisions to finance the extra
cost per year of seniors benefits resulting from demographic
change.
Canadians also need to know that never again will their pension
funds be mismanaged the way they have been in the past. They
deserve a greater return on their investment. To ensure this we
would transfer all CPP funds to a separately managed Canada
pension trust as is already done in Quebec. We would structure
the Canada pension trust to be completely independent of the
government of the day. We would select the Canada trustees on a
non-partisan basis, recruiting experts in the financial business
and actuarial community in consultation with the provinces.
The mandate of the Canada pension trust and its trustees would
be to advise the government on required contribution levels and
to select the best private managers acceptable to the industry to
invest the funds growing surplus to secure long-term returns.
It is most important that we guarantee all our young people
today, not just the ones who are sitting in the House, but those
across the country that there will be a retirement plan, a Canada
pension plan for them. It is up to each and every one of us in
the House to make sure that this happens. Now it is our
generation's turn to become nation builders. Part of that
responsibility is to ensure that Canadians of all ages and all
circumstances can count on a secure retirement.
I look forward to debating this issue in the future because this
must take place.
1725
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
congratulations on your selection as Speaker. We hope all
members of the House will co-operate with you. I know you are
doing a very fine job with it.
I am from the Miramichi. This is my first speech since the new
Parliament began. Today we in the Miramichi have heard of the
resignation of our premier. His absence from New Brunswick and
the political scene in Canada is certainly going to be a great
loss for all of us as Canadians. I want to pay tribute to the
many years that Frank spent, some 15 years, representing
Miramichi, and for the past 10 years as premier of the province
of New Brunswick.
Over that period of time he had to exert a good deal of effort
looking at the pension funds in the province of New Brunswick and
trying to find some solutions to their funding for future
generations.
Today as we consider the Canada pension plan, my constituents
and Canadians in general would be shocked to hear some of the
statements that are being made by members opposite. I have heard
very few complaints about the plan not being effective. I have
heard very few concerns about people not wanting to participate
in the plan. It is looked upon as a very important part of that
great income security system that the Liberal Party and Liberal
governments have made for this country over the past several
generations.
Today in Canada there are approximately five million Canadians
who in one way or another are receiving payments from the Canada
pension plan. We have approximately 3.7 million plus another 1.2
million under the Quebec pension plan. Of that group some 2.4
million Canadians and 800,000 under the Quebec plan are receiving
retirement benefits. In the disability portion of the plan we
have some 300,000 Canadians in other provinces along with another
50,000 people in the province of Quebec.
It is a good plan. However, in the next few years the plan will
need more money to support future Canadians as they require the
benefits from it.
When I hear of the demands of the opposition that we should move
away from a Canada pension plan and toward a system of RRSPs I
have to remind the House that RRSPs do not have the great
benefits that are shared by those who participate in the Canada
pension plan.
Today contributions to the plan are some 5.85% shared by
employees and employers. However, future contributions will
eventually reach some 9.9% to be shared by those two groups.
The CPP does not only include retirement. It also includes a
great number of other benefits to the Canadian people. Those who
pay into the plan are protected against disability. Those who
pay into the plan have their spouses protected in case of death
or disability. Those who participate in the plan have their
children protected until they either finish school or if they
continue in school, until they are 25 years of age.
This plan is essential and is regarded as being essential by
most Canadians. It is a form of income security. There is a
basic understanding among the Canadian workforce that workers
will be able to receive benefits if they become sick for an
extended period of time, if they become injured and they cannot
work or if they eventually are not able to participate for other
given reasons.
It is very important for us to share in the great benefits the
economy of this nation has. We must make sure as members of
Parliament that we indicate to Canadians that we are willing to
participate in a program where all Canadians can share in the
benefits of our country.
1730
We know there are private plans out there. When the committee
looks at the Canada pension plan bill it realizes that it has to
look at some of the concerns that are being expressed here today.
The member for Saint John, for example, recommended that we
should look in terms of maybe trying to reduce income tax as we
increase Canada pension benefits. Certainly this might be a fact
that could be considered by our Minister of Finance.
We might also look at how various calculations are made. It is
certainly important that we look at how the plan will affect us
in the future and how the calculations will try to make sure that
we get the optimum level of interest in terms of where that plan
is invested.
I think it is good that we are moving away from the system
whereby the funds were available to the provinces at very low
interest rates. It certainly will give a better return to the
investment. We have an investment of nearly $40 billion and
probably through a better system of investing on the open market
the plan can gain more money for future people involved with
Canada pensions.
I would hope, in terms of the eventual outcome, as it goes to
committee we can look at the many suggestions that are being made
to the House today, that we will eventually come up with a good
system by which all Canadians can participate and by which all of
us, in terms of being members of this Parliament, can ensure that
Canadians are guaranteed a safe and secure pension plan that will
apply to all workers in the country.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to speak
since the election. I want to thank Herb Grubel who represented
Howe Sound before me. I know Herb served this House very well in
the one term he was here. He is now back at Simon Fraser
University and working with the Fraser Institute. I know all
members would like me to wish him well. I would like to, on
behalf of all the constituents, thank him for the job he did
while he was here.
I would also like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your
re-election and the election of all the deputy Speakers. I was
here 25 years ago making a speech in this House in 1972 as a
Conservative member of Parliament. It is quite interesting to
listen to the speeches in this debate. In 25 years some things
do not change.
I thank the constituents of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast for
sending me back. As my youngest son said to me, that was a
quarter of a century ago. It was before he was even born, but I
have six other children who were already born. I am not sure
they enjoyed my time when I was here before because it is a lot
different when you are 30 years of age with five children and be
a member of Parliament than it is when you are 55 years of age
and you have all your family grown up.
I can thank my constituents for sending me here. I know I am
going to enjoy this session. I am certainly enjoying being a
Reform member of Parliament. When I look back and read the first
speech I ever made in this House, I could say most of the same
things today. A lot of things do not change.
Let us look at the Canada pension plan. I heard my good friend,
the member of the Tory party, speaking a couple of times before
me talking about what the Tories would do and I listened to what
the Liberals would do, yet this plan is $560 billion in debt.
Some things just do not change. We have a major debt in this
country and we have a pension plan that is not working very well
in this country.
I think the people in this country, as this debate goes along,
are going to start really wanting to know what is happening with
the Canada pension plan. Where are they going to be when they
want to retire? I think it is pretty scary. It is scary when I
hear Liberal members on the other side. I heard a member from
the Conservative Party talking about how Reform wanted to cancel
the RRSP. The election is over. They should get that nonsense
out of their heads. This party never said it was going to cancel
RRSPs. Our plan for the Canada pension plan is one that should
be listened to by the Canadian people and should be listened to
by all sides of this House because it makes a lot of common
sense.
I heard a member on the other side the other day talking about
Bre-X because our plan would involve using the private sector.
What would happen to all these poor pensioners if they had been
involved in Bre-X? Even the member does not know how pension
plans invest their money or it is just a straight scare tactic.
There are bad companies every year in the stock market.
1735
Companies that invest in the stock market do not just invest in
one company. The Ontario teacher's pension plan in 1995 was
worth $25 billion, in 1996 $35 billion and in April 1996 was up
to $41 billion. It probably had shares in Bre-X. Most Canadian
pension plans did. It was on the Toronto stock exchange. Thank
God it was not a BSE stock or we on the west coast would have
taken all the heat for that one.
Bre-X was a disaster as far as a stock is concerned. But all
the pension plans went up last year even with the Bre-X
situation. If we look at the average return, the Ontario
teacher's pension plan has earned 16.7% in 1997 so far and over
four years it averaged 12.1%. That is not a bad return. The
overall performance in the private sector is 8% to 10% but the
teacher's plan is 16.7% and the CPP, 2%. By the year 2000 it
will be 1.8%. How can we expect any Canadian to think they can
retire on a pension plan that is going to give them 1.8% to 2%?
The private sector in this country does a good job. Why are we
here not more concerned about a government that wants us to do a
CPP that will only give a small amount of money? The CPP is going
to have $10 billion annually by the year 2003. It is a tax grab.
It is like the EI. There will be a few billion in the bank. Where
is going to come from? It will come from the people who work,
the people who want a fair pension when they retire. Every member
in the House knows what they think about our pension plan. This
plan does not come anywhere close. Most guys who retired after
the last election get as much in a month as these people will get
in a year with this plan.
Even the Quebec pension plan is better managed than the CPP. It
is a province that has its own pension plan and it has done a
better job than the federal government. Maybe my province of
British Columbia should look at opting out the CPP and getting
its own pension plan. Maybe it could do a better job.
Individual premiums are going to increase from $945 to $1,645
per year, and this is what the average Canadian has to think
about. To the average taxpayer that is a lot of money. We are
talking about $700.
A lot of people are probably a bit jaded about the money, but to
the average constituent $700 is a lot of money. If there are two
people working that is $1,400, over $100 a month. We in the House
have to start thinking about the average Canadian and not
relating to our pension plan which is what we are doing overall.
What are average Canadians going to do when they have to put out
this extra money? How are they going to look after their
families? We in the House do not seem to think much about that.
We are asking the young people to assume a national debt of $600
billion and now we are asking them to pay the CPP debt at the
same time. Young people in this country are getting very
frustrated because they cannot get ahead. They want a better
pension plan and a better tax system. We all know that. The
debate in this House in this session is the lead off to why we
are going to see a revolution in this country to change the tax
system. The CPP is just going to be the start. People are fed up
paying more and more money to the government for fewer services.
The Liberal minister said they are going to get a better return
on investment by setting up a new CPP investment board appointed
by cabinet. Even the Liberals laugh at that because they know.
At least they could bring it to the House or to committee so we
could all look at where it was going.
We have some of the best companies in the world here in Canada.
Some American companies have been bought out because they have
been very successful in the mutual fund business. Why are we not
using those companies just we are suggesting? Use the companies
in Canada to help us invest the CPP. Put it right into the
private sector which has done well. A politically driven board
is not going to solve the CPP problems in the country.
The CPP needs an overall review. It was a nice thought when it
was started because we all wanted a pension plan. But it has not
worked and people cannot live on $8,844 per year. Anybody who
thinks they can is not looking at reality.
1740
Modern day pension plans are defined contribution plans. These
take many forms, but in these plans the contributor personally
owns the contribution and the accrued growth. That is what is
extremely important and the public should remember that, defined
contribution plans.
My party is looking at this type of plan to help Canadians get a
plan which will give them something they can retire on.
The government is asking employees and employers to increase
their CPP contributions. That will hurt small business. If we
took a portion of that money and put it into a private sector
plan, instead of retiring on $8,000 a year the numbers could get
up to $24,000, $30,000 or $40,000 based on what people have been
investing in mutual funds over the last 100 years since they have
been available.
Any member of the House who has RRSPs in a mutual fund company
will know that they have grown a lot more than the CPP in the
last few years. Why do we not give Canadians the chance to have
their individual account where they can see the money going in
every month and receive a statement every month showing the
growth in the plan, which would be protected by both the
government and the private sector?
If the government does not believe in that it does not believe
in this country. It does not believe in the private sector which
runs this country. That is a shame.
Canadians have to take some responsibility for their own plans
and the way to do that is by allowing them to participate.
I want to talk about the Ontario teachers pension plan and
other major pension plans in the country. Those plans are doing
better than the government pension plan. They are being run by
the private sector. Even the most socialistic of groups that
have a pension plan run by the private sector is doing better
than it would with the CPP.
I implore the government to listen to what is being said in the
House. Let us look at the pension plan which the Reform Party is
recommending to Canada. Let us ensure that this debate goes on
long enough so that Canadian people will know that this plan is
the second biggest tax grab in our country's history.
[Translation]
BILL C-2—NOTICE OF MOTION FOR TIME ALLOCATION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been unable to reach an agreement pursuant
to Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to proceedings at the
second reading stage of Bill C-2, an act to establish the Canada Pension
Plan Investment Board and to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old
Age Security Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
Pursuant to Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that, at the next
sitting of the House, I will be moving a motion for the purpose of
allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and
disposal of proceedings at that stage.
Some hon. members: Shame, shame.
[English]
RESUMPTION OF SECOND READING
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, an
act to establish the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board and to
amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act and to
make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second
time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment and the
amendment to the amendment.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to congratulate the hon. member for West
Vancouver—Sunshine Coast on his maiden speech in this House
after an absence of 25 years. Perhaps there was a good reason
for his return to debate the retirement system of Canada. I know
the member opposite has a distinguished career in public service
in British Columbia and I welcome his return to the House.
I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-2, an act to establish the
Canada pension plan investment board and to amend the Canada
pension plan. This bill is a very important piece of
legislation.
We cannot let our seniors down and we have to ensure that all
Canadians have a sound pension plan for the future.
We realized some time ago that the Canada pension plan was not
on very sound footing. We also understand that Canadians look
to the federal government for leadership when it comes to the
retirement income systems of Canada. We realized that the Canada
pension plan is not unlike many pension plans around the world,
whether they be private or public pension plans.
We knew we had to put the plan on a sound financial footing.
There are many pension plans facing the same challenges. With
changing demographics, changes in the birth rates and increasing
life expectancy many pension plans in the public sector and in
the private sector are facing challenges. It is not uncommon in
the private sector to have unfunded pension plans, which only
recently companies are beginning to address.
1745
While the situation we found ourselves in with respect to the
Canada pension plan was nothing that we are particularly proud
of, it is not unlike many situations in many countries and in
many private pension plans. Our government is taking the lead by
making amendments to the act and by putting the Canada pension
plan on a sound footing.
We realized that we had to make the plan fiscally sound, so we
began consultations across Canada. We spoke to all Canadians.
Canadians told us that they wanted the federal government to play
a leadership role.
We worked with the provinces and basically we began to look at
three different scenarios. One scenario was that we increase the
contributions to the Canada pension plan. The second alternative
was that we decrease the benefits under the Canada pension plan.
The third scenario was that we look at some combination of the
two.
We sat down with Canadians, we sat down with the provinces and
we came up with a solution that I think is the fairest and most
reasonable solution. In doing so we have avoided radical changes
to benefits.
With respect to contributions, the rates will rise over the next
six years to 9.9% of contributing earnings. That is 4.95% for
each employee and employer. We avoided the increase of 14.2%
that was actually estimated by the chief actuary.
Bill C-2 will establish the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board
which will allow the invested funds to be put to uses that
typically most pension funds have the capacity to invest in. They
will not be restricted to debt instruments. They will have the
capacity to look at equity and in so doing, they will be able to
earn a greater return from the pension plan funds that are
invested. This legislation will allow that to happen.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Canada pension plan until this
point in time has not had the flexibility that other pension
plans would be permitted, the pension plan has still yielded an
average of about 10% which is not good enough.
But when the opposition parties rant and rave about this
hopelessly inadequate Canada pension plan I think they should
sharpen their pencils. They talk about a real rate of return of
6%. A real rate of return is the nominal rate of return minus
inflation. They say their self-directed super RRSP given that
kind of return will put the Canada pension plan system on a sound
footing.
First, Canadians are saying that they want a public pension
system. Canadians are saying they want the federal government and
the provinces involved. If Reform members say they want a real
rate of return of 6%, then a lot of pension plans would be doing
very well with a real rate of return of 6%.
We also have to look at the experience of other countries. There
are some small countries that have experimented with the proposal
that Reform discusses. What we have determined is that the
administration costs for these super directed RRSPs or private
plans are approaching 10% even though we do not have a lot of
experience with them. There are only a few years of experience.
Compare that with the administration burden of the Canada pension
plan at 2%.
The proposal by the Reform Party would certainly make a lot of
stockbrokers, investment advisers and retirement planners very
rich and wealthy, but I am wondering what it would do for
Canadians. In a self-directed RRSP would the average Canadian
citizen have to sit there at night and work over all the numbers
or hire some investment counsellor? What about the Canadian
public not all of whom have the sophistication of the investors
sitting opposite? How are they going to deal with securing their
retirement future?
I guess it would do very well for all the friends of the Reform
Party, their investment brokers and counsellors. Perhaps that is
where they have been getting these suggestions from. Have they
actually been listening to Canadians? I doubt it very much.
1750
Another irony is that with the Reform proposal even though
Reformers will not put it out very publicly, contributions will
go to 14% whereas our contribution rate maxes out at about 9.9%.
It will do very well for all the investment advisers and
stockbrokers in the Reform Party's constituencies, but what about
the average Canadian?
The private plan Reformers are proposing does not have the
features of a public pension plan. For example, what about people
who become disabled? Is that part of their plan as well? Will
they look after them? What about survivor benefits? Does their
proposal contemplate that scenario?
Our legislation on which we have a consensus of the vast
majority of the provinces does not affect people who are
disabled. It treats them in a fair and equitable manner. It
contemplates survivor benefits. And it does not affect anybody
over 65 years of age as of December 31, 1997. The benefits will
remain fully indexed to inflation and all the current retirement
ages remain the same.
I think we have struck a very reasonable balance. In fact if we
look at the ratio of the changes we made to the benefits as
opposed to the contributions, 25% can be attributed to the
changes in retirement benefits and 75% can be attributed to
changes in the contribution rate and also the actuarial estimates
of the income that will come from this more advantageously
managed fund.
Those who say that the CPP is a tax grab either do not
understand economics or they do not understand tax. The
contributions to the Canada pension plan go into a separately
administered fund. They never hit consolidated revenue ever,
ever, ever. Members should read the estimates and they will
discover that the Canada pension plan is a separately
administered pension plan. It goes nowhere near the revenues of
the government. If that is not political hyperbole to say it is
a tax grab, I don't know what is.
In conclusion, this plan is going to secure the future for all
Canadians. It is going to make sure that we look after our
current seniors. I am hoping that all members of this House will
support this very important bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take
part in the debate on the act to establish the Canada Pension Plan
Investment Board and to amend the Canada pension plan and the Old Age
Security Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
The bill is now at second reading, the stage at which we deal with
the underlying principles of the legislation. Like all Bloc Quebecois
members who spoke before me, I fully agree with the principle of the
bill, since the overall objective of the reform is to preserve the
sustainability of a public pension plan. I insist on the word “public”.
The Reform Party would rather have private plans. Yesterday, their
leader tabled an amendment which basically says: let us stop considering
the bill.
The Reform Party is opposed to this legislation. It would prefer a super
RRSP.
This is my fifth year here, but I am still surprised at some of the
things I see in this House, such as the tabling by the NDP of an
amendment to the amendment by the Reform Party. As I understand the
rules, the purpose of an amendment to an amendment is to improve the
original amendment and it implies that we agree with it.
It is quite surprising to suddenly see the NDP agree with the
Reform Party to reject a proposal from the Liberal government.
1755
I was among those who congratulated the member for Madawaska—Restigouche,
first for defeating the former Minister of Human Resources
Development during the last election—which is a praiseworthy
accomplishment in itself—but also for his speeches on employment
insurance.
While the intention may be good, the means used create confusion,
unless the words “women”, “disabled”, etc., are added, because it
implies that the two parties agree with the Reform Party's amendment
seeking to reject the idea of a public pension plan for Canadians,
including a number of Quebeckers.
I should point out for the benefit of those who are listening that
less than 1% of Quebeckers are affected by this bill, since the Quebec
pension plan is in effect in our province. That figure is made up of
Quebec residents who, at one time, worked in another province and came
back to live in Quebec, and of people who served in the armed forces or
the RCMP.
So, at this stage, the issue is whether or not we support the idea
of a public pension plan.
As for the Bloc Quebecois, I reaffirm that we are in favour of a
public pension plan, because it is not true that everyone has the
possibility individually, over his or her lifetime, to prepare for
retirement by contributing to an RRSP. This is not the case for
low wage earners, and I am also thinking of those who are becoming
more and more common, unfortunately, the single mothers—and single
fathers too—who have difficulties the whole time they are raising
their children, even when the children have reached young adulthood
and are still pursuing their studies. It is hard for many people,
therefore, to contribute to an RRSP.
We absolutely must have a public pension plan so that
opportunities at the time of retirement are as equal as possible.
I would therefore invite the new NDP members to reflect on this,
for I am sure that it falls in line with their usual values.
When one is in favour of something, and has very little time,
there is no point in arguing the point further, but I would like,
as the member for Lévis, to—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Charlotte, on a point of order.
[English]
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the
House, there should be a minister present and I believe that is
not the case.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): According to someone
much more familiar with the rules of the House than the Chair,
there is no such requirement.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Conservative
Party with little to say are interested in points of order.
Two initiatives from groups in the riding of Lévis are
similar. While they agree with the principle of a public pension
plan, they want people to prepare for retirement as early as they
can.
Accordingly, the Association des coopératives d'économie
familiale (ACEF) in my riding yesterday invited me to attend the
launch of a training course intended to help people of all ages
prepare for retirement. They will of course get information to
prepare them to save, even a little. I think this applies not only
to the people in my riding, but to all ridings, because even if the
program is the creation of the south shore ACEF it will be
available to all the ACEFs in the various regions of Quebec.
1800
I invite those interested to contact the ACEF. The entire
program is aimed at enabling people to come to terms increasingly
with the need to prepare for retirement. In 1996, seniors groups
met at a summit in my riding. Among other things, they discussed
at length the issue of information on retirement and the ACEF
responded to their need.
I am concerned about this. Members who sat in the last
Parliament will recall that I was the training and youth critic.
Since then, I have aged and, since May 15, at 50 years of age, I
have been eligible to join seniors clubs.
I know many of our colleagues opposite are also in the same position,
which means they are able to plan for their own retirement and, more
importantly, to help other people do the same, and walk them through the
process. As members of Parliament, we have a duty to monitor
legislation, and this one in particular.
To conclude, we support this legislation because it is designed to
help future generations plan ahead so they are not faced with an empty
fund at some point in time. Had the government not introduced this
legislation as it did on September 25, action would have been deferred
unduly and we would have found ourselves in a situation where the
financial security of those coming after us might have been jeopardized.
That is why we are in favour of immediately making changes to the plan
by, first, increasing premiums because fuller funding is required right
away to build a fund out of which pensions can be paid to those who will
come after us.
We, members from Quebec, are pleased to note that, from time to
time, the federal government imitates the Government of Quebec. As you
know, the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec is in charge of making
sure that the revenue from premiums is invested in businesses to produce
the best possible return.
One of the objectives of this bill is to have the board see to it
that the amounts collected in the form of premiums are invested in a
such a way as to produce the best possible return to ultimately make the
retirement fund grow. We, in the Bloc Quebecois, have nothing against
that, since, in Quebec, the Caisse de dépôt et placement—which dates
back to 1964, I think—has worked wonders and, moreover, fosters
economic development.
I will conclude by repeating that we are all in favour of this. At
the same time, while being in favour of a public pension system, I think
individuals should be encouraged to plan for their retirement, within
their means, as early as possible.
[English]
Ms. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to participate in this debate. We are discussing the
future of our national retirement plan, the Canada pension plan.
The legislation was introduced after talking to Canadians. We
asked them about their future and they responded. They asked us
to preserve the Canada pension plan. They told us that they
needed to know it would be there when they retired or if they
became disabled. They also told us they wanted to see some
changes. They asked for better financing of the plan. They
asked for improved investment practices. They asked that the
growing costs of benefits be slowed to ensure the long term
stability of the plan.
The government has addressed those concerns. We have put
forward a bill that has the support of each provincial government
representing two-thirds of our population and three political
parties.
I remind members opposite that the bill was first introduced in
February 1997 and was a result of joint provincial consultations.
It is a first class example of participatory democracy. I cannot
think of a better testament to the government's determination to
find a solution with broad based support. It goes to our
commitment to building and working in partnerships as we confront
the challenges facing us on a daily basis.
1805
It is a shame that the governments of Saskatchewan and British
Columbia could not see it as the only viable way to guarantee the
future of the Canada pension plan, a program I know they value as
much as I do.
The CPP is a public plan funded by employer and employee
contributions. It is jointly managed by federal and provincial
governments. The plan provides retirement pensions and a range
of survivor benefits for a family in the event of death.
The Canada pension plan provides a fully indexed pension system.
It provides replacement of a quarter of insurable earnings. It
provides benefits that are portable and universal. It provides
protection against periods of low or no earnings including years
spent raising children. It provides benefits to workers who are
unable to work due to disability, and death and survivor benefits
including benefits for dependants.
Canadians told us they wanted their plan fixed now, not
scrapped, not privatized. We have come up with a solution that
is fair, equitable and balanced. I am proud to stand here in
support of it today.
Our loudest critics are the members across the way. They claim
we are ripping off the taxpayer, but the funds generated by this
premium increase will not be put into a general revenue fund.
They will be held for the sole purpose of providing future CPP
payouts. While the fearmongers among us would have us believe
this is a sinister tax grab, I remind them that these premiums
are no less than a prudent investment in the future of retiring
Canadians who are most in the need of this portion of their
retirement income.
The critics say they have an alternative. Let us look at their
alternative for a moment. Their super RRSP is a fully indexed
tax deferred trust fund similar to the conventional RRSPs that
promise to pay more with lower contributions, but their scheme
does not take into consideration any volatility in the market. It
assumes that all investors will make wise investments. It puts
all the risks on the worker. It does not provide benefits for
children. It does not provide a child rearing drop out provision
and it will not provide indexation.
Reform has not indicated a clear plan of how it would implement
the system. For example, what contribution would the employers
have to pay, if any? How would they deal with seniors who are
already benefiting from the CPP? Who would pick up the tab to
provide protection for these pensioners?
Reform says it will guarantee benefits for current seniors, but
it does not say how it will provide funding for it. Obviously
workers will have to pay twice: once for their RRSP and once
again to guarantee the benefit for current seniors. The estimate
of the funding that would be required is $18 billion a year.
It has been suggested under their proposal that a retiree might
collect $117,000 more over the course of 30 or 40 years, or about
$25 a week. This scenario is only correct if they do not drop
out, if they do not get disabled and if they actually make their
contributions. Let us consider how many actually make RRSP
contributions now. It assumes they invest wisely. It assumes
they will not be ripped off by a disreputable financial adviser.
The cost to administer over 10 million individual RRSPs and
insurance plans would be greater than the administrative costs of
the CPP. In 1994 administrative costs of the CPP were $20 per
contributor while the administrative cost of an RRSP plan are
between $125 and $175. The administrative cost of the Chilean
system the Reform holds out as being the model actually costs 10%
compared with 2% for the Canada pension plan.
Reform would create jobs to profit the insurance industry and
RRSP sellers, but it would not provide a better deal for workers.
Under the Reform proposal workers would be asked to put all their
eggs in one basket, one RRSP account. We support a mixed system
where workers receive a basic benefit from the public plan. Under
the CPP individual workers can add RRSPs for extra retirement
income if they wish.
The Reform plan would require families to purchase separate
insurance to cover disability and death benefits already provided
under the CPP. This insurance would be expensive. Reformers do
not tell us about that when they tout the effectiveness of their
RRSP plan.
The Canadian pension plan is family friendly, something I
thought the Reform Party cared about. Our plan covers people who
leave the workforce temporarily to look after their children. It
is a good example of how Canadians help each with special needs.
Under the Reform Party everybody looks after themselves. The
Reform Party stand on this issue contradicts its commitment to
represent its constituents.
1810
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Témiscamingue on a point of order.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois
members would appreciate hearing the hon. member's speech, regardless of
whether or not they agree with it. We would appreciate hearing her and
we would ask you to call some Reform Party members to order. We have
trouble hearing the speeches.
[English]
Ms. Judi Longfield: Mr. Speaker, I remind members that
the Canada pension plan is a family friendly plan, something I
thought the Reform cared about.
Our plan covers people who leave the workforce temporarily to
look after their children. As I said before, it is a good
example of how Canadians help each other with special needs.
Under the Reform plan every household is completely on its own.
Its stand contradicts the Reform Party's commitment to represent
its constituents.
The majority of Canadians clearly wants a public plan which
demonstrates a basic retirement benefit for all workers and
shares some risk of disability and death. The Reform is saying
this is not true. Clearly this has the support of eight out of
ten provinces.
Canadians reject the individualistic survival of the fittest
approach being advanced by some of my hon. colleagues.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Ms. Judi Longfield: I seem to be hitting a nerve. I
served as vice-chair of the Whitby seniors advisory committee—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): A point of order,
the hon. member for West Nova.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, if we agree
or not it is important to be able to hear what the hon. member is
saying. I would really appreciate it if we could.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We should all keep
in mind that we need to be courteous to one another.
Ms. Judi Longfield: As I was saying, I served as the
vice-chair of the Whitby seniors advisory committee for six
years. I have had the opportunity to discuss the issue over and
over again with my constituents. I had the opportunity during
the last campaign to discuss it.
The residents of my community overwhelmingly support the
retention of a Canada pension plan. They all agree that a
universal plan, an affordable plan and a secure plan is
necessary.
We are providing this. We are providing a good deal of dignity
to those workers who cannot afford to participate in a private
venture. When these workers collect their pension they will know
it is their pension, not a government handout.
Given the substantial changes in our demographics, a much higher
than anticipated ratio of retirees to worker and the longer life
expectancy, I believe we found the best possible solution. I
call on members opposite to support this very important
legislation.
I remind members of the House of words of the finance minister
in his budget speech:
The ultimate test of a nation is its will and capacity to support
those who are most vulnerable, to sustain the programs on which
everyone of its citizens depend.
The government continues to demonstrate that it has the will and
the capacity to provide a Canada pension plan that is fair,
accountable and affordable.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to say it is a real pleasure to discuss the bill in
the House but I cannot. However, I can tell you how disgusted I
am with the government for moving closure on what is probably the
most important bill it will bring before parliament in this
mandate.
We have had eight hours of debate and already the government has
moved closure. Hon. members in the Reform Party, and no doubt in
other parties as well, will tell the House that when people come
to their town hall meetings the issue that is highest on their
agenda is the issue of pensions.
I guess the government does not think it is important enough to
allow parliamentarians to debate this issue. After merely eight
hours it has said “Enough, we are going to close off debate”.
That is absolutely disgusting, anti-democratic and typical
Liberal.
Last time around the Liberals jumped all over the Tories who set
a record for introducing closure. This time around the Liberals
have already gone well beyond what the Tories did. It proves the
old adage of my friend, the member formerly for Beaver River, now
from Edmonton North, Liberal-Tory, same old story.
1815
I want to speak now to the essence of the bill. First, the
Canada pension plan is in serious trouble. Everybody knows that.
It has a $560 billion liability. We know that in order to deal
with the problems of the plan, the government is raising the
premiums by an astounding 73%, the largest tax hike in Canadian
history, a $10 billion tax hike by the final year that the new
premiums go into effect. Despite that $10 billion when people
retire they will still only get a pension of $8,800.
An hon. member: What about their MP pensions?
Mr. Monte Solberg: In other words, people will pay in
some cases $3,300 a year for 47 years if they happen to be
self-employed, and at the end of that time they will get a measly
pension of $8,800, and that is the best case scenario.
If a you happen to be a widow, under the government's plan,
after your husband has paid into the plan for 47 years at $3,300
a year, you can count on $460 a month. That is absolutely
disgusting. And the government says that this is some kind of
reform as though it is good? No one believes that.
However, that is not the worst of it. It also raises the huge
issue of the inter-generational transfer. Many members know, if
they have talked to young people, how cheated young people feel
by what is being proposed in this legislation. Young people are
asking why in the world they are being asked to contribute to
something that they will never draw from. That is their
attitude.
I am sure that hon. members know if they will examine their
hearts that in a few year's time when young people form the
majority in this country they are going to be sorely tempted to
change the plan to ensure that they will get some of the benefits
that will now only go to some people who are currently in the
plan.
The government has set up a plan that is going to set young
people against their parents. It knows this is one of the
problems with the plan, but it has done nothing about it.
Because I do not have a lot of time, I want to talk about the
Reform Party proposal.
My hon. friends across the way have tried to scare people, which
is their typical way of dealing with these things, by suggesting
the Reform Party plan is something radically new. I would point
out to my friends across the way that not only have about 25
different countries around the world adopted this sort of plan,
countries like the U.K., Switzerland, Denmark, Australia now has
a version of it, and Argentina. The U.S. is looking at this
right now. It is talking about going to this sort of plan.
I make the point that the Reform Party is simply taking the best
of what is being offered around the world and offering it to
Canadians. Why are Canadians second class citizens to this
government? Why can they not have some of the great benefits that
this plan has brought to other countries?
I would point out that Singapore has had this plan or a
variation thereon since 1955. It has the highest savings rate in
the world. Eighty-five per cent of the people in Singapore own
their own homes. It is because there is a tremendous amount of
prosperity in that country, due in part to this plan. We need to
talk about these issues.
When the government members held consultations did they want to
hear about this sort of plan? No. Their consultations were
limited precisely to the type of plan they wanted to consider.
I invite my friends to consider what the Reform Party would do
if it was in government. First, it would bring in tax relief.
Now, that is novel for the government to hear, tax relief. Under
the Reform Party plan it would take 1.3 million Canadians right
off the tax rolls. That would do something to deal with the
problem of the hike in premiums that the government is proposing
and 300,000 seniors would be lifted right off the tax roll. I
think that is important to talk about. The Reform Party would
target seniors benefits so that people on the low end of the
income scale would get more through the seniors benefit.
1820
We would also guarantee that existing seniors would get the CPP
benefits which were promised to them. We would bring in an
improved survivor benefit. Under Reform's super RRSP we would
have the situation where we could actually turn over the entire
amount of the annuity to the surviving spouse.
As my friend from Calgary pointed out earlier in the day, under
the Reform Party plan, if the mandatory CPP premiums were put
them into an RRSP, and accumulated in an account in the
individual Canadian's name, at the end of the 40 years they would
have an annuity of over $250,000, paying them an income of about
$24,000 a year. That is three times what the government plan
offers. It would be a tremendous benefit which would be turned
over entirely to the surviving spouse.
I do not know why government members do not want to adopt
something like that instead of paying a measly $436 a month to
the surviving spouse.
Beyond that Reform would provide the super RRSP plan so that
people who are just coming into the system would start to pay
into an account in their own name. As I mentioned a minute ago,
that would build up over a period of time. It would give them a
tremendous retirement nest egg, far greater than what the
government is proposing.
At the same time we would start to contribute a bit into the
existing CPP because under successive Liberal and Tory
governments it has run up a $560 billion liability.
Finally, I point out that the Reform Party plan would give
Canadians the power of choice. It would allow them to direct
where their money was to be invested. That is a novel idea.
Under the government plan we know where the money would go. It
would go to the super investment board, which would probably
represent the largest intervention in the Canadian economy since
the second world war. The government would be directing about
$130 billion. We would have a team of bureaucrats or political
appointees, chosen by the finance minister, to direct where $130
billion would go in the economy. That is ridiculous.
We have heard in the House today and in previous days how
corrupt are some of the things that go on in this government. Do
we really want to turn over the keys to the vault to these
people? We are talking about $130 billion.
These people forget to whom that money belongs. These people
think it belongs to them. They think it is their God given right
to tax it out of people's pockets.
I would argue that is wrong. That money belongs to the Canadian
people. It is their hard earned money and it should accumulate
in an account in their name, far from the grasping fingers of the
government.
That is why it is time for the government to wake up and realize
there are other options. Just because an idea comes from the
opposition does not automatically mean it is wrong. Maybe it is
time to look at alternatives. The government should start to
look at the alternatives which exist around the world. If it did
that it would begin to realize that the Reform Party is on to
something.
To force closure on this issue eight hours into the debate in a
brand new Parliament sets a precedent which I believe will
resonate throughout the entire mandate. I hope my friends across
the way will seriously consider the impact that moving closure on
a bill of this magnitude will have on this Parliament. To me it
speaks to the anti-democratic nature of the government. I trust
that very soon it will be punished when Canadian voters once
again get the chance, just like it was punished in the last
election when it lost 30 members.
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, good afternoon.
An hon. member: Hear, hear.
Mr. Hec Clouthier: That wonderful gesture by the member
opposite reminds me of something that George Bernard Shaw once
said: “He thinks he knows everything, yet he knows nothing,
which points clearly to a career in politics”.
Hopefully I will elucidate on the reasons I am speaking today in
support of this wonderful legislation to amend the Canada pension
plan.
1825
Once again, for the benefit of members opposite, there are
changes in the wind. I guess it was Heracleitus, the Greek
philosopher. who said “Nothing in the world endures except
change”.
We must amend some of this legislation to make it better, more
propitious, more benevolent for the wonderful workers of this
great country of Canada.
I have in front of me a few questions that have been asked of
ordinary Canadians. I did not realize until tonight that some
members opposite could not participate, would not participate or
were prevented from participating in this debate. I am truly
sorry for that.
We have the friendly giant across, the hon. member from
Munchkinland. I see him sitting on the steps over there so he
can see what is going on. Perhaps I will lend him my fedora
because I am getting blinded here. He suffers from premature
“defolication”.
I guess it was the hon. member for Calgary Southeast who say
that business was suffering as a result of the CPP. I beg to
differ. I am at variance with that. I come from the field of
business. What hurt business in the last 10 to 20 years more
than anything else was high interest rates. We now have the
lowest interest rates in 35 years.
CPP has not prevented me from hiring anyone unless they were not
good workers. Perhaps some of the members opposite might fill
that bill. It was not the CPP that was stopping me from hiring
people. It was the high interest rates, and now we have the
lowest interest rates in 35 years and doing a remarkable job.
How do the proposed changes make the CPP more sustainable,
affordable and fair for Canadians? Just the simple fact we have
raised these premiums a bit, it is sustaining everything for our
entire lifetime. Some members opposite could live to be 75 or 80
years of age, although some of them already look like they are
octogenarians.
I will go on now to the affordability. Certainly it is
affordable. We have six years before it gets up to the top
premium price of 9.9%.
Is it fair? Certainly it is fair. I want some of the hon.
members opposite who are under the age of 30, mere pups, to take
advantage of the wonderful system we are putting in place. The
hon. member for Elk Island will not be around that long to look
after it, but some of the younger members under the age of 30,
still in diapers, will be able to look after it.
Another question is will the CPP be there for me when I retire.
I am having so much fun here I do not think I will ever retire. I
will not have to take advantage of this. With the system we have
put in place to look after the pension plan, it will be there for
one and all when we retire, if we so choose to retire.
Here is the question the Reform Party is very interested in. It
was asked at many committee meetings. Instead of making changes
why don't you scrap the CPP? Can't better pensions be provided
through RRSPs?
My answer is simply that Reform Party members have clearly
indicated through their own actuaries that the RRSP program is
more expensive than the CPP. Why? Not only would they be
contributing to their own RRSPs. They also must pay for the
benefits that have accrued through the CPP.
That in itself should be clear evidence to the members opposite.
An hon. member: It is obvious.
Mr. Hec Clouthier: It is quite obvious I agree with that.
One would not have to be a rocket scientist. A mere cerebrally
challenged farmer such as myself could figure that one out.
1830
Mr. Jim Gouk: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to
seek advice and help from you. There are words in this House
that are unparliamentary. For example if someone lies, we are
not allowed to call them a liar. Having listened to the hon.
member across the way, I wonder if there is some word you could
provide me with that I could use that would be acceptable in this
House to point out the error of his way.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair heard no
such word or inference from the hon. member for
Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
The hon. member has four minutes remaining, which I know other
hon. members will anticipate with glee. The Chair has enjoyed, as
I am sure all hon. members have, the debate this afternoon and it
augurs well for the future, but unfortunately the debate for
today has come to an end.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
CHILDREN
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the throne speech correctly outlined that a country that has
decided to invest in its children is a country that is confident
in its future. A country that invests in its children
successfully will have a better future. I believe this to be
true.
We as a government have made tremendous strides in our attack on
child poverty. For example the government has demonstrated its
commitment by increasing its contribution to the Canada child tax
benefit by $850 million a year, with higher payments to families
beginning July 1, 1998. We need to do more. We need to focus on
child hunger.
[Translation]
As a teacher, I am well aware that a hungry child does not do well
in school, has behaviourial problems and can become a dropout.
[English]
As the former chairman of the Waterloo regional police, I know
firsthand that these children often start down the path of
delinquency and end up as young offenders or worse. In a country
as wealthy as Canada, it is unacceptable that 20 per cent of our
children live in poverty and an estimated three million children
arrive at school hungry. People in our communities and schools
are ready, willing and able to assist to ensure that nutrition
programs are in place for all Canadian schools that need one.
[Translation]
I believe that investing today in our vulnerable children will
yield major dividends tomorrow.
[English]
I believe that the federal government has both a role and an
obligation to assist hungry children. I ask the government to
examine this issue and explore ways and means available to ensure
that child hunger is no more by the 21st century.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health
commit to explore such ways to eradicate child hunger by the new
millennium?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure the member for
Waterloo—Wellington, who is already beginning to make his mark
in the House with very poignant and very incisive interventions,
that as far as the federal government is concerned, in Canada
childhood is for children. As Canadians we want our children to
enjoy all the opportunities that Canada has to offer both in
childhood and as they grow into adults.
As a society we need to seize the opportunity early in the lives
of our children to nurture their development and to help them
prepare for the years ahead. The growing body of research
evidence is clear. Children's early experiences have long term
effects on their health, intellectual development and well-being.
While families are the ones who are first and foremost
responsible for the development of their children, they are not
the only ones who must assume some responsibility. Governments,
communities, employers, unions, teachers and individual Canadians
in all walks of life have an important role to play.
This government has identified children as a major priority in
its public policy initiatives. The Speech from the Throne
highlights work that we are undertaking with the provinces and
territories to create a national children's agenda.
1835
I take pride in noting that this government has already made
contributions to the well-being of children. The member for
Waterloo—Wellington will acknowledge this as well.
The national child benefit process with the provinces produced a
federal commitment of $850 million of investment in the Canadian
child tax benefit. There is the prospect of further investment
in this area.
[Translation]
I am also pleased to mention that the last federal budget provides
for a $100 million increase, over a three year period, under the Canada
prenatal nutritional program and the community action program for
children.
[English]
These two sets of initiatives are indicative of a commitment to
children and an approach to children's issues which is
comprehensive and structured.
POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
draw to the attention of the House and the government the grave
situation facing students in this country who are reeling under
student loan debt and the crisis which is in our post-secondary
institutions.
I raised a question in the House last week and asked the
minister responsible what the government was prepared to do to
provide real financial assistance to students.
The fact is that post-secondary education and student loan debt
has now reached a crisis proportion. Despite the recommendations
and announcements of the government on its intentions in the
throne speech, the crisis continues.
There is a huge gap in the reality of what the government is
saying, what it is purporting to do and what the reality is that
is facing our institutions and students in this country.
If the Liberal government is truly committed, as it repeatedly
says it is, to access an opportunity for young people in Canada,
then why have we seen a cut of more than $2 billion in our
post-secondary educational institutions since 1993? Why has
there been a cut of $550 million this year alone?
The truth is that the government has shown by its actions, not
by the rhetoric but by its actions that it does not care. It
does not care about the student loan debts which students are
facing in this country. It does not care that it is more
difficult for our post-secondary institutions to deal with the
financial crisis which is upon them.
Recently the Canadian Federation of Students produced a major
report called the “Blueprint for Access ”. In that document
they pointed out that the average debt load will be $25,000 for
students by June 1998. That is up from $13,000 in 1993 when the
Liberals took office. This is an appalling and shocking fact and
shows the real lack of commitment this government has shown to
young people and students.
In 1995-96 more than 7,800 students who received Canada student
loans declared bankruptcy. Is this a healthy system? Does this
demonstrate to us that students are coping in the institutions?
The contrary is true.
Another astounding fact is that tuition fees in Canada have
reached a national average of $3,100 which surpasses the average
of publicly funded institutions in the United States. This is
something Canadians are not aware of.
How has the government responded to this crisis? We have heard
vague promises of the millennium fund. There was no consultation
and this fund will not help students today who are graduating
into poverty. What we need are national standards for
accessibility. We need a real commitment of leadership from the
government to help students today with financial assistance and a
flexible program that will relieve the debt load. We do not need
some vague promise about a scholarship fund in the millennium
which will not help students who are in grave difficulty today.
We call on the government to end the rhetoric and to put into
action accessibility as a national standard and to show
leadership by providing the financial commitments to assist
students today.
1840
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
accessibility of post-secondary education for young Canadians is
and always has been a priority of the Government of Canada.
Recognition of the importance of post-secondary education in
helping Canadians build their careers is demonstrated by the
Government of Canada's investment in post-secondary education
through the Canada health and social transfer.
Provincial jurisdiction together with the fact that the federal
transfers to provinces for post-secondary education through the
CHST are provided as a block fund means that there is no direct
connection between the federal transfers and provincially set
tuitions. Provincial spending priorities will determine the
level of funding to post-secondary education and other social
programs.
While the Government of Canada does not directly influence the
level of tuition fees, it does however play a major role in
helping students cope with costs and in facilitating access to
post-secondary education.
In the 1997 budget the government increased federal support for
higher education and skills by improving interest relief and tax
measures. The period of interest relief was extended from 18 to
30 months allowing low income borrowers to defer repayment.
Further the government is working with interested provinces to
explore the implementation of income related repayment schemes to
help reduce student indebtedness.
As you can see, there are many proposals and projects on the go
with the Government of Canada and the provinces and this will
continue as we help students get an education in Canada.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, in the past few days we have heard a lot of talk in
the House about passports. I asked one of the questions last
week. I want to outline one case tonight that has happened in
the last couple of days. It will let the Canadian public know
that we have a serious problem in this country with passports,
how they are inspected and how they are used.
A gentleman by the name of Alan Winter was convicted in 1987 of
sexual assault in Abbotsford, British Columbia. He was declared
a dangerous sexual offender and was sentenced to 16 years on 10
counts. After having served five years he was paroled in 1992.
We might wonder why he was paroled. It was a condition of his
parole that he return to his native England and not return to
Canada until at least the expiration of his sentence in 2003. He
was granted a valid British passport and returned to England.
He has returned to Canada. A Canada-wide warrant for his
apprehension was issued yesterday for breaking parole. John
Denham, a British member of Parliament, said “I can't believe
that Mr. Winter was not fit to be released into Canadian society
but he was fit to be released into my country. How could they
have not told us?” Canada did not advise the British people
that this man was convicted as a dangerous sexual offender.
We hear that Mr. Winter used a Canadian passport to get back
into Canada. Where is our criminal check and record of parole
conditions? This man is back on the streets of Canada, a danger
to young people. He is a dangerous sexual offender.
What kinds of checks are we doing at our border with our own
passports and foreign passports? I know that the RCMP in
Vancouver have modern digital hand checks that they can do right
away. Do we not have these checks for people? We check their
passports, but again in this case something has slipped through
the cracks. I hope some serious offence is not happening in
Canada.
There are no conditions on these. It is a joke but a sad joke.
I implore the government to sit down and look at the whole issue.
The passport affair in Jordan was unfortunate, but this is an
even worse situation. In our own country somebody has been let
back in either with his British passport or a Canadian passport.
He is a criminal. Maybe the police will arrest him. Perhaps by
talking about it tonight people will realize who he is and he
will be arrested and will be off the streets and back in jail
where he belongs.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast for the question. I will take
notice of the specific facts of the case he has raised and we
will see what we can find out. If he will allow me, I will turn
to the larger issue that he raised about the passports and the
attack in Jordan a week ago.
1845
After the passports of the two persons making the attack had
been reported as being Canadian, our consular officials in Jordan
were allowed by the Jordanian authorities to see the passports
and they then concluded they were forgeries. We have since
obtained physical possession of the passports and submitted them
to forensic examination by our own Canadian experts. This
scientific examination has confirmed that the passports are
indeed forgeries and further that they were manufactured from
materials not available in Canada.
As the prime minister and foreign minister have stated, we have
registered our concerns loudly and clearly to the Israeli
government. We have recalled our ambassador from Israel, and
that is the most serious step in international law and diplomacy
short of breaking off diplomatic relations altogether.
The Israeli foreign minister has apologized to us on behalf of
his government and has undertaken to set up processes, in
consultation with our government, that will ensure that Canadian
passports are not again misused in violation of international law
and Canadian law.
We wish to repeat what we have already said in the last several
days. There has been no prior knowledge of or complicity in this
whole incident on the part of the Canadian government. Any
speculation to the contrary is false, and I know the hon. member
is not part of this speculation. It is also thoroughly
irresponsible in so far as it might endanger Canadians travelling
in the Middle East at this time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to
adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.46 p.m.)